Ph: (403)439-1394 Fax: (403)439-4091 FIREARMS, LEGAL PRINCIPLES, AND MENS REA **************************************** FIREARMS CONTROL BASICS Firearms control laws are usually proposed by people who have little understanding of the scope or importance of the firearms activities of Canadian citizens. Over 6,000,000 Canadians own firearms, for a variety of purposes. In 1976, the federal government estimated that over 40% of Canadian homes contained firearms. They often lie at the center of social and cultural activities, and are items of great social importance. Firearms control laws are intended to punish those who use firearms for criminal purposes, and to regulate the activities of those who have or use firearms for innocent purposes. With 6,000,000 owners, engaged in very diverse innocent practices for very diverse reasons, writing firearms control law is not for the amateur; it must deal with the problems of the public, the police, the courts, and the innocent citizen. The legislation proclaimed in 1978 and the legislation proposed by Bill C-80 is singularly bad. The first problem lies in the fact that it is partly proper criminal law, and partly regulatory law designed to regulate the innocent activities of honest citizens. The latter is, quite improperly, embedded in the Criminal Code, and couched in the language of criminal law. There is a severe problem involved in the fact that regulatory law regarding firearms lies clearly within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and not that of the federal government. It is tempting to believe that the federal government, wishing to ensure national uniformity in firearms law, adopted this novel approach with uniformity in mind. If that was the intention, the current situation has proved that approach a failure. A new complication is the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision which implies that any Criminal Code offence requires proof of mens rea -- the "guilty mind" of a person who intended to commit an offence. Firearms control law has generally been used to severely erode civil liberties; warrantless searches of both homes and businesses, for example, are specifically allowed by the firearms sections (Part III) of the Criminal Code, and mens rea is not a required element for conviction in certain firearms offences against the regulatory elements in the Criminal Code. For the past several years, the 1978 version of Part III has resulted in many court cases based upon the confused and confusing language, and the vague definitions therein. The confusion is evident in this statement by Mr. Justice Gibbs, endorsing that of Judge Gordon (Supreme Court of BC, JL Hurley case, No. CC861283 Vancouver Registry, 15 Aug 86): "This is a difficult case. Not the least of the difficulties is due to the tortuous language of the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code. In Regina versus Neil, Judge Gordon was moved, with some justification, to refer to those provisions as 'one of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship that I have had the misfortune to consider', as 'so convoluted that even those responsible for enforcing the provisions are apparently unable to understand them', and as 'a challenge to one's sense of logic.'" The NFA would characterise the present state of Part III as analogous to a set of rules for the World Series, incorporating the rules of play, classification of equipment, and methods of resolving disputes -- which had been written by persons who had played sandlot baseball in their youth, and had recently had a few hours of conversation with rather randomly selected baseball players, spectators, and anti-baseball activists. Their definitions, for example, are hopelessly vague and clearly display a severe lack of the requisite technical knowledge to write clear laws. Some try to draw lines between black and white -- through the middle of a hundred shades of grey. This is severely eroding public respect for, and trust in, the Criminal Code. Since no one has the authority to state definitively what any of the vague definitions actually mean, court actions are based upon the interpretation chosen by a local registrar of firearms usually a police constable. He is usually regarded as an "expert" by the crown attorney (frequently a false idea), and his complaints result in seizures and court actions. Charges of possession of prohibited weapons or unregistered restricted weapons, and simple hearings for disposition of seized property with no charges laid (a remarkable situation), have become common. Each case represents an expensive ($1000 to $50,000) action taken against a person who tried conscientiously to obey every precept of the law, then ran afoul of a re-interpretation of the law -- frequently made by a constable. Such cases are regarded as unfair, with considerable justification. Each such case is an affirmation by the instigator that all previous decisions made with relation to that firearm were at fault; in sum, that he is the sole authority to make the correct decision. When such re-interpretations result in seizure, confiscation, destruction, and no compensation to the owner, in cases where only the agents of the crown were at fault, the result is understandably deep and bitter resentment. Cases in which a person who lacked mens rea is convicted also cause anger and resentment. In a one case, this defense against a charge of possession of an unregistered restricted weapon was entered: the defendant had relied upon an official's assurance that his rifle was not a restricted weapon. He was convicted. [Regina V. Maginnis (1981) 64 CCC (2d) 430, 440-41] Other Canadian courts have divided on the issue; some favored strict liability, others demanded a showing of mens rea for conviction [Regina V. Somers (1973) 2 WWR 468, 16 CCC (3d) 357, 32 Man R (2d) 167 (QB)]; Regina V. Simonovic (1973) 3 WWR 189 (YT Mag Ct); Regina V. Hutchison (1978) 8 BCLR 328 (Prov Ct); and Der & Kirkpatrick, pp 118-21. In HM V. Arnold Rutkowski [15 Nov 90, CD of the Prov Ct of Alta, included herewith], the current state of confusion in re definitions is well illustrated. Rutkowski was charged, in proceedings by indictment, with possession of two prohibited weapon firearms. He had purchased one in a store, as an unrestricted firearm, in a normal commercial transaction; he had purchased the other by mail order, as a restricted weapon, and it had been registered to him after the usual inspection by police. He had altered neither after purchase. The firearms had been imported, examined by Customs and FCB officials on entry, one of them examined again on registration, then registered as restricted by the Commissioner of the RCMP. He was found innocent, and Judge P. C. C. Marshall's Reasons for Judgement include most interesting views upon the need for fairness in the law -- an area that governments tend to forget. This burst of sanity in a welter of confusion helps a little, but not much. A Calgary Provincial Court judge recently ruled that a rifle which had been manufactured as semi-automatic, had never been full automatic, and was not full automatic when seized, was a full automatic because the crown's "expert" witness said it could be made to fire full automatic by adding or subtracting parts from it. Interestingly, the "expert" could not even describe the action of the firearm accurately, and the testimony of the defense expert witness was discounted. While writing this, I was informed that the Surete Quebec has begun seizures on unrestricted semi-automatic rifles. Owners are being told that contesting the Surete in court will be useless. With those few illustrations, let us consider the field to be regulated; it is much more complex than is usually recognized. ***************************************************************** Nine years after the 1978 laws came into effect, the RCMP still could not determine what was meant by the legal term "antique firearm", or supply an agreed national definition for a "restricted weapon". Nor can they today. ***************************************************************** WHAT IS A FIREARM? All of the following statements are true: A firearm is an objet d'art, ranging in value from minor value to priceless; e.g., the Colt revolvers, elaborately engraved and adorned with "color" bas-relief miniature sculptures inlaid in the three colors of gold, as presented to the Czar by Samuel Colt in the 1850's and to Leonid Brezhnev by President Ford in 1974. A firearm is a tool of the trade; e.g., the .22 pistol carried by a trapper to deliver a swift and merciful coup de grace to large animals caught in his traps. A firearm is a weapon used for the preservation of human life against attack by dangerous animals; e.g., the heavy handgun carried by a heavily-laden geologist working in grizzly country. A firearm is a weapon illegally used by a violent criminal to rape, threaten, injure, or kill his victim. A firearm is a weapon legally used for the protection of human life from criminal violence; e.g., the firearms carried by police officers and Brinks guards. A firearm is a piece of recreational equipment for target shooting; e.g., pistols as used in Olympic slow fire and rapid fire matches; shotguns as used in competitive trapshooting; rifles as used in biathlon competition; handguns, rifles, and shotguns as used in many diverse target disciplines such as IPSC, IMSHA, IMSS, and PPC. A firearm is piece of recreational equipment used for hunting; e.g., rifles and shotguns, including small bore rimfire firearms and large bore centerfire rifles and shotguns. A firearm is a piece of professional equipment; e.g., the small bore shotgun pistol used by wildlife biologists to collect specimens of small birds for study and for museums. A firearm is a historical artifact of interest to both collectors and museums; e.g., firearms of particular military or other organizations, firearms once owned by a famous person, firearms created by noted inventors or manufacturers, or firearms from a particular historical era. From the above, it is obvious that we are dealing with diversity. Since firearms control laws must operate within that diversity, and do so with the reasoned consent of the public if the law is to enjoy popular support, it is also obvious that the law must be most carefully drafted. It must appear fair, uniform, and reasonable to the over 6,000,000 innocent owners. That is not "catering to the minority of firearms owners to the detriment of the public good." Over 6,000,000 firearms owners? They are the public; and they have no desire to have firearms laws which injure the public good. In fact, their desire is to have tough, tight firearms control legislation -- which does not impact severely on their own innocent and safe activities. Unfortunately, the government lacks the expertise necessary to write such legislation -- as has been clearly demonstrated by both current legislation and Bill C-80. Knowledge in one area, such as crime or legislative principles, does not mean that one has knowledge in another, such as the impact of legal constraints on long-established competitive firearms disciplines differences or similarities inherent in various firearms mechanisms. Lacking the required knowledge, one cannot write sound legislation which subdivides the various classes of firearms or regulates citizens' innocent activities in a meaningful and practical manner. Good firearms control legislation requires great expertise in firearms mechanisms, firearms history, and the diverse innocent activities of Canadians. ***************************************************************** American rates of firearms ownership are not seriously different from Canadian (53% of households have firearms, versus our 40%), so we must look elsewhere for an explanation for their higher rates of firearms crime. (It should be noted that many areas of the United States have lower such rates than some parts of Canada.) The US legal system is much more likely to plea bargain down or fail in prosecution. Our system is shifting toward the US system; you cannot protect the innocent accused without also protecting the guilty accused - which increases crime rates as criminals walk. ***************************************************************** THE METHODS OF FIREARMS CONTROL There are two main approaches to firearms control. Neither is effective in preventing the criminal acquisition of firearms, because criminals generally ignore firearms control laws. Being willing to violate the laws against rape, armed robbery, etc., they find violation of a firearms control law to be a bagatelle. There are two main methods of firearms control; but one leads inevitably to vastly increased crime rates. Since that is undesirable, the instant response to its failure is a demand that it should be strengthened. If it is strengthened, then the crime rates rise again -- an excellent example of negative feedback, constantly making the problem worse through each "correction". That's what is happening in Canada today, as we are using: ***************************************************************** THE FIREARMS CONTROL BUREAUCRACY (FCB) SYSTEM Anyone with $10 and a clean line beside his name in the police computer gets a Firearms Accquistion Certificate (FAC) and can buy any legal firearm. Once access to a firearm has been granted, effective control has been lost; no System can control any firearm possessed by someone intending to do evil with it. Firearms are divided into "evil" Prohibited, "dubious" Restricted, and "good" Unrestricted firearms. Most violent crime involving firearms is committed with "good" guns, sometimes sawed off and sometimes not. In the long run, every single firearm MUST be reclassified to "evil" and confiscated, because it MIGHT be used for crime; that's how the FCB System works. They cannot disarm the criminals, so they disarm the honest and the victims. Result? Our violent crime rate went up 45%, from 1978 to 1986. The underlying theory, apparently, is that inflicting red tape upon the innocent owners will discourage them, and persuade them to abandon their firearms to the FCB. That, in turn, is supposed to "dry up" the supply of firearms that criminals use. This method cannot work in any country with relatively open borders. ***************************************************************** THE WORKABLE FIREARMS CONTROL SYSTEM In this method, the applicant must prove that she knows how to use firearms safely for the purpose intended, and that she knows the rules. That System has worked so well (for over 200 years) at denying access to shooting ranges to the incompetent and the unfit that our major insurance company sells NFA Liability Insurance for $4.50 per person per year for $1,000,000 coverage - to any NFA member or club - regardless of type of guns used or type of shooting - and even covers hunting. This System simply demands proof that firearms users are not incompetent or unfit, before they can use firearms unsupervised. It's been tested and works. The required police check should be done via a Police Clearance Certificate -- the same sort of document issued to an applicant Taxi driver, certifying that the police record of the applicant is clean. That reduces police time and labor requirements, and allows the issuance to be done by a clerk. That is cost-effective; under the current structure, three police constables, one Sergeant, and two clerks are required to handle the paperwork of regulation of recreational equipment for the innocent use of honest citizens in the city of Edmonton. Simplification as suggested would free up police staff for proper police work, as New Zealand found to be the case. This System works, not because there is anything magical about training or passing a test, but because the applicant is observed while handling and using firearms, by the certifying Instructor, over a reasonable period of time. No sane Instructor will certify anyone whom he believes to be a danger to himself; and any person he certifies will be able to spend time at the range, with a loaded gun, in the immediate vicinity of that Instructor. The 56-year-old FCB system is a dismal failure; this 200-year-old System is a great success. It works so well that any shooting range is one of the safest places on earth. You are far more likely to die in your bathroom, a victim of your fixtures, than you are at a shooting range. We want to extend that proven system; to deny legal access to firearms to the incompetent and the unfit. The FCB wants to allow legal access to firearms with a small magazine capacity -- to the incompetent and the unfit. ***************************************************************** THE MARK LEPINE FALLACIES It takes 5 seconds or less to reload the average 5-shot firearm. If Mark LePine had only been legally able to buy a 5-shot gun, he would have had to reload 11 times to fire 60 shots, more than he actually fired. The Bill C-80 laws would have delayed him by 55 -seconds. Since the police did not even arrive at his body until long after he was dead, that limitation is obviously grossly inadequate. The NFA firmly rejects the FCB's System. Mark LePine used a semi-automatic rifle. Considering the time factors involved, he would have had no difficulty in shooting 27 women with a pump-action shotgun; he always had plenty of time to reload, and they can be reloaded after each shot if desired. If he had used that shotgun, 25 or 26 women would have died. Only 9% of those shot with a shotgun at close range survive; 50% of those shot with a rifle survive; and 90% of those shot with a handgun. If he had used a handgun, 24 or 25 women would have survived. The FCB System is basically flawed; it pushes criminals toward rifles and shotguns, increasing victim and police deaths. Under the FCB System, Mark LePine got his gun legally, and shot 27 women. Under the NFA System, he would have failed. He was so anti-social and strange that the Army refused to accept him, and it enrols MOST unpromising material. Can you imagine any shooting Instructor passing him as safe to shoot, unsupervised, right next to the Instructor on the shooting range? No. Our firearms laws require a huge, horribly expensive bureaucracy to administer. They are ignored by violent criminals, and are so badly written that no one knows what they mean. Nine years after the 1978 laws came into effect, the RCMP still could not determine what was meant by the legal term "antique firearm", or supply an agreed national definition for a "restricted weapon". ***************************************************************** Illegal firearms are cheaper than legal ones in most major Canadian cities; the supply of illegal guns is not being controlled, and cannot be by any known firearms control system. ***************************************************************** THE BRITISH EXPERIENCE: One of the most scientific and best comprehensive studies of modern firearms control, on an international scale, was done during six months of research at Cambridge University by a senior British police officer. His conclusions were quite unexpected: "At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The number of firearms required to satisfy the 'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced crime." (Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire Constabulary, Police Review, 10 Nov 78, P1668.) On the author's last trip to England, he found that a legal .45 Colt handgun could be purchased for 500 pounds, and an illegal one for fifty. Purchasing the legal firearm required a police check of the applicant's reputation with his employers, his neighbors, and his relatives; purchasing the illegal one required 50 pounds and fifteen minutes of enquiry of shady characters in a Soho bar. It is evident that their registration system is a failure as a method of firearms control, despite the major control advantages of being situated on an island. ***************************************************************** THE EFFECTS OF WEAPONS USED BY CANADIAN CRIMINALS: Machine gun Not used "evil", prohibited, not used Pistol 90% Survival "dubious", registered, low use Rifle 50% Survival "good", unregistered, high use Shotgun 09% Survival "good", unregistered, high use Does that pattern make you want to ask questions? ***************************************************************** THE NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCE: When the New Zealand government enacted their Arms Act of 1983, they scrapped registration as a method of firearms control. All material in quotes below is taken from "PROJECT FORESIGHT -- LICENSING FIREARMS USERS", prepared by the New Zealand Police Department in 1983. Some of this material is paraphrased for explanation and conciseness, but it is faithful to the original. The NZ Arms Act of 1920 enacted compulsory registration of full automatic firearms, handguns, rifles, and shotguns, because many servicemen had brought handguns and full auto firearms home from World War I. The then-new Soviet Union had raised fears of riot and revolution; the NZ government was apparently somewhat afraid of NZ's citizens, and the NZ Police now believe that the 1920 gun control legislation was enacted for "political reasons". By 1922, some 200,000 firearms were registered; by 1928, the sheer volume of the work involved in registration was getting difficult for the police to handle. In 1929, a Bill was introduced to scrap registration of rifles and shotguns. It was defeated. In 1930, a compromise Bill was enacted, which also scrapped registration, but only of shotguns. Now that is a remarkable sequence. Full automatic firearms are quite rare, and are almost never used for criminal purposes -- except on fictional television programs. We'll ignore them, for the moment, as unimportant, as NZ did. A person shot with a handgun has a 90% chance of survival. (It should be noted that submachine guns use pistol cartridges.) A person shot with a rifle has a 50% chance of survival. A person shot with a shotgun has a 9% chance of survival. Now look at the NZ sequence; the 1928 proposal was to scrap registration of the two deadliest firearms types, and it was defeated. In 1930, they scrapped registration of shotguns, the deadliest firearm easily available. It should be noted that the sawed-off shotgun is easily concealable, deadly, and very easily made by unskilled persons from any sporting shotgun. It also scares the Hell out of policemen and security guards who are only armed with handguns, so it is much used by violent criminals. The majority of Canadian violent gun crime features sawed-offs. Starting in 1967, serious questions began to be asked about the the NZ registration system, and its records, known as the Index. A police check on all registered rifles (only) begun in 1967 had interesting results. It was expected to be a "major" bureaucrat exercise, taking "two years". Checks would be made on existence of each rifle, at the address in the Index, and on the accuracy of all registration certificate data. Five years later, in 1973, the NZ Police District Commanders reported: "At the present rate of progress the arms check will never finish. (It will take some districts) eleven years to complete it, (when it will be) clearly time to start again. Even now, records checked since 1967 are known to be out of date." "Two-thirds of the certificates were in error, i.e., rifles destroyed (missing or no longer exists), certificates missing, or (parts of the certificate data) in error. The question must now be asked how long it will take to return to this state." "Wanganui DC estimated that 25% of enquiries have shown the registrant has failed to notify of change of address." (Note: So there is no data on where either owners or guns are today.) "By the time Wellington completes its program, there could be in the vicinity of 20,000 firearms untraced." (Note: That's in just one district.) "Throughout New Zealand there seems a good cause to doubt the value of the present system of registration." "Even if an offender uses a rifle and leaves it at the scene of the crime it does not mean that the offender will automatically be found. If the rifle has never been registered (or) does not have a serial number (or) the offender has stolen (or found) it, he cannot be traced through the Index." (Note: The Canadian experience is that very few criminals are dim enough to leave a firearm at the scene of a crime; and even fewer are dim enough to use a firearm registered in their own name for crime!) "It is difficult to assess to what extent the Index aids the police, but it can be assumed that it is limited." (Note: The firearm must be found by police before it can be used. The serial number must be known, to locate the firearm positively.) As a result of those findings, when the 1983 Arms Act was being drafted, "The question as to whether the registration of firearms was achieving its purpose arose. It was not possible to determine if registration was fulfilling its purpose, as no one was sure why it was decided to register rifles in the first place." (Note: Candid, but stunning; a magnificent example of creation of a huge, expensive bureaucracy for no known purpose.) (Fortunately, we do know why registration was first enacted in Canada, in 1934: it was "to return lost and stolen firearms to their proper owners." It has been a failure at that purpose; some 95% of all lost and stolen firearms are never recovered. Percentages recovered: 1984, 4.57%, 1985, 4.30%; 1986, 4.33%. That rate of recovery is equal to the recovery rates for other non-registered goods with serial numbers, and to recoveries of non-registered firearms in the United States.) "Serious doubts exist over the benefits of registration, particularly as such a large number of firearms which had been registered could not be traced ... it would have been essential to try and correct all the existing records held (in the Index) ... After trying this in 1968 without success, there was little point in attempting this task once again." "In view of the limited use the police made of the Index, could the cost of maintaining registration be justified?" The answer was no. (Note: This is also true for Canada.) As a result, New Zealand now uses firearms user licensing instead of registration; you must prove that you know how to use firearms safely for the purpose intended, and that you know the rules. That licensing system, according to the NZ Police report, will: "Permit recreational shooters to pursue their sport without undue restrictions." "Allow the police (to) quickly identify persons who are (lawfully or) unlawfully in possession of firearms." "Reduce police time spent on maintaining records." "Allow the police to spend more time in the community." (Note: Instead of working on questionable records in the office.) ***************************************************************** THE AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE: Australia has the same pattern as the United States. Both have state-by-state firearms control registration and firearms carry laws; and, in both, the states with the tightest such laws are the states with the highest violent crime rates. That's easy to understand; honest citizens obey gun laws, and criminals don't use registered firearms. They use stolen firearms, usually sawed-off rifles and shotguns which are economical and have greater fear effects. By using such firearms, they strongly increase the likelihood of death for their victims. On 26 Feb 87, Chief Inspector A. Newgreen, the man in charge of the registration system for the state of Victoria submitted a report on their Firearms Registration System, CRB File 39-1-1385/84. "(25) Having worked with registration since the latter stage of 1984, I have known full well that a report on firearms registration would be required at the conclusion of the current programme, and it has not been taken lightly. Previous experience in New Zealand and South Australia, and now indeed in the State of Victoria, indicates that firearms registration in the way in which it is implemented is costly, ineffective, and achieves little. "(27) If one is to achieve a proper balance, I am of the opinion that the Firearms Act should "(a) repress the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms; "(b) look after the public interest; and "(c) not place harsh restrictions on responsible and mature sports shooters, whilst at the same time educating the public, particularly Juniors, in the safe use and handling of firearms. "(28) I would therefore recommend that Firearms Registration be forthwith abolished, and together with the Firearms Consultative Committee, a far reaching, effective and proper system of education be introduced, as a pre-requisite to the obtaining of a shooter's licence. "(29) In conjunction with education, the penalties for those who breach the law should be heavily increased. "(31) If my proposal is considered a proper and viable alternative, I believe it could be implemented in a reasonable time span, would be less costly, and achieve far more in every way than the concept of registration. What's more, it would probably (Definitely! -- NFA) be more acceptable to the Shooting Fraternity, and just as acceptable to the Victorian public. In that way, we would have public/shooter acceptance, and not resistance." The bureaucrats in the Minister's office immediately arranged to have Chief Inspector Newgreen sacked (for heresy?), and his report was kept secret. It finally surfaced under a "Freedom of Information Act" request years later. ***************************************************************** SHOULD WE SCRAP FIREARMS REGISTRATION? From the above evidence, it's fairly obvious that registration, so long touted as a fine method of control, is in fact not a practical method of control at all. It's an illusion. If a person moves, or dies, and no one tells the registration system, the file cards for that person become trash. The system "knows" where he and the firearms are -- only they aren't. The New Zealanders found that 25% of those who moved did not notify; they gave no figures for the dead. The RCMP system has not been properly checked since 1934. The NFA tried, through the Access to Information Act, to learn what happened in 1968. In that year, a new type of registration certificate was issued; one for every registered restricted firearm in Canada. We wanted to know how many of the new type certificates were sent out, and how many were returned as undeliverable. We could not get an answer. The RCMP firmly claim that they have no records of any kind regarding that, they say no one remembers, they have no estimates -- interesting. There are about 1,000,000 firearms registered in that system, but 40% of them are not accessible through the computer database -- they have never been entered into it. The NFA has been running a few checks of its own. We asked collectors to request a printout of the firearms they are shown as having, and compare the printouts to their actual firearms. The results are pretty bad. They run about 20 to 25% gross errors (owner has registration certificate, but the firearm isn't on the printout, or firearm was legally transferred long ago but is still on the printout, or firearms never seen or heard of listed on the printout), with much higher levels of minor errors (wrong data on registration certificates). The system has grave difficulty with full automatic and converted full automatic firearms, which are frequently registered as "HG" for "handgun", simply because over 90% of entries are "HG" and it gets typed in automatically. It is amusing to see a four-foot, twenty-pound light machine gun registered as "HG", though. The system is cumbersome, costly, irritating to citizens, and utterly useless for fighting crime. Stolen goods recovery rates for other goods with serial numbers is equivalent to firearms recoveries; US firearms recoveries are as good as Canada's, without registration; and the system cannot accurately identify items within the database. Attached is an interesting pair of documents, both entered as "evidence" in a criminal trial. One says the firearm has never been registered; the other says it has. Both are signed by the same man on the same day. The data given by prosecution and certificate explain the errors. ***************************************************************** RAPE IN CANADA At the beginning of a rape, only the victim and the rapist are present. At the end of it, no one else has come. Interruption of a rape by police is desirable, but almost unknown. Any woman faced with rape is in a state of reasonable fear of death by criminal violence. The average rapist has raped seven women before he reached this victim. He may well have AIDS (because rapists rape prostitutes, and may be bisexual). Rapists do not use condoms; her fears are justified. She is legally justified in using deadly force to repel him. She is alone with him at the beginning of the rape; she will, with very high certainty, be alone with him at the end of the rape. She may well be dead, or under sentence of death by AIDS infection; but the chances that anyone will interrupt that rape -- whether a police officer or anyone else -- is sadly remote. It follows with bitter logic that if the rapist is to be repelled, deterred, arrested, or stopped, only the victim can do it. That does not mean that rapists cannot be repelled by means other than direct confrontation; it only means that the potential victims are the only persons whom a rapist might fear; if most rapists can be convinced that victims are dangerous, many quit. Self protection by any means utilizing muscle power is a mug's game for most women, particularly the smaller ones who are prime targets for rapists. Mace does not work, and is a prohibited weapon in Canada anyway; karate does not work, for technical reasons. The only method proven to work is self defense with a firearm. Firearms earned their nickname, "equalizer", honestly. If and only if she achieves the same standards required of a policewoman, there is only a minute risk to society in allowing a woman in danger (such as a night-shift nurse who travels by subway and must walk through dark streets) to possess a firearm. There is a grave risk to society by offering our unprotected and unprotectable women to the rapists, and then prohibiting them from using the only effective defense against a rapist. There is a highly desirable side effect in permitting such a well-qualified woman to have a firearm for protection of life from criminal violence. It is well illustrated by the series of events in Orlando, Florida in 1966 - 68. In 1966, Orlando had a rape rate of 36.9 per 100,000; and many of the rapes were brutal. Women began to purchase firearms for self-protection. The police offered free safe handling training to any woman, for accident prevention. In 1967, Orlando's rape rate was down 90%, to 4 per 100,000; the burglary rate was down 25%; and the assault rate was also down 25%. Orlando was the only city of over 100,000 population in the entire United States where any of those rates dropped. In 1968, the police surveyed the results. Not one of the women they had trained had used her firearm for murder, wounding, or threats. Not one had committed suicide, or had an accident with her firearm. Not one had defended herself with her firearm. Not one had, in fact, done anything worthy of notice with her firearm -- but the knowledge that a tiny percentage of women were armed, and capable of effective self defense was enough to have a major effect on the rape and violent crime rates. That's deterrent. A similar effect recently showed up in Calgary. Steven Kesler, a druggist, shot an armed robber who had threatened to kill him. In the twelve months prior to that incident, there were twelve armed robberies of drug stores, including three of Mr. Kesler's store. In every case, the police arrived after the criminals had departed, in spite of the latest modern silent alarms. In the twelve months after that incident, there were two. Again, the problem is clear; the police are not present during the confrontation between the violent criminal and the victim. Since we are totally unable to disarm the criminal, disarming the victim results in higher violent crime rates, particularly rape, armed robbery, and burglary of occupied homes. In the Kesler case, every police witness who took the stand during Mr. Kesler's trial for murder (he was acquitted) admitted that, though often called, he had never reached the scene of an armed robbery before the crime was over and the criminal gone. This suggestion is not made lightly; but it is necessary to face facts. Disarming all victims is a bad idea. Arming everyone in sight is a bad idea. There is, however, a major societal good to be obtained from arming only those citizens who can and do meet the exact same standards as an RCMP constable, and publicising that this has been done. The deterrent effect is startling. In American statistics, a pattern is very clear; in those jurisdictions where virtually all possession of firearms is illegal, like New York City and Washington DC, the violent crime rates are the highest in the nation. In those cities where only properly selected citizens area allowed to have firearms for protection of human life against criminal violence, the rates are far lower. Like it or not, fear of the victim is a useful tool which reduces the violent crime rate. From data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, it is clear that this method does not seriously reduce crime levels; but it definitely shifts criminal activity toward non-confrontational non-violent crime areas. The NFA will be most happy to abandon this concept -- as soon as the rape rate in this country is cut by even 50%. Until that time, we reluctantly must point out that neither we nor anyone else has any other solution to this growing problem. Orlando regarded its rape problem as being out of control with a rape rate of 36.9; last year, Edmonton had a sexual assault rate of 261. It should be noted that changing the name of rape to "sexual assault" to blur the statistics is neither honest, nor a solution. We cannot afford to allow this situation to go on. A couple of years ago, Florida enacted legislation allowing any responsible citizen to get a permit to carry a loaded gun. There were the usual media predictions of a blood bath. After one year, there had been no murders, woundings, threats, or any other criminal acts by any permit holder. There had been one "incident"; a gentleman showed his handgun to his guest in a restaurant. The police were called, checked his permit, and courteously requested that he not show it in public again -- it disturbed the other patrons. We propose a much higher standard, and believe that like statistics will prevail. This Committee has a hard question to answer. Will it recommend the proposed rape and violent crime reduction proposal, or does it continue to support the FCB position that no Canadian can be trusted; all citizens are part of a dangerous and criminal mob, which must be kept under firm "control" by the elite? Adding to the problems of our society, we must now point out an undesirable effect of the Charter of Rights: In Edmonton alone, four self-confessed murderers were freed by the courts as a result of Charter violations by the police. Confessions, taken down without the presence of a defense lawyer, were thrown out. If a defense lawyer had been present, of course, there would have been no confession. This illustrates a principle: It is not possible to protect the rights of the innocent accused, without protecting the guilty accused. This effect, similar in principle to the effects of the Warren court decisions in the US, will probably have similar results; increasing violent crime, due to increased probability that the criminal, even if arrested, will not be punished, through a Charter provision. In examining the current trends in our society, the advance of automation, with its resulting increase in unemployment; the steady diminution of the tax base; the increased life spans and medicare requirements of the retired; the advancing inability of government to maintain society's safety nets at desired levels; the inability of society to solve the drug problem; all of these, and other trends, tend toward increasing crime levels. Government cannot do everything; it needs the help of citizens. The solution we propose may seem unpalatable at first glance; but the data from the US, Britain, Switzerland, and other areas indicates that it works, and attempts to disarm everyone do not. ***************************************************************** THE HIDDEN COSTS OF FIREARMS CONTROL BY THE FCB METHOD From the "CANADA" chapter of an unpublished (in press) manuscript, by David B Kopel, with sources: "Both Canadian and American gun laws have helped undermine the traditional principle of Anglo-American criminal law that a person may only be convicted of a criminal offence if he has a Mens Rea (guilty mind). That principle has been eroded as courts have upheld laws making a person guilty of a firearms offence even if there is no proof that the person had a culpable mental state." (United States V. Freed, Supreme Court 401 US 601, '74.) "(In Canada) one person was convicted of failing to obtain a registration certificate, despite his defense that he relied on an official's statement that his particular rifle was not a restricted weapon." (R Batey, "Strict Construction of Firearms Offences", Journal of Law & Contemporary Problems, Winter 86) "It is not clear that the (firearms control) law has had any measurable effect on crime... in Canada... The registration system seems to have little impact. Today, criminals have an easy time purchasing illegal handguns." (Kashmeri, "Illegal Firearms Easily Bought", Globe & Mail, 26 Sep 84) NFA: A Toronto newspaper sent a reporter out a few years ago to try and buy an illicit handgun. He returned within two hours, bearing a serviceable, loaded .45 Colt handgun. He had paid less than half the amount he would have had to pay for the same firearm in a licit shop. These results are typical. "The (Canadian) murder rate had been increasing from 1961 to 1975, and had declined from 1975 to 1981. Since the gun control law only went into effect in 1978, it should not have been given credit for a trend begun in 1975." (Kopel rebutting E Scarff, "Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control Legislation", 1983) NFA: A single point on a graph establishes nothing. The line on the graph running from 1975 through to 1981 has a point on the line at 1978. The line is straight; if the 1978 legislation had an effect, it should have altered its path, which was caused by other effects. It did not; the other effects continued to cause the slow decline, and the 1978 legislation caused no change. "In the late '70's and early 80's, while Canada was enforcing stricter gun controls, America added no new federal controls, and marginally reduced some state controls. Nevertheless, the US northern tier (USNT) states (the states which abut Canada, which would seem to be the US states most comparable to Canada) saw a much slower rise in the robbery rate than Canada. Domestic homicide fell in Canada, but dropped even more sharply in America." (Blackman, The Canadian Gun Law) "In 1982 the Vancouver Police Union demanded a shotgun in every patrol car, more powerful handguns, and increased weapons training to deal with a huge surge in armed robberies. (At the same time,) the Vancouver Police Chief said he would press for a complete ban on all (privately owned) handguns. 'The only reason for a handgun is protection, and we don't have a community that needs that kind of protection.'" (Vancouver Sun, 23 Mar 89) NFA: There is a price to pay for firearms control; it is seen by many violent criminals as a opportunity, not as a restriction. Free from any effective restriction in acquiring firearms, they utilize them and other offensive weapons to overawe, injure, or kill their victims during rape, burglary, and armed robbery. A criminal planning a serious crime is most unlikely to be deterred by a firearms control law. "Even before the 1977 Bill, Canadian civilians were more lightly armed than Americans; perhaps as a result, five times as many burglaries were committed against occupied residences than in America. A Toronto study showed 48% of burglaries were against occupied homes, and 21% involved a confrontation with the victim; only 13% of US residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. Similarly, most Canadian burglaries occur in the nighttime, while American burglars prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of a confrontation. Since (the 1978 law) took effect, the Canadian break and enter rate rose 25%, and has surpassed the American rate, which has been declining." (Blackman again) "If one looks only at American states which border Canada, the homicide rates in those states is generally no higher (and often lower) than in adjacent Canadian provinces." (Brandon Centerwall, "Homicide and and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and the US, 1976-1980", unpublished.) "The overall death rate for non-hispanic white Americans from all types of shootings (murder, suicide, accident, etc.) is the same as the rate for Canadians." (Paul Blackman, "Firearms and Violence 1983/84") "In the late '70's, the National Institute of Justice (gave Peter Rossi, former President of the American Sociological Association, a grant) to survey the field of research on gun control. Rossi began his work convinced of the need for strict national gun control. After looking at the data, however, Rossi and his University of Massachusetts colleagues James Wright and Kathleen Daly concluded that there was no convincing proof that gun control curbs crime. (Rossi, Wright and Daly, "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America")" NFA: The only thing a firearms control System can reasonably be expected to do is deny legal access to firearms to the incompetent and the unfit. No System controls perfectly; criminals violate laws, including gun laws, and even get or make guns while inside maximum security prisons. Disarming the victims does not reduce violent crime; it increases it. The WORKABLE SYSTEM at least screens out the Mark LePines. ***************************************************************** Only one US Police officer (in Puerto Rico) has been killed by an Uzi submachine gun in the past ten years. It was not a full automatic; it was the commercial semi-automatic model. From news media hype, one would think that many were killed every year. ***************************************************************** Prohibition is not a method of control. It is a method of losing all hope of control. ***************************************************************** In 1978, 5000 full automatic firearms were in private hands; the record showed no criminal usage by licit owners in 44 years. No murders, no woundings, no threats, no suicides, nothing. In 1990, 55,000 MG's (most converted to semi-auto only) are in private hands. There is still no usage in violent crime. This was the result of gross incompetence in drafting the 1978 law, followed by gross negligence in doing nothing whatever about that situation (or any of the other problems caused by that inept legislation) for ten solid years. That error is repeated in Bill C-80, with regard to "converted" full automatic firearms. ***************************************************************** Canada has over 900,000 legal handguns ($180,000,000), and 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 rifles and shotguns ($1,500,000,000 to $2,500,000,000). The numbers are increasing yearly -- handguns by 20,000 per year net (new registrations, less exports and any destructions). In this area, we are dealing with very subtantial financial investments. Firearms are the major capital investment for many of our poorer citizens. ***************************************************************** Please take a moment to write your M.P. and Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Don Mazankowski, House of Commons, OTTAWA ON K1A 0H6 Tell them YOU want the NFA system, NOT another FCB Bill! Tell them that you will personally work to prevent their re-election; that you will refuse to make donations to their Party; and that you will work to persuade as many others as possible to follow your example -- UNTIL A GOOD FIREARMS CONTROL BILL IS PASSED. No stamp is required; and Ottawa counts each personal letter as the voice of FIVE HUNDRED voters, because even very angry people rarely write. Tell them, "THE NFA SPEAKS FOR ME!" ** NFA INSURANCE COVERAGE RUNS FROM POSTMARK DATE TO 01 DEC 91 ** ***************************************************************** Name: Donation: ($ ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Address: No. of Members: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Town: Prov: Postcode: ----------------------------------------------------------------- "65+" $12 ( ) REGULAR $25 ( ) FAMILY $40 ( ) BUSINESS $50 ( ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLUB: $40 -- OR $1 PER MEMBER -- WHICHEVER'S LARGER: ($ ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- FOR $1M LIABILITY INSURANCE, *ADD* $4.50 PER MEMBER: ($ ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO: NFA, BOX 1779, EDMONTON ALTA, T5J 2P1 ** TOTAL: ($ ) *****************************************************************