This week I was lucky enough to meet and talk with Detective Rick Hawes of the Peel Regional Police in Ontario. Detective Hawes has been a police officer since 1978 and for the last four and a half years, has been the Coordinator for the Family Violence Unit.
As part of his position, Detective Hawes holds multi-day classroom seminars for officers on how to properly handle domestic dispute calls, as they are much different from other situations to which officers respond.
Talking with Detective Hawes solidified for me many of the things I have learned and heard during my weeks in Canada. For example, knowledge of a firearm in the home makes it more difficult for a victim of domestic abuse to seek help and leave their abuser, as firearms act as tools of intimidation and work to induce fear. In fact, on the question form victims are asked to complete when officers respond to a domestic call, six out of the twenty-eight questions are related to firearms and licensure.
In addition, exiting an abusive relationship is not as simple as just making the decision to leave and leaving. Often times, there are elements involved in abusive relationships that prevent victims from seeking help, such as children, housing, or financial dependency.
When I asked Detective Hawes about the registry included in Canada’s Firearms Act, he asserted that it is helpful in eliminating the guessing game of whether or not households to which officers respond have firearms.
Although cautious officers responding to calls never assume that a home is free of firearms even if the registry has nothing on record (especially with the rise of unregistered firearms by once legal owners), Detective Hawes views the registry as a very useful safety tool for both officers and victims. The only substantial argument Detective Hawes has heard against the Firearms Act relates to cost and according to him, it is hard to put a price on public safety.
Detective Hawes also views the Firearms Act as an aide to the Justice of Peace throughout the court process against perpetrators of domestic abuse. During the bail hearing, if it is revealed through the registry that more firearms are registered to the perpetrator than officers were able to seize, the perpetrator will be held until they are all accounted for.
Additionally, during the court process, the firearms license of a perpetrator is seized and put on review, prohibiting the individual from owning or acquiring any type of firearm. Clearly, these measures act to safeguard victims from further violence through the use of a firearm.
I stated above that I was lucky enough to spend time talking with Detective Hawes; this is because during my time in Canada, I have not met anyone more dedicated to tackling the issue of family violence. Not only does Detective Hawes work with officers to help them understand the complexities of domestic abuse, but he also works with the community to help prevent abuse from ever taking place, and prioritizes victim safety. I am very grateful to the time Detective Hawes was willing to spend with me, and find his commitment to prevent and end domestic abuse admirable.
Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic abuse, gun control, IANSA
I’m not sure if this is the entire interview or not, but if so, then you are clearly mis-representing what he is saying. He is saying gun control in general, as opposed to having a complete lack of regulation, does help fight against domestic violence. I don’t think anyone has been saying otherwise. Afterall, to legally acquire and posses a firearm one needs a firearms license. To acquire said license requires a safety course and background checks, and if they have a violent criminal history or record mental health issues that could leave them prone to violence, they will be denied. If they get a license and commit domestic abuse, make threats, etc, then they will be re-assessed and police will come with a search warrant, seizing any and all firearms, whether they are registered or not.
That is all a function of licensing, and firearms licensing is widely support by the firearms community. The issue we are challenging you on is the REGISTRATION of firearms. No where in that video clip does the good Detective state that the failed gun registry aids victims of domestic abuse. He states that the LICENSING of firearm owners aids victims of domestic abuse. You are sadly, once again confusing registration and licensing.
Further I have to challenge your statement that knowing a firearm is present makes it more difficult for a victim to seek help. It is the threat of violence, and possibly of being murdered, that makes them reluctant to seek help. This holds true whether the perpretrator holds a gun to their head or a knife to their throat.
Domestic violence, ALL of it, not just that which happens to involve a firearm, is a serious issue. And if even a fraction of the money wasted on registration, and continually being wasted, had been spent on violence prevention and victim support intiatives, a very big difference could have been made for a lot of people in bad situations.
Guns are more lethal. Firearms are used as a tool of threat and intimidation, and the fear of a firearm being used against a victim when they know one is in the home makes it harder to leave. Period.
The Supreme of Canada ruled in 2000 that the registry and licensing are INTERRELATED. You can’t have one without the other.
If you’d take the time to read my entire entry, rather than just watching the video clip, you would understand how Detective Hawes finds the registry to be useful in preventing perpetrators access to firearms, and how the court system uses the registry in cases of domestic abuse. It’s very clearly laid out.
INTERRELATED is a big word and your absolutely using it in the wrong context or at least portraying it in a way that you can’t have one without the other. This is absolutely untrue we did not have registration for years at a time when we even had a lower crime and murder rate than we have today. The FACT is a reduce in gun deaths correlates more with the aging Baby Boomer generation and not with any gun control legislation in Canada. The only way the two systems of registration and licensing are interrelated is that all gun license holders must hold registered guns while all non licensed owners must hold unregistered guns. SARCASM=ON Imagine the horror that would ensue if a licensed holder had a unregistered .22 in his attic SARCASM=OFF They are interrelated only in the context of how Canada’s system works, one can system can very easily exist with out the other and effectively too.
Of all the Chretien-era Liberal “achievements”, this one is quite frankly the most odious. Criminals trade drugs for firearms, period. Police officers expect to find illegal firearms on criminals. The Registry arguement is propped up by feminst groups who receive money, IE: Cukier and company. If the Registry goes, so does their gravy train. The sooner the better. Elizabeth, you can pay your own way to the IANSA meetings.
This is a 100% self-funded fellowship. I’m participating in it because I want to be, not because I’m getting paid.
Michael-
I think you’re trying to infer that interrelated is too big of word for me to understand, so I’ll just go ahead and illustrate to you what I mean through other words. In fact, I think I’ll quote directly from the Supreme Court decision. Why don’t you go ahead and tell me what words they’re misinterpreting, because as the Supreme Court, they must get confused by big words too:
“We are not persuaded that the registration provisions can be severed from the
rest of the Act, nor that they fail to serve Parliament’s purpose in promoting public safety.
The licensing provisions require everyone who possesses a gun to be licensed. The
registration provisions require all guns to be registered. The combination of the two parts
of the scheme is intended to ensure that when a firearm is transferred from one person to
another, the recipient is licensed. Absent a registration system, this would be impossible
to ascertain. If a gun is found in the possession of an unlicensed person, the registration
system permits the government to determine where the gun originated. With a registration
scheme in place, licensed owners can be held responsible for the transfer of their weapons.
The registration system is also part of the general scheme of the law in reducing misuse.
If someone is found guilty of a crime involving violence, or is prohibited from possessing
a weapon, the registration scheme is expected to assist the police in determining whether
the offender actually owns any guns and in confiscating them. The registration scheme is
also intended to reduce smuggling and the illegal trade in guns. These interconnections
demonstrate that the registration and licensing portions of the Firearms Act are both tightly
linked to Parliament’s goal in promoting safety by reducing the misuse of any and all
firearms. Both portions are integral and necessary to the operation of the scheme. The
government is not prevented from improving the system because the pre-existing firearms
acquisition certificate system was not connected to a registration system. Moreover, prior
to this Act, the federal government had a registration system for handguns. It now seeks
to extend it to all guns. Contrary to the suggestions of Conrad J.A., no improper purpose
in including registration in the scheme has been demonstrated.”
And again, licensing & registration are confused. See this–> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a2
If you insist on talking about gun laws in my country, please familiarize yourself if you choose not to take up anyone’s offer to educate you. They can be found here-> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/F-11.6//20090727/en?command=HOME&caller=SI&fragment=firearms&search_type=all&day=27&month=7&year=2009&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50
Domestic violence is bad. Hence why when getting the LICENSE any spouse or common law is asked if they have concerns. There is also the number to the CFC who have the power to pull all guns in the event of a complaint. See here—> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/cont/report_signaler-eng.htm
If someone is under the jack-boot of a bad spouse, there are many ways for them to get out. One of which is to, duh, go to one of the MANY woman’s shelters. Or to a friends home. If these women are so scared about doing that, well, I can only assume they like being beaten. Not my thing, but I am one to leave when something is going down that I don’t approve of. There is always an escape. Those that choose not to take it – well, it’s their choice isn’t it?
Still waiting to hear back in terms of my offer to take you shooting Elizabeth. Bring a friend even if it makes you feel more comfortable.
Ms. Mandelman, we are all aware of the SCC’s decision in this regard. However, it does not follow that their decision was necessarily the correct one. Of course it was correct if one insisted on having a registry in place that operates the way the ineffective Canadian one does. However, Sheila Fraser, our auditor general has yet to find any proof that the registry has done anything it’s proponents claim it has. In her view, it was essentially $2B spent with few tangible results.
Also, do you really believe that the registry is THE way in which police remove firearms from violent/unstable individuals? That they would remove those that appear on the government’s list and leave it at that? I don’t think even you are naive enough to believe that is the way they operate. They would of course obtain a search warrant and tear his residence, vehicle, workshop, workspace, outhouse, doghouse, henhouse and any other property apart looking for guns…registry or no registry.
I applaud your efforts toward “doing something” about violence in the home, and agree with you that it is most often the woman in the home that is the victim.
However, your fixation on inanimate objects is a huge disservice to the women who have been the subject of violence. A gun is a piece of metal, with no will of it’s own. If one inanimate object is not available, then any number of others ARE regularly substituted.
Even when there are firearms in the home, the gun is NOT the most likely object that is used in domestic assaults. The most common is a bare hand or some domestic object readily at hand.
Blaming guns for domestic violence is no different than blaming a fork for making you fat.
George, When will the pro-gun lobby stop using the $2billion argument? I’m just wondering, as Sheila Fraser asserted that the figure the Conservative government and Mr. Breitkreuz have been using of $2billion dollars is quite inaccurate. In addition, when a case goes to the Supreme Court, the decision they make is final, and therefore correct, whether you agree with it or not.
A Supreme Court case which states it has nothing to do with the pro’s or cons of the firearms act.
Amazing how you continue to leave out that little snippet of information.
Mike, That’s not the focus of this particular discussion. The focus is whether or not licensing and registration are interrelated, and the answer, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, is YES. The job of any Supreme Court is not to determine whether they think a piece of legislation is good or bad, as that would be a biased opinion. Justices appointed to the Supreme Court are under obligation by law to remain objective, and to rule on whether or not something is constitutional. In Canada, it is left to the House of Commons and Senate to consider whether a piece of legislation should be implemented and later, whether it should be altered or dismissed. Obviously, if Parliament thought the Firearms Act was not workiing, it would have been eliminated by now. It’s important not to confuse the powers of different branches of government, as different branches exist for a reason.
Ms. Mandelman, finally, a response…Now, in response to your statement…
The figure of $2B will likely continue to be used until such time as the former Liberal cabinet, their supporters and bureaucratic apparatus finally come clean as to the actual cost of the registry. At the time of Ms. Fraser’s accounting, she had the cost estimated at around $1B. However, she was unable to find out the true cost as the Liberals and their supporters hindered her accounting of the cost. Slush funds, creative accounting, money from other departments, obfuscation by those with agendas and money to gain from the registry all prevented her from finding out the registry’s actual cost. So, again, until such time as the Liberals and their friends come clean, $1B represents only a partial accounting in that that is about all they would let Ms. Fraser know about, while deliberately hiding the remainder. Semantics aside, whether the final figure is closer to $1B than $2B, the fact remains that Ms. Fraser found no evidence that the registry had delivered any of the promised goods.
As far as the SCC decision, you are right in one respect, it is unfortunately final for those of us that are forced to live with it. However, that does not make it the correct one. History is full of examples of judicial and governmental decisions that were “final”, yet either incorrect or outright morally if not criminally wrong. Just because the SCC said they think one way, does not automatically make it the right way…unless you believe in the infallibility of legislators and the judiciary. If so, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy.
Mandelman, I’ve learned from reading your posts and comments that it is a waste of time to discuss the subject of firearms with you. Your articles are deliberately misleading on purpose.
You fit perfectly with the anti-gun lobby, misinformation and false statistics.
Norton, First of all, I have a first name. Second of all, if it’s such a waste of time to discuss the subject of firearms with me, why have you wasted time to write this comment?
You are missing something wrt the Supreme Court of Canada ruling – they said that registration “cannot be severed” from licensing, not that it MUST NOT. This can be interpreted to mean that the SCC did not have the authority to sever the law, not that this must never happen. You are also not taking into account the “supremacy of Parliament”, and the fact that one session of Parliament cannot tie the hands of future sessions. Parliament could tomorrow pass a law that eliminated the registration requirements, or the whole Firearms Act, if it wanted to, and the SCC couldn’t do a thing. This is because the making of law is the sole purview of Parliament, not the SCC.
Bruce, I never stated that Parliament could not pass a law to eliminate the registry, although obviously the Conservative government is having a pretty tough time mustering enough support for this, which clearly illustrates where Canada stands on the Firearms Act and its effectiveness. My point is that the Supreme Court illustrated that the registry and licensing are interrelated, and therefore the effectiveness of one depends on the existence of the other.
Ms. Mandelman… you are correct in your assessment of law making being the purview of Parliament. However, you are incorrect in stating that if the Firearms Act were not working as intended, then Parliament would have struck it down by now. As has been communicated to you previously, partisan politics and political agendas often prevent things from happening, or even from not happening.
The current government is effectively barred from repealing the Firearms Act or even just doing away with the Registry by virtue of their being in a minority situation with respect to Parliament. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc would never strike down the Firearms Act or the Registry because of the vast amounts of political capital they have invested in it.
These three parties have made gun control major building blocks in their platforms…it would be unthinkable for them, especially the Liberals, to actually undo something that valuable to them, even if the policy or platform proved disastrously wrong or ineffective and horribly expensive. Such are partisan politics in Canada.
[...] Although cautious officers responding to calls never assume that a home is free of firearms even if the registry has nothing on record (especially with the rise of unregistered firearms by once legal owners), Detective Hawes views the registry as a very useful safety tool for both officers and victims. The only substantial argument Detective Hawes has heard against the Firearms Act relates to cost and according to him, it is hard to put a price on public safety… more [...]
The comment period for this entry is now closed.