Comments on: An Interview with Detective Rick Hawes, Peel Regional Police

By: Elizabeth Mandelman

Elizabeth Mandelman — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:46:11 +0000

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

By: From Advocacynet, July 26, 2009: An Interview with Detective Rick Hawes, Peel Regional Police « The Coalition for Gun Control/Pour le Controle des Armes

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:44:28 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: George

George — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:58:32 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth Mandelman

Elizabeth Mandelman — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:59:05 +0000

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.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:51:06 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth Mandelman

Elizabeth Mandelman — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:57:27 +0000

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?

By: Norton

Norton — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:55:12 +0000

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.

By: George

George — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth Mandelman

Elizabeth Mandelman — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:59:09 +0000

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.

By: Mike Duynhoven

Mike Duynhoven — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:51:42 +0000

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.