SIDESTEPPING PARLIAMENT

On May 1, Justin Trudeau announced a ban of what he called “military-grade assault-style weapons”. There are many reasons why Canadians generally, and not just firearms owners, should be deeply concerned by this.

First is process. The ban was done via order-in-council, without parliamentary debate. In short, the prime minister sidestepped democratic process. Regardless of your views on firearms, surely you will agree that it is reasonable to expect that law-abiding Canadians not be arbitrarily stripped of their private property without full debate in the House of Commons.

Second is timing. Canada is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, where our ability to object to this ban is severely limited. At the moment, we can’t even meet with our members of Parliament, or convene a meeting of affected gun owners to explain what the changes mean. This adds to the undemocratic nature of the ban.

Third is misrepresentation. The ban has been presented as being limited to so-called high-powered centre-fire semiautomatic rifles “designed to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time” according to the prime minister. In fact, the list includes single-shot shotguns, bolt-action rifles, .22 rimfire rifles, hunting rifles and even cannons. The ban states these firearms are not suitable for use in hunting when, in fact, many of the listed firearms are commonly used for exactly that.

Lastly is efficacy. The ban is being presented as a way to reduce crime, save lives, and – in particular – address the recent tragedy in Nova Scotia. There, the killer not only did not have a gun licence, he had illegal guns and had once been prohibited from owning firearms. This ban would not have prevented what happened in Nova Scotia. It won’t reduce gang violence in big cities. It will not do one single thing to reduce crime in Canada. Because legal gun owners are not the problem. Kate MacQuarrie, Women Shooters of P.E.I., Hazelgrove