All sorts of prognostications up here about this, but no one knows for sure. Supposedly an announcement this week. The options seem to be "grandfathering" all handguns, as was done with Bill C-68 when many handguns were put in the "Prohib" class rather than just Restricted (due to barrel length or calibre, believe it or not), or some sort of "central storage" at the ranges, which is utterly impractical and would cost (us) a fortune as the insurance rates would be astronomical. Outright confiscation would almost certainly require compensation, which would cost the Gov't a fortune. (But remember, "If it just saves one life...") The latter two would also take ages to implement (which might not be a bad thing if t bogs the whole thing down.)
I've written a few letters to Goodale etc. making my views quite clear, and recently a couple to the Senate sub-committee which is reviewing Bill C-71 (which does not deal with a handgun ban, but does call for more restrictions on our Authorization to Transport. But ultimately they're all tied together.)
At least one senator, Don Plett, is on our side and sees this as a pile of political maoeuvering. My recent e-mail ran as follows:
... I was at a Town Hall meeting in Port Coquitlam recently where Conservative MP, Glen Motz (Opposition Deputy Shadow Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) quoted a document from Mr. Goodale's office whicih stated "The vast majority of Canadian handgun owners are law-abiding." (I have e-mailed him for the exact source of this.)
If this is so, one has to ask why, in Bill C-71, there are to be further restrictions on the conditions of an ATT, and, further, why the Prime Minister has asked Mr. Goodale to "look into a handgun ban." Since Mr. Goodale is the Minister for Public Safety, one would be led to assume that this is being promoted as a public safety issue. And given that the government's PR firm, Hill & Knowlton, suggested taking advantage of the majority of Canadians' ignorance of guns, no doubt most people will blithely accept this without further thought.
However, I was recently reminded of MP Sharon Carstairs' comment from 1996 on the last "Firearms Owners' Harrassment Bill", ie Bill C-68, to wit: "C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada." Has this leopard changed its spots? True, no one in the current government has actually come out and said anything like this explicitly, nor repeated the point-blank opinions of Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy that "only the militay and police should own firearms" but given the incongruity noted above, one has to wonder what is REALLY behind the current attack on those of us who, despite having what to some is an incomprehensible hobby, are apparently law-abiding- in fact, no different than the "vast majority" of other Canadians! We are being unfairly smeared merely because we pursue a hobby that is - what? Seen to be "socially unacceptable" in the Brave New Canada envisioned by Mr. Trudeau?
In addition, such disrespectful and prejuducial legislation also serves to drive an even deeper wedge between rural and urban interests in this country, although there are many gun owners in urban centres as well. What we need is a government that will seek to bring these two often-disparate sides closer together, not drive them further apart.
After 66 years, I still believe in a Canada "strong and free", where freedom includes being able to pursue activities without ill-designed or devious interference by a government in the name of "social re-engineering", whatever that blandly Utopian term might mean.
Mr Plett replied the next morning (today):
I regret that I have to agree with you -- your concerns about the Liberal government’s agenda are well-founded. There has been no evidence provided that the measures introduced in Bill C-71 will do anything to increase public safety or national security. The Bill is ideologically-based, politically-motivated, and emotionally-driven .
There are many, many examples which illustrate this reality, but one of the most obvious one is the fact that this Bill was promised to Canadians during the 2015 election, when the latest stats on gun crime were at their lowest level in almost 50 years. This clearly demonstrates that the motivation behind this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with stoking the fears and anxieties of the Liberal’s base in order to try and garner votes.
Compounding the problem is the possibility of a split vote, as Maxime Bernier has started his own party. Some people are quite impressed by him (and not by Andrew Scheer) , but IMHO the last thing we need is a split vote on the Conservative side; we need a strong vote to get Mr. Trudeau out.
So, who knows? But almost certainly another Liberal win will at the very least inconvenience many Canadian gun owners, and screw those of us who own handguns. (I was just out at the range with my 14-3, 19-4 and Ruger SR9 today.). We are typically a pretty complacent bunch but I noticed that "Windy Wendy" (Cukier, of the Coalition for Gun Control) said a couple of months ago that she was "surprised by the strength of the gun lobby", which suggests that maybe we are making our voices heard, at least a little.
