The purpose of the gun registry – part 2

In the previous entry (below), I linked to an article at National Post that described how police chiefs will unanimously endorse a “national firearms strategy,” a key component of which is the long gun registry. I also argue the main purpose of the gun registry is to assist with the seizure of long guns, and that police are spending too much time harassing long gun owners when the real threats to public and police safety are left alone.

Now, from the Canadian National Firearms Association:

It has come to the attention of Canada’s National Firearms Association that the political police chief heads of law enforcement associations are planning a nation wide blitz against licensed firearms owners, as retribution for the political action of the Canadian firearms community that has resulted in the final vote in parliament of Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner’s Bill C-391. [...]* All paperwork offenses will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, despite the current limited federal government amnesty which ends in May 2011.

* Home inspections will be performed on an ever increasing basis on firearms owners with more than ten registered firearms, and all restricted and prohibited firearms owners.

* Registered firearms will be seized despite their legal use or status, with the onus put on their owners to navigate the firearms bureaucracy and legal system in order to retrieve them.  Furthermore, CACP will lobby for a national handgun ban, the confiscation of all registered handguns in Canada, and the reclassification of all semi automatic firearms as “Restricted” or “Prohibited” firearms.

CACP lobbyist Bill Blair’s record as Chief of the Toronto Police Service is an indication of the treatment by law enforcement he wishes to impose on all Canadians. As Chief of Police, Bill Blair ordered Toronto Police Service to target senior citizens and confiscate their firearms for paperwork offenses, and conduct a campaign of harassment against anyone with a firearms license and a registered firearm. (Emphasis mine.)

Is it any wonder police are seizing more long guns than handguns each year?

The purpose of the gun registry

The cops have admitted publicly and jointly that the gun registry is not a crime fighting tool. Contra Alan Rock and the gun control lobby, it never has been nor could it ever be used for that purpose.

Its updated purpose, paraphrasing Toronto police chief Bill Blair — public safety, officer safety and seizure.

“It’s not a matter of ideology for us. It’s a matter of public safety. It’s just a matter of officer safety,” Chief Blair said.

Of the last 16 officers shot to death in Canada, 14 were killed with long guns, he said, adding long guns represent the majority of guns seized by officers nationwide.

Sorry, Bill, I’m not buying your safety claim. If police couldn’t use the tool to prevent the deaths of their own then it is highly doubtful it can be used to prevent the deaths of anyone else either. A tool that can’t be used to prevent or fight crime cannot be relied upon to enhance police and public safety. What is more, public safety does not necessarily follow from police safety.

The seizure of long guns, though? That definitely sounds like the primary purpose of the gun registry because it’s really the only area in which it is halfway effective, isn’t it? It tells police whose registrations have expired and then the badges can go and harass the otherwise law-abiding citizen to re-register or relinquish the firearm. Like Joe Fiorito.

The problem is, Bill, pouring all that effort into seizing long guns is to ignore the real threat to public and police safety. Stats Can reported in 2008 that, in 2006, gun-related crime “remained steady,” i.e. did not decrease, and handguns were used in two-thirds of all gun-related crime and were used three times as much as long guns in homicides. Yet year over year police are collecting more long guns than handguns.

What this means is police are spending way too much time harassing law-abiding long gun owners and not enough time and resources conquering the main threat to police and public safety — illicit handguns in the hands of gangs, drug lords, pimps and organized crime. The gun registry is a distraction to police, providing an easy way to enforce a point of law that has little to no effect on police or public safety while conveniently ignoring the more difficult elements of law enforcement that would result in increased safety for one and all. Elephant, room. Deck chairs, Titanic. That sort of stuff.

If safety and crime fighting and crime prevention are the goals, as they should be, police need to rid themselves of the distraction that is the gun registry. We are under no illusions that the gun registry is making anything safer. That’s why the people are demanding the government kill it.

David Frum on Canadian Voter Turnout

My friend and colleague, Scott H. Payne, had the pleasure to interview David Frum.  They were talking about the state of Canadian politics, especially in relation to voter interest.  Here’s a sample, in case readers of The Politic might be interested:

Scott Payne: If you were to give an overview of your take on the current state of Canadian politics, what would it be? Do things seem good? Bad? Lively? Stagnant? Are there some interesting trends that you see when scanning Canadian political headlines? Is there a pervasive narrative that seems to — within reasons — sum up where Canadians are in regards to their political lives?

David Frum: Canada has escaped more mildly from the global recession than any other developed country. Incomes and jobs are beginning to recover. The country’s balance sheet is stronger than any of its major trading partners. Secessionist tendencies in Quebec and the West have ebbed. The country’s armed forces themselves have distinguished themselves in the first major combat operations since the Korean War. That’s a formidable record of good governance. And since the point of politics is to produce good governments, I’d say Canadian politics are doing very well.

SP: And yet despite this, in the country’s last federal election, voter turnout was the lowest in the country’s history. Do you think that election fatigue is solely to blame for Canadians’ recent disengagement from one the primary civic activities of their democracy?

DF: A hair under 60% turned out – that’s pretty good, especially in a country with such a large population of newly arrived immigrants. It will take the newcomers a little time to feel oriented and familiar, to form the kinds of connections that inspire voting…

One final thought on this.  It is quite clear that Mr. Frum is a thoughtful observer of politics, truly interested in the goings-on of our political culture.  Agree with him or not, he’s a worthwhile voice to have in the realm of punditry.

Godspeed to Jean Chretien

The Globe & Mail and New York Times are reporting that our former Prime Minister underwent successful brain surgery yesterday.

Let us wish him well in his recovery.

Overturning Proposition 8 is a Victory for Conservatives

I’m guessing most conservatives aren’t too happy about the decision in Perry, overturning California’s ballot initiative (Proposition 8) that banned gay marriage.  But they’re all wrong… or, at least, so I argue at the Commons.  I submit that the defeat of Proposition 8 is a victory for conservatism, or, at least, small government conservatism.  Here’s the thrust of my argument:

Through the Equal Protection clause, Judge Walker has told the government of California that they must recognize gay marriage.  And that’s the thing.  These couples are married.  It doesn’t matter whether you recognize their marriage, or whether Rich Lowry recognizes their marriage; they are married.  By not recognizing these marriages, the government of California was treating the individuals differently.  At this point, it has nothing to do with couples.

…

Marriage does not belong to the government.  Marriage predates our constitution, our form of government and our nation.  Marriage belongs to the people.  It is a social convention that has grown organically within human society.  It is nothing that has been imposed by government – at least, if we’re actually to believe in liberty, it is nothing that should be imposed by government.  Marriage is an institution in which we organize ourselves.  It belongs to us, and we shouldn’t let the government appropriate it.  Once we cede it to the domain of government, we are relinquishing personal, private control of this elemental part of our society.

Go!

Regarding Abortion and Slavery

Rarely do I tread into the weeds of the abortion debate.  I’m pretty mushy on it; I doubt too many minds will be changed; and I find many people, on both sides of the debate, routinely argue in bad faith.  All these things make me disinclined to broach the subject.  However, I’ll make an exception right now.

I agree completely and wholeheartedly with Erik Kain’s post.  Here’s the crux:

I’m not sure why Andrew thinks likening abortion to slaveryqualifies as a Malkin award nominee. I certainly understand that it’s likely to bog down an already heavily loaded subject – but is it really so far off base on the merits?

If you believe in your heart of hearts that an unborn child is nevertheless a child – a living, growing, human being – and yet the law of the land dictates that said living, growing human being is not in possession of even the most basic right – the right to life – then how different is this from slavery?

I know I’m poking a lot of bears with this; comments are open, so have at it!

(By the way, Erik has further thoughts here.)