--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun resolution backfires on Liberals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent months nothing has attracted so much attention from firearm owners and the hunting community as Resolution 42, which was voted on and accepted by the Liberal Party of Canada at their leadership and biennial convention in Montreal in November, 2006. This resolution lumped both fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms together and called for an outright ban of their ownership by individuals.

In passing this resolution it appears that those that did so were completely ignorant of the fact that semi-auto firearms in the form of .22 rim fire rifles, shotguns and centerfire rifles have been and currently are in common use by hunters and target shooters in Canada, with a best guess placing as much as one- half to three-quarters of all Canadian firearm owners as owning one of more rifles or shotguns with a semi-auto action.

Since this resolution was based on false information, the Liberal party has done an about face.

If the parties website is researched for the most recent listing under "final resolutions," we find this statement: "Policy Resolution 42 has been withdrawn due to unintended factual errors and can therefore not inform party policy."

Yet, there is more to the story than just this statement. In December, John Pugh, president of the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation contacted Andrew Holland, Liberal MP Andy Scott's executive assistant, and expressed his concerns and that of the NBWF's members regarding the resolution.

In addition, many other organizations all across Canada, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, contacted their members of parliament and expressed similar opposition. The net result was that in late January the Liberal caucus withdrew their support of this resolution.

Out of all this several points of interest have surfaced. One being that a number of Liberal members of parliament, including Andy Scott, was opposed to this resolution and said so. Many of these members are strong supporters of hunting and angling and the private ownership of firearms.

Another point is that firearm owners and hunters must realize that as individuals their opposition to any anti-firearm or anti-hunting resolutions or laws has little impact in either Fredericton or Ottawa, but, as a member of a large organization such as the above mentioned two, when they speak, the politicians pay attention.

Yet, as a result of Resolution 42 being passed in the first place most firearms owners are left with the impression that the long-term goal of the Liberal party in Ottawa must be the eventual complete elimination of the private ownership of firearms. This is still their impression, despite the withdrawing of this resolution by the Liberal caucus.

To many a firearm owner the Liberal party policy appears to be following that of "a nibble at a time and soon all is gone" as applied to mice eating a cheese. This perceived policy by the Liberal Party of nibbling away at the private ownership of firearms was also indicated when the then Prime Minister Paul Martin, in the closing days of the last election campaign calling for the total elimination of all privately owned handguns. Then in Nov. 30 of last year resolution 42 appeared, calling for the total elimination of the private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms, only they referred to them as weapons, instead of firearms.

The point should be made that a firearm is just a firearm, an inert object and should not be termed a weapon, until or unless it is used with the intent to harm or kill others. A baseball bat, a golf club, or even a pillow can also be referred to as a weapon, but only when used to harm or kill. One dictionary also lists hammers, horns and claws as potential weapons. (Since a bear has four sets of claws, with all four often used as the same time as weapons, this raises all sorts of questions such as classification, (fully auto?) licensing, registration, etc. and will we need to register our cat at some future date?)

If the stance of the federal Liberal party is other than what most firearms owners now believe, and that the party in fact supports the private ownership of firearms and will do so in the future, then this must be made very clear and quickly, too. What is very much needed is a clear public statement of their policy in regards to firearms and also in regards to hunting and fishing in Canada.

They may currently have such a policy, but if they have, they are keeping it very much to themselves, with the exception of course of past policies that have surfaced in the forms of Bill C68 and Resolution 42!

-Everett Mosher is a Sackville-based writer and avid outdoorsman. His column appears every Tuesday.

--------------------------

DECEMBER 20, 2007 - ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS LETTER: LIBERAL PARTY FIREARMS RESOLUTIONS http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/2007_new/113.pdf

DECEMBER 27, 2006 - B.C. WILDLIFE FEDERATION LETTER RE: LIBERAL PARTY FIREARMS RESOLUTIONS http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/2006_new/112.pdf

JANUARY 10, 2007 - DELTA WATERFOWL OPPOSES LIBERAL RESOLUTION TO BAN SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/pr/2007/070110_ban.php

JANUARY 10, 2007 - CANADIAN OUTDOOR HERITAGE ALLIANCE LETTER: LIBERAL PARTY FIREARMS RESOLUTIONS http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/2007/858.pdf