PUBLICATION:          National Post

DATE:                         2004.02.06

EDITION:                    All but Toronto

SECTION:                  News

PAGE:                         A2

BYLINE:                     Tom Blackwell

SOURCE:                   National Post

NOTE:                        tblackwell@nationalpost.com

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

Natives seek exemption from gun registry: Court challenge: Law violates hunting rights, says Saskatchewan group

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

Status Indians should not have to take part in the much-maligned federal gun registry because it violates long-held hunting rights, a Saskatchewan First Nations group is asserting in a largely unheralded court challenge.

The Firearms Act not only interferes with constitutionally entrenched treaty rights, it creates a hardship for isolated aboriginal hunters and even makes it difficult to give ceremonial gifts of firearms, a long-standing tradition, the organization argues.

It wants the Federal Court of Canada to rule the act does not apply to First Nations people.

If anyone regulates gun use by aboriginals, it should be their own governments, maintains the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

"We were told they would never interfere with our sustenance, they would never interfere with our style of life, our culture," said Lawrence Joseph, vice-chief of the umbrella group for the province's status Indian people.

"Quite clearly, the spirit and intent of those treaty promises have been and will be violated if this is enforced against us."

As it is, "very few" First Nations people in Saskatchewan have complied with the act and registered their guns, he said. Although the provincial government has chosen not to enforce the legislation, the RCMP has charged several aboriginal people with violating it, Mr. Joseph said.

"As a result, these firearms are being taken away. It impacts on people who rely on that gun to supplement their income," he said.

"When they take that firearm away, they take away that ability to feed themselves."

A spokesman for the Canadian Firearms Centre, which administers the registry, said the agency has no specific figures on aboriginal compliance with the rules. But overall, there is a compliance rate of about 90%, he said.

The court challenge was launched with little fanfare and has gone virtually unnoticed over the last two years as scrutiny of the registry focused on its huge cost overrun and non-native opposition.

The case suffered a setback last week as the Federal Court refused to issue an injunction temporarily exempting aboriginal gun owners pending the outcome of the challenge.

The federation is still pushing ahead with the case, though it would be just as happy with a decision by Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, to axe the registry entirely, Mr. Joseph said.

The federation contends in its case that treaties reached with the Crown a century or more ago guarantee the right to use firearms to hunt, without any restrictions by the government. The rules on registration and storage of rifles and shotguns under the act violate those rights, the group argues.

The federal government responds that treaty hunting rights were always supposed to be subject to occasional regulation by the federal government.

Mr. Joseph said aboriginal people have other, practical, objections to the law as well. Some of them depend on year-round hunting for food, and live in such isolated locations, complying with the act would b very difficult.

Many First Nations people also like to offer hunting weapons such as guns as ceremonial gifts, because of their traditional value in harvesting animals that provide food and other basics, he said. The requirements of the act make that virtually impossible, he said.

The federation wanted an injunction against the legislation pending the final resolution of the case.

But in last week's decision, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court said there would not be "irreparable harm" done by keeping the law in force while the case is before the courts.

"To grant an interlocutory injunction ... would create a vacuum of authority with respect to the possession and use of firearms," the ruling said.

"The honestly held views of the [federation] as to the scope of their hunting rights cannot outweigh the public interest in avoiding such a vacuum."