DATE:
2004.12.07
SECTION:
Opinion/Editorial
PAGE:
B8
COLUMN:
Everett Mosher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column:
Has the Firearms Act resulted in more protection for women?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday
marked the 15th anniversary of the deaths of 14 women killed by a firearm in the
hands of Marc Lepine at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. This sparked action
on the part of government that culminated in The Firearms Act, Bill C-68. Has
implementation of the bill resulted in more protection for women? Part of the
answer is found in the following:
This
is an excerpt from minutes of the standing committee on justice and human rights
from Nov. 24.
Question
by MP Garry Breitzkreuz:
"The RCMP tell us there are approximately 176,000 criminals who have been
prohibited from owning firearms by the courts and there's another 37,000
dangerous persons who have restraining orders against them. Why are these
persons, who have been proven to be dangerous, not required to report their
change of address to police or even open up their homes to firearms inspection,
but completely innocent licensed gun owners are required to?"
Reponse
by firearms commissioner Bill Baker: "On the change of address, if someone
is prohibited from having a firearm in the country they are no longer
effectively covered by the Firearms Act. The Firearms Act only deals with people
who own, possess and use firearms."
Baker
added: "In terms of firearms officers, they would have no authority to
collect information from somebody who is not a client of the program."
Thus,
criminals are not "effectively covered by the Firearm Act."
The
bill targets only the law abiding and innocent hunter, shooter or firearm
collector.
For this, Canadian
taxpayers have doled out over a billion dollars.