Guns in Canada

[William MG]

Mark,

Saw your piece on who should be scared and there seems to be a misconception on guns in Canada. Our guns laws are much more restrictive than in the US but we do have guns and as far as I know nobody is coming for mine.

But you are correct, your 2cnd Amendment must never be given up.

If you want to know more about our system up here reach out to me and I will give you some insight into our system.

Bill

[Mark Rippetoe]

Reaching out. Give us some insight.

[William MG]

I will call your office in the morning and give you my cell, you can call me. Its too long a discussion for a forum board.

[AndrewLewis]

I'd be curious to learn more about it too.

[Gerald Boggs]

If the opinions of my Canadian relatives are in any way representative of Canadians as a whole. Guns for hunting are OK, but guns for self-defense are wrong.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I haven't heard from him, so I don't know. But I'm not really interested in having a private conversation about this. This is a public board, and it will have to be posted.

[William MG]

I left you a message this morning Mark. Check your messages.

[Mark Rippetoe]

No message on the machine. Call me now.

[James Rodgers]

Who's up for a thrilling summary of the origins of Canadian political culture and why it explains different attitudes towards firearms?

In the aftermath of the Revolutionary war, the British found themselves holding territory in what would become Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario, butting up against a rambunctious, young American republic. There was no appetite to repeat the debacle of having colonies break off and declare independence or join the United States. Steps were taken to ensure that these colonies would remain loyal and politically stable.

The governance structure of the colonies was set up to centralize power in the office of the Lt Governor. There were some elected assemblies, but it was understood by all that all authority was derived from the crown. Throughout the early to mid 1800s, Upper Canada (Ontario) was effectively ruled by a tight knit group of families and British Lt Governors. Over time, more and more authority was parceled out to elected assemblies to permit "responsible government" but this was always just enough to keep colonists from revolting and nothing more. The notion of popular sovereignty was never a thing in Canadian political history. Democracy developed as a way to preserve stability, not to usher in an era of freedom. Weapons in the hands of the populace are good for individual rights, but bad for maintaining the status quo.

The first substantial wave of English-speaking settlers in Canada were Loyalists, refugees from the Revolutionary war. They had selected themselves to remain loyal to the crown and they are the ones that formed the political class in the early, developmental years. They did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary war, so something like the Second Amendment was unthinkable. There is an ingrained anti-American reflex in Canadian politics.

Canada has no constitution in the sense that the United States has one. The American constitution was there from the start and has had hundreds of years of precedents, wars and legal wrangling to turn it into this very stable document that almost everyone agrees should be respected. Canada has only had a written constitution, and there are two ways that it can be overridden. First, there is the "Notwithstanding Clause" which lets a province enact a law which violates the constitution for a set period of time. This has been used in Quebec to legalize discrimination against English speakers. Second, every individual right is not described as absolute, but as subject to interpretation by a reasonable person. Who is that reasonable person is the million dollar question. It's hard to justify the right to own firearms in the event that you need to fight back against state authority when the entire political system is predicated on ensuring stability. So in effect, anything can be put into law and there are no limits on how far individual rights can be impinged. The last two years have graphically demonstrated that.

It comes down to the difference between the reasons for the American and Canadian governments to justify their existences. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and "Peace, Order and Good Government." Armed citizenry is a threat to peace and order. Owning firearms is perfectly fine, as long as they do not present a threat to the "Peace and Order" of society. Ergo, hunting rifle good, high capacity magazines bad. Decisions will tend towards preserving the stability of the system.

[Steven Kalin]

We have pistols, but highly restricted. Cops can inspect your house at any time to ensure safe storage, and they can only be transported to a range, so basically it’s a hobby up here. Semi auto rifles used to be the same way, but they are now prohibited, and those of us with them are just hoping we get to keep the ones we have till we die, at which point the rcmp will take them and destroy them. In the meantime they have to stay in the safe. Self defence, even of ones home, is NOT considered a legitimate reason to own one. I’d be happy to give you further perspective if you like.