I came across a news story from just south of the BC — Washington State border… you know, the big imaginary line called the 49th Parallel that separates Canada from the United States. And it smacked me right in the face what a huge difference that imaginary line makes in the attitudes of police towards citizens with firearms.
Here in Canada, for example, the RCMP and every other police force in Canada absolutely hates the idea of honest citizens having firearms.
The Whidbey Island Sheriff’s Department on the other hand, just a few hours south of that imaginary line, encourages it.
The Lawrence Manzer case out in New Brunswick is one of two examples I’ll use that are currently before the courts.
Here is a man standing on his front porch with an unloaded shotgun, ostensibly standing there to aid his neighbour Brian Fox as Mr. Fox apprehended one of the three drunken teenagers who had been vandalizing the neighborhood for the past six months.
The three kids get off with a small fine, while Fox is charged with assault and Manzer is charged with a firearms offense.
Ridiculous.
Then there is the even worse case of Ian Thomson in Ontario, where three masked thugs are caught on surveillance cameras trying to burn his house down with him inside it, screaming that they will kill Mr. Thomson. Ian Thomson grabs a handgun from his gun safe, comes outside and fires a couple of shots to scare off the would-be murderers. It works. They run like the cowards they are.
The police response?
They charge the arsonists, not with attempted murder, which is what this was, but with attempted arson. Attempted, I guess because they were only successful in lighting his house on fire, not burning it to the ground.
But far worse than that, they charge Ian Thomson, the man fighting for his life against three men trying to kill him, with careless use of a firearm.
I mention these two cases currently before the courts because they highlight the Canadian police response to good, honest Canadian citizens using firearms completely lawfully.
The police don’t care. The police believe they are the ONLY ones who should have firearms. Period.
Now, that’s a very long lead-in to the actual point of this story.
The article I read this morning that so caught my eye was from the South Whidbey Record. Whidbey is a small town near Seattle, Washington.
The news story talked of the local gun club’s “Annual Women’s Firearm Safety Class” being taught this coming weekend at the Central Whidbey Sportsman’s Association.
Here’s the kicker.
Guess who is teaching that class?
Two retired Island County Sherriff’s Office Detectives.
I spoke with Rod Mourant from the Central Whidbey Sportsman’s Association today because I was curious if the event had the sanction of the Island County Sherriff’s Department.
While the Island County Sheriff’s department is not officially involved with the firearms training event, they fully support firearms safety training and are happy to have two of their retired detectives as the instructors for the course.
I spoke with Detective Wallace of the Island County Sherriff’s Department this morning and asked him a couple of questions to confirm this.
*****
CA: Is the Island County Sherriff’s Department involved with this course in any official capacity?
Detective Wallace: “In an official capacity, no, but I believe the instructors are both retired Island County detectives.”
CA: Does your department support of this sort of citizen training?
Detective Wallace: “Oh absolutely. Anything that teaches safety, firearms safety is a good thing.”
*****
Here in Canada laws are different, obviously, but the attitudes are the real key. Take, for example, the mandatory licensing system to own a firearm legally in Canada.
Once you’ve sat through the class and taken the written and practical exams, filled out all your paperwork and submitted it to the RCMP for your background and reference checks, you sit and wait to see if you will be deemed “acceptable”.
But you’d better hope your references are smart enough to understand the leading nature of the questions they will be asked.
If you’re like my daughter-in-law, for example, your references (of which I was one) will be asked some very leading questions about violent behaviour.
It’s the way the questions are worded that is so telling of police attitudes and Canadian government attitudes toward civilian firearm ownership.
*****
- Were you pressured in any way to act as a reference?
- Tell me about any situations where [name removed] has displayed violent behaviour in the past .
- Tell me about any circumstance where [name removed] acted in a way that caused you to feel she would become violent.
- Tell me about any circumstance or any situation where [name removed] would approve of violence to resolve a problem.
- Tell me about any circumstance where [name removed] has ever made statements showing a fascination with violence, such as school, workplace or any other types of violence.
- Is there anything else you would like to add about [name removed] that I haven’t asked?
- You have no issues or concerns about [name removed] having firearms?
*****
Now, unless you understand the goal of these questions, you might think these questions are just fine. They’re trying to weed out potentially violent people.
First, let me be clear. I do not want crazy or violent people to have firearms. No rational Canadian does.
But here’s the thing. With the exception of Maurice (Mom) Boucher, I’m not aware of a single violent criminal who has applied for a firearms license, yet drug dealers and violent gang members have no problem acquiring handguns, and even less problem with using them to solve their problems.
The fact that the Canadian Firearms Center issued a firearms license to the head of the Quebec Hells Angels doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in me. How about you?
So, back to the questions.
It is critical to understand the purpose of both the Canadian Firearms Safety Program and the RCMP’s questions for an applicant’s references.
That goal is to PREVENT civilian firearm ownership in Canada.
Taking both the non-restricted (rifles and shotguns) and restricted (handguns) courses will take you three days plus exam time and cost you anywhere from $150 to $300 depending on the government-sanctioned instructor.
That’s hurdle’s number 1 and 2. Time and money. This stops a lot of people.
Then there are the questions for your references once you’ve jumped through those hurdles.
You’ll notice, if you read the questions carefully, that they pre-suppose every applicant is a violent person.
The questions are NOT… “has she ever…“, but “tell me when she has…”
The questions ask WHEN, not IF.
The questions all begin with the presumption that the person HAS ALREADY been violent in some fashion or other. Why else would they want a firearm, right? It’s an absurd starting point.
- Tell me about any situations where [name removed] has…
- Tell me about any situations where [name removed] acted…
- Tell me about any circumstance or any situation where [name removed] would approve of violence…
What a difference that imaginary line makes.
This weekend women of all ages can attend a free firearms safety training course at the Central Whidbey Sportsman’s Association, taught by retired police detectives.
Canadian police should be every bit as supportive of honest and law-abiding Canadians as the Whidbey Island Sheriff’s Department is of their citizens.
TORONTO SUN – APRIL 12, 2011
Firearms owner accused of assault causes Hwy. 11 shutdown
By TRACY MCLAUGHLIN, SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/04/11/17953511.html
BARRIE – What started as a simple squabble between two grown men turned into a major calamity Sunday when the OPP and the tactical team shut down a section of Hwy. 11 for the entire night. Police responded to a 911 call after a man reported he had been assaulted by his roommate, Ron Woods, who is also the owner of the home on Hwy. 11 just north of Barrie.
The red flags went up when police learned Woods owned firearms.
Police shut down the highway between Line 5 and Line 9 and the tactics and rescue unit surrounded the area around midnight. Soon the region’s emergency response ream and the canine unit joined in and the place was swarming with officers with machine guns.
The highway was reopened at 6 a.m. Monday after Woods, 51, who claims he had no idea of what was going on, surrendered to police and was taken into custody. “They threw a flash grenade through my window,” said a battered and bruised Woods, as he limped out of court after being released on $4,000 bail. “They handcuffed me and dragged me out on my face.”
Outside of court he hugged family members who shook their heads and wept.
“We’re confused,” said one family member. Turns out the weapons were properly registered, in gun cases, stored in a closet but police say the trigger-locks were not applied.
Woods was charged with five counts of improperly stored firearms and one
count of assaulting his roommate. However no injuries were reported, and
the roommate was in turn charged with public mischief. Woods will be back in court May 2.
It is my understanding from the manual I bought years ago when I took the gun course, that firearms locked inside a safe or room that is not easily accessed is not subject to having trigger locks applied.
I do believe that info on the government website says the same?
So my question would be, have the rules changed in this respect?
Thanks for that article, Graham. Proves my point, for sure. The fact that someone owns firearms does NOT make them murderers-in-waiting, contrary to current police policy.
Christopher,
Or my buddy in Florida who took a one hour course from the police and went to a garage sale and bought a beautiful .38 special which, even though he is Canadian, can carry anywhere down there. He comes back for the summer tomorrow, and can’t even OWN a gun because he doesn’t and will never in Kanada, own a PAL, never mind carry. I hear the same story from my “snowbird” friends in Arizona. The police don’t even LOOK at you if you are carrying a rifle or packing a pistol. They may likely smile at you and wave, but never a worry. They KNOW they are infinitely safer among an armed and friendly citizenry and that any one of them would come to their
Aid if necessary. NOT A CHANCE in KANADA any longer!
What is even worse is that they DO NOT check references. I was named for “reference” for several people and NOT ONCE was I contacted. My references were a sitting judge and a QC lawyer. Neither was ever contacted. So they simply compile a “dossier” on gun owners for future confiscation. There is no other “useful” purpose for the C-68 attack on the honest.
Sadly the police USED to be our friends and protectors. Gun owners were the biggest supporters of the police. Now the police have been turned into instruments of terror. It is unfair to the honest police officers and vicious, as many examples show, of how the police are used now to intimidate rather than protect honest citizens. When the police used to use our range and come in for coffee and a snack, now if people see a police car come into their yard they wonder if they are coming for coffee or to taser them and confiscate their property.
We are all just one [invented] “anonymous tip” from losing not only our firearms, but our freedom and ALL property and livelihood as well. C-68 has turned Canada into a “Culture of Fear.” Criminals, in the meantime, are laughing all the way to their next HOME INVASION which wasn’t even a term heard of 30 years ago.
Sadly, I would suggest that this line of commentary is what gives firearm owners a negative reputation for paranoia and being ‘redneck.’ The underlying story presented here is that what happens in the States is all good, and what is happening here in Canada is all bad. The reality is not even close to what is presented. Police are not instruments of terror, pounding on every gun owners door causing that these people to lose their freedom, livelihood, and ALL property on the basis of one anonymous tip. That’s just rubbish, and does both the typical gun owner and police officer that abides by the law a great disservice. Are there bad police officers? Of course there are, but there are also bad legal gun owners who don’t abide by the law. I suspect that many of the stories that are presented as being persecution of firearm owners do, in fact, have a legitimate legal basis. For example, the case of the seized sub-machine recently outlined here was an instance of a firearm that was illegally owned and stored. Yes, the police acted improperly for which the Court castigated the officers, but that doesn’t change the fact that the firearm was illegal.
As for not being called as a reference and the questions being asked, I would suggest that one views the situation from a more positive perspective. If one is not called as a reference, then it means that there is nothing alarming to the reviewer about the application that requires further investigation. (It wouldn’t surprise me if there wasn’t a random sampling of non-alarming applications that are subjected to further investigation as a matter of quality control, which is a good thing as it increases the validity of the overall program.) This is not compiling a dossier for future confiscation, but rather simply recognizing that the majority of individuals applying for firearm ownership are not dangerous to either themselves or others. The questions are designed to elicit information that would help identify someone who perhaps shouldn’t be granted a licence because the simple answer for the majority of people would be “there hasn’t been an instance of _____ to describe.’ End of story, next question. We, as firearm owners, should be looking at this as a positive as it strengthens our position that Canadian firearm owners are not the mentally, socially and/or emotionally unstable lunatic-fringe that certain anti-gun groups would like other Canadians to believe.
Firearm ownership has inherent rights, privileges and obligations. Society reasonably expects that firearm owners be initially vetted and that owners will obey the law. Firearm owners reasonably expect that the law will be rational and not overly-restrictive. Our ability to say that we are vetted and obey the law is our strength in refuting the anti-gun propaganda. Accordingly, we need to focus on the irrational and overly restrictive aspects of law without resorting to hyperbole. Such an approach allows the focus of the argument to be shifted from legal and law-abiding owners to the individuals that have no respect for the law.