While I devote thousands of words every month to the colossal failure that is Canada’s firearm prohibition order system, keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and domestic abusers isn’t a purely Canadian problem.
Case in point: 28-year-old Davante Doss from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Davante Doss is banned from possessing firearms until 2026 because of:
- a domestic violence injunction issued in October, 2016, and
- a conviction for felony bail jumping meant he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.
These prohibition orders didn’t stop Davante Doss from illegally obtaining the rifle he used to murder 16-year-old Fabian Guzman.
Road Rage + Illegal Gun = Dead Teenager
On September 19th, the vehicle carrying Fabian Guzman sideswiped the vehicle driven by Davante Doss. Both vehicles pulled over and Doss grabbed a rifle out of his vehicle and fired ten rounds into the other car, killing Fabian Guzman.
Davante Doss now faces the following charges:
- first-degree reckless homicide
- use of a dangerous weapon
- possession of a firearm by a felon
- possession of a firearm contrary to injunction
How many of those bullets hit Fabian Guzman is not known, but does it really matter? This teenager is dead because an idiot with an illegal gun wanted “to scare them.”
Will the United States fix the flaws in their system that allowed Davante Doss to illegally obtain a firearm?
If Canada’s dedication to fixing our broken and failed firearm prohibition order system is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding “NO.”
And as a result of this inaction, more innocent people will die.
The question we must ask ourselves is this:
Why doesn’t anyone in government care about keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t possess them?
It’s a question no politician seems willing to answer… on either side of the border.
Because of this collective failure, today another family mourns the wholly preventable death of a young man with his whole life ahead of him.
And while those who are prohibited from possessing firearms continue to violate those orders with impunity, politicians continue their call for the confiscation of legally-owned firearms from licensed gun owners in Canada.
Are they really so obtuse that they can’t see the disconnect?
Or do they simply not give a damn?
Chris: They don’t want to ‘harrass’ criminals because they vote liberal. Those who abide by the law are monitored 24/7 by the RCMP. As soon as someone is ‘prohibited’ they are TAKEN OFF the 24/7 watch list, EVEN IF THEY HELD A ‘PAL’ PRIOR to the prohibition order. They WANT it that way. Those in the horrible system who abide by the law have NO RIGHTS, while violent criminal’s RIGHTS MUST BE PROTECTED. It is the liberal way.
So true, John. I discuss all of this and more here: https://christopherdiarmani.com/15421/guns/firearm-prohibition-orders/reform-canadas-firearm-prohibition-order-system-now/
Hi again Chris,
I know that bad people should not have access to guns, and on that note for a second or two here, many reckless and negligent and incompetent people should have their driver’s license pulled and their cars impounded. Many many more people are hurt and maimed by the steering wheel than by the trigger in this modern world of ours.And the repercussions for reckless driving resulting in death or injury are minimal and farcical , except no one on the victim’s side is laughing. Even iCBC appears to revictimize the victim with their Hit and Run policy.
I was very recently broadsided by a vehicle whose driver appeared impaired and the short story of that is that it seems that the dispatcher and / or receiving officer on night shift did not go out and look for someone in our quiet ‘hood bouncing off vehicles and it appears the plate I reported was a switchover to another noncorresponding vehicle and it took over a month for a meeting and statement with that rcmp officer.
Just compare if a “shots fired report ” was sent out and how many police would be blanketing the area”.
Why can’t SWAT teams be used to track down impaired reports?
Rolling death with no responses from LEO! Until someone is killed.
this is my “part one” …
my “part two”…
on the subject matter of firearms prohibitions, I’ve been wanting to ask what you think about the organized groups of “non licensed firearms owners coalition” of BC and elsewhere in canada that sprung up overnight after C-68? I’m sure many of these people still exist and perhaps a few have been slapped by prohibition orders when innocently stumbling across a Uniform during hunting or shooting and possess no license. Other’s too that have had frivolous false complaints or charges brought about by organized neighborhood bigots or malicious ex partners and the court system with deep pockets stacked against the defendant who must choose the path of least resistance and cave in . What if they chose to deep six a few guns to enable their benign activities of hunting, historical and sentimental beliefs, etc?
Would you categorize them as not worthy of owning a firearm because they broke a Law that cannot be easily fought without breaking their bank accounts and years of sleepless nights?
It disturbs me greatly that there is no grey zone of common sense or leniency in our judicial system, that the Crown and RCMP are very adversarial and pugilistic towards firearms owners.
peter.
Hi Peter,
My focus has always been on keeping guns out of the hands of violent offenders. The person who violates the paperwork requirements of the Firearms Act alone does not meet that standard.
For example, one prominent firearms advocate went through a very nasty divorce and, as part of the divorce agreement the judge, not the ex-wife, wanted to apply a 10-year firearms prohibition against the man. He has no history of violence at all, yet the judge wanted to take away his guns.
This is not an example of the people I’m concerned with. He fought the prohibition and won, but this is precisely the arbitrary application of the law I despise.
Every article I write for the category of Firearm Prohibition Orders is about a violent, repeat offender that no law enforcement agency in the country checks on to see if they are compliant with those orders. That’s beyond stupid. In what sane world do you utterly ignore the people who, through their own repeated actions, prove they are a danger to others?
I give a full breakdown of the issue and what we can do about it as a nation, if only the political will existed to do so.
One would think the groups dedicated to preventing domestic violence would be screaming for reforming this system, but they are totally silent. The disconnect baffles me.
I’ve written dozens of columns on people with firearm prohibition orders who get an illegal gun and murder their significant others, so I will never understand why these groups refuse to speak up on this issue but have all day long to advocate for taking guns away from ordinary people who will never harm anyone.
Chris: As my dear friend Dave Tomlinson (Former president of the NFA) used to say at the end of nearly every essay he sent out: “It doesn’t have to make sense. It is government.”