CUFOA
Canadian Unlicensed
Firearms Owners Association
Association canadienne des propriétaires d’armes sans permis
Armes
for Their Defense;
An Inherited, Historical, Canadian Right
     |
Five Reasons the Court Should Return my Firearm
“Armes for their Defense:”
A Right of All Canadians
1. the English Declaration of Rights of 1689,
2. Canadian history, culture, and Common Law,
3. the common history of
4. the necessity to have arms to oppose tyranny, and,
5. the moral imperative to have armes for self-defense.
[T]o provide ... for the issuance
of licences ... under which persons may possess firearms in circumstances
that would otherwise constitute an offence ... .
The Firearms Act, chapter 39, Statues of Canada -1995; p. 4
Book Four / item 20
However, the real purpose of
the Firearms Act is stated in Section 117:
The Governor in Council may
make regulations
(a) regarding the issuance of licenses, authorization certificates
and authorizations, including regulation respecting the purposes for which
they may be issued ... and prescribing the circumstances in which persons
are or are not eligible to hold licences; ...
(c) prescribing the circumstances in which an individual does or
does not need firearms
(1) to protect the life of that individual, ... .
The Firearms Act, chapter 39, Statues of Canada -1995; p. 54
Book Four / item 20
A Revocable permission to commit
some act that would otherwise be unlawful,
Black’s
Law Dictionary, 7th ed,
Bryan A. Garner editor, West Group,
1999
Book Seven / item 2
1977 Bill
C-51: introduced the Firearm Acquisition Certificate (FAC) and made certain
firearms “classes” “prohibited”
and “restricted”.
David Kopel, The Failure of Canadian
Gun Control , p.1
Book Seven / item
16.
1991 Bill C-17: made the application
procedure for an FAC far more restrictive and onerous.
Coalition for Gun Control, The Gun Control Story
Book Seven / item
17
R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443
R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398
R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378
Book Three / items 11, 10, & 9
2 The issue before this Court is
not whether gun control is good or bad, whether the law is fair or unfair
to gun owners, or whether it will be effective or ineffective in reducing
the harm caused by the misuse of firearms. The only issue is whether or
not Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the law.
Reference re Firearms
Act (Can) [2000] 1 S.C.R. p. 4
Book Three / item 1
A. A Constitution “Similar in Principle”
Our Right to possess firearms
comes directly from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 which provides
that citizens may have “Armes for their Defense.”
English Declaration of Rights -1689
Book Four / item 1
This Right was imported into
The preamble to the BNA Act
states that
The
Book Four / item 18
While the
The Laws of England,
3rd ed, Lord Simonds, ed Vol. 7, Butterworth,
1954 p.187
Book Seven / item 1
The Canadian Supreme Court manifest
the importance of the words “similar in Principle”, in Reference:
re Remuneration of Judges,:
Judicial independence is an
unwritten norm, recognized and affirmed by the preamble to the Constitution
Act, 1867 -- in particular reference to “a Constitution similar
in principle the that of the United Kingdom ... The preamble ... invites
the courts to turn those principles into the premise of a constitutional
argument that culminates in the filling of gaps in the express terms of
the constitutional text ...
Reference: re Remuneration Judges Prov Court P.E.I., [1997] 3 S.C.R.
p. 5 Per C.J. Lamer
Book Two / item 5
In Reference: Re Secession of
Quebec, the Supreme Court noted:
Our Constitution is primarily
a written one, the product of 131 years of evolution. Behind the written
word is an historical linage stretching back through the ages which aids
in the consideration of the underlying constitutional principles ... they
are vital unstated assumptions upon which the text is based {paragraph
49} ...
Canadians have long recognized
the existence and importance of unwritten constitutional principles in
our system of government {paragraph 52} ...
Underlying constitutional principles
may in certain circumstances give rise to substantive legal obligations
(have “full legal force and effect,” as we described in the
Partition Reference ... .{paragraph 54} ...
The evolution of our democratic
principles can be traced back to the Magna Carta (1215) and... in the
English Bill of Rights of 1689 ... and eventually, the achievement of
the Constitution itself in 1867. {paragraph 63}
Reference: re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. ; pp.20 - 23
Book One/ item 2
In one of the most important
constitutional decisions of modern Canadian history, the Supreme Court
in their 1981 decision Reference: Resolution to Amend the Constitution,
noted:
It is unnecessary here to embark
on any historical review of the “court” aspect of Parliament
and the immunity of its procedures from judicial review. Courts come into
the picture when legislation is enacted and not before (unless references
are made to them ...). It would be incompatible with the self-regulating
-- “inherent” is as apt a word-- authority of Houses of Parliament
to deny their capacity to pass any kind of resolution. Reference may appropriately
be made to art. 9 of the [English] Bill of Rights of 1689, undoubtedly
in force as part of the law of
Reference: Resolution to Amend Constitution [1981] 1 S.C.R.; p.
785
Book One/ item 3
Significantly, the English Declaration
of Rights is also used by Canadian courts to protect citizens’ most
basic freedoms, e.g.:
We in Canada adopted through
the preamble of our constitution the legislative restraint set out in
s. 10 of the English Bill of Rights 0f 1688 (sic 1689), I Wm. & M.
sess. 2, c. 2, which states:
10. That excessive bail ought
not be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments
inflicted.
R. v. Smith (Edward Dewey), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045;
p. 15, para 24
Book Two / item 2
The English Declaration of Rights
0f 1689 also protects the presumption of innocence of Canadians as noted
in R. v. Demers:
[I]n importing certain principles
found in the United Kingdom, the Constitution Act, 1867 incorporated principles
of civil liberties and human rights embedded in English constitutional
history ... “residing in the theory of government these documents
proclaim.” These documents ... were the Magna Carta and the [English]
Bill of Rights of 1689 ... .
R. v. Demers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489, p. 21, para 82
Book Two/ item 1
While the English Declaration
of Rights restricts the legislative range of the federal Parliament in
Parliamentary privilege, therefore,
is one of the ways in which the fundamental constitutional separations
of power is respected. In
Historically, the legislative
source of some privileges (e.g., art. 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689)
did not diminish the jurisdictional immunity they attracted. {paragraph
34}
Book 2 / item 3
Thus through the preamble of
our Constitution we, the citizens of
B. “Subject
to their condition and as allowed by law”
What does “Armes for their Defense”
mean ?
In 1689 the meaning of the English
Declaration of Rights was quite clear. The framers of the Declaration
intended never again to be disarmed and subjugated by a tyrannical ruler.
The words of the framers of the Declaration make that clear - see Appendix
A. The citizens declared the Right to be armed for their defense as one
of their “true, ancient, and indubitable”
Rights. Significantly, they secured this Right in a Convention Parliament
before they offered the crown to The Prince of Orange and
Mary. Extremely import to note, the device of a Convention Parliament
has only been used three times in all of English history; each time in
a period of extreme national crisis - see Appendix B. As noted by the
first acts of Parliament after the coronation of William and Mary, the
new Parliament took pains to ensure that their previous actions as a Convention
Parliament would be recognized as legitimate.
I William & Mary, c.1,
Book Four / item 2
I William & Mary, c. 6
Book Four / item 3
While the Declaration was decidedly
biased in favor of Protestants, English Catholics were never denied firearms
for personal protection. {see Malcolm} Two court quickly established the
significance of the Declaration’s protection of the private ownership
of firearms. In 1739 in Rex versus
The defense objected “that
a gun is not mentioned is the statue of [the Game Act, 1706], and though
there may be many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted,
yet they are only such as can used for the destruction of the game, whereas
a guns necessary for defense of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows.”
The court agreed with the defense
and concluded: “We are of the opinion, that a gun differs from nets
and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose, and therefore the
conviction should be quashed.”
Rex v.
Book Three / item 3
And in 1752: in Wingfield versus
Plaintiff appealed his conviction
and the confiscation of a gun and a dog, the dog being a “setting
dog” and the gun “an engine” for killing game. The conviction
was overturned. The court explained:
“It is not to be imagined,
that it was the Intention of the Legislature, ... to disarm all the People
of England. ... a gun may be kept for the
Defense of a Man’s House, and for divers other lawful Purposes,
... .
Wingfield vers. Stratford & Osman, Hilary Term, 25 Geo.II 1752
Book Three / item 4
Thus the courts recognized the
necessity of personal firearms for self-protection.
William Blackstone in his 1765
“Commentaries” underscored perhaps the most compelling reason
for the Right of individual ownership of firearms, the protection of all
of our civil liberties:
But in vain would these rights
be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws,
if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual
enjoyment ... ‘auxiliary rights meant to protect all others’
is that of having arms for their defense ... It is, indeed, a publick
allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and
self preservation, when the sanctions of society and the laws are found
insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
While Blackstone acknowledged
that “restraints” on the possession of firearms
may be necessary, he emphasized that the restraints would be:
in
themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther inquiry,
that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 4 vols.;
1st ed. (London, 1765-1769, repr Chicago, 1979), I:136 & 139
Even while the British fought
the Revolutionary War in the American Colonies and the Gordon Riot in
The right of his majesty's Protestant
subjects, to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful
purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered,
by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the
realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times,
[for] the preservation of the public peace.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee, The Right of the People to Keep
and Bear Arms: The
Common Law Tradition,
Vol. 10: 285-314 (1983)
Book Five / item 3
Significantly, in 1819 when
the English working class began to demand better conditions and several
people were killed and hundreds wounded in the Peterloo Massacre, the
Right of the people to have arms for self-defense was acknowledged by
the court:
A man has a clear right to arms
to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself
when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is
traveling or going for the ordinary purposes of business.
King against George Dewhurst & Others
Book Three / item 2
Even though revolution, riot,
and rebellion, English Common Law has recognized and validated the private
ownership of firearms free from the restraint of a licence.
II. The
Inherited “Rights, Privileges, and Immunities” of North Americans
A. British Charters, Proclamations, and Acts
“Let an Englishman go where he will, he carries as much of law and liberty
with him, as the nature of things will bear.”
With the discoveries of Christopher
Columbus, Europeans began to explore and colonize the
The Royal Charter of Virginia
of 1606 is typical:
Also we do ... DECLARE ... that
all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit
within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and
every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the
Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall
HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of
our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been
abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or
any other of our said Dominions.
First Virginia Charter - 1606
Book Four / item 5
For two hundred years British
men, women, and children left
So firmly was this belief established
that in 1720, Richard West, counsel to the English Board of Trade, gave
this description of the state of law in the colonies:
The Common Law of England is
the Common Law of the Plantations, and all statutes in affirmance of the
Common Law, passed in England antecedent to the settlement of a colony,
are in force in that colony, unless there is some private Act to the contrary;
though no statutes, made since those settlements, are there in force unless
the colonies are particularly mentioned. Let an Englishman go where he
will, he carries as much of law and liberty with him, as the nature of
things will bear.
Roy G. Weatherup, Standing Armies And Armed Citizens:
An Historical
Analysis of The Second Amendment, 1975
Quarterly. Originally published as 2
Notably, most of these royal
charters granted the settlers the right to make war in defense of their
settlements. The 1632 Charter of Maryland is typical:
But because, that in so remote
a Region, placed among so many barbarous Nations, the Incursions as well
of the Barbarians themselves, as of other Enemies, Pirates and Ravagers,
probably will be feared. Therefore We have Given,... as full and unrestrained
Power, as any Captain-General of an Army ever hath had, ... to summon
to their Standards, and to array all men, of whatsoever Condition, or
wheresoever born, ... to wage War, and to pursue, even beyond the Limits
of their Province, the Enemies and Ravagers aforesaid, infesting those
Parts by Land and by Sea, and (if God shall grant it) to vanquish and
captivate them, and the Captives to put to Death, ... .
Charter of
Book Four / item 9
Along with Indian attack, the
English settlers of
The Perpetual Acts of the General Assemblies of
Book Seven / item 10
With
[F]or the security of the Liberties
and Properties of those who are and shall become Inhabitants thereof,
... by this Our Proclamation, ... under our Great Seal of Great Britain,
... those Colonies and Provinces in
Royal Proclamation - 1763
Book Four / item 14
The Quebec Act of 1774, and
especially the Constitution Act of 1791, issued by King George III after
the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, reaffirmed
The
Book Four / item 15
The Constitution Act - 1791
Book Four / item 16
Thus, during the years leading
up to
The continuing importance of
the Royal Proclamation is not lost to
Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; p. 14
R. v . George, (1963), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 31; p.4
Book Three / items 7 & 8
Specifically concerning the
importance of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 the court noted:
86
The Royal Proclamation must be interpreted liberally, and any matters
of doubt resolved in favour of aboriginal peoples: ... Further, the Royal
Proclamation must be interpreted in light of its status as the “Magna
Carta” of Indian rights in North America and Indian “Bill
of Rights”: ...
R. v.
Book Three / item 5
And
The
Proclamation confers Rights on the Indians without necessarily thereby
extinguishing any other right ....
R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; p. 18
Book Three / item 6
The Rights guaranteed to the
citizens of
B. Canada’s Unique Cultural Heritage: Responsible Firearm’s
Ownership
Some Canadians, in a perverse
desire “not to be like Americans,” have attempted to create
a myth that
By 1665 virtually every parish
in what was known as "the new world" could muster some form of militia
for local protection.
http://www.legion.ca/asp/docs/about/MilHeritage_e.asp
Canadians have used their personal
firearms to defend their homes and to defend their country, both from
our neighbors to the south and from international aggressors. It is indeed
unfortunate that the over sixty-eight thousand Canadian dead from World
War I and the over forty-six thousand Canadian dead from World War II
are not buried in
With the European introduction
of firearms into North America in the early seventeenth century as an
item of trade, Canada’s First Nations people very readily relinquished
the bow and arrow for firearms for personal defense, warfare, and hunting.
As the European demand for more furs from
Simon v. The Queen,
[1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; p.1
Book Three / item 7
In this manner for over three
hundred years Canadians, both Aboriginal and immigrant, by culture and
heritage, have owned and used firearms responsibly without a licence.
III. The
American Perspective
I am aware that in Hasselwander Justice Cory was dismissive of the American jurisprudence
concerning the Right of individuals to possess firearms.
h
R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398 ; p. 8 para 2
Book Three / item 10
I sincerely hope this court
will thoughtfully consider the history of the debate in the
When one compares the
As Dr Gary Mauser of
Justice Book Seven / item 13
Mauser, Gary A., The Failed Experiment Gun Control
and Public Safety in
November 2003
Book Six /item 7
John Dixon, The gang that couldn’t shoot straight,
Globe & Mail,
Book Seven / item 6
David Kopel, The Failure of Canadian
Gun Control , p.1
Book Seven / item
16.
Breitkreuz, MP., Garry, But Did Our gun Laws Actually
Save Any Lives ?
Press
Release
Breitkreuz, MP., Garry, RCMP Say They Have No Information
on Why
70-Years of Registering Handguns Hasn’t Worked,
Press Release
Book Six / item 10
Goodchild, Sophie, & Paul Lashmar, Up to 4m guns
in
losing the battle,
The Independent
Book Six /item 14
IV. Defense
Against Tyranny and State Sponsored Genocide
A. The Lesson of History: Protection from Tyranny
Those who cannot remember the
past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, p. 284
"I came to
—
Maclean's "Taking
Aim on Guns", 1994 April 25, page 12.
Regrettably, history teaches
that individuals more often need protection from
their government than by their government. Abuse
of government power, tyranny, is not a popular subject. As Lord Acton
reminds us:
Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This corruption of power is
not limited to dictatorships, but occurs just as easily in democratic
states as Swiss author J.L. DeLolme, (1740-1806) noted of the English
government in 1755,
[It
is] absolutely necessary, for securing the Constitution of a State, to
restrain the Executive power ... it is still more necessary to restrain
the legislative. What the former can do only by successive steps (I mean
subvert the laws) and through a longer or shorter train of enterprises,
the latter does in a moment. As its bare will can give being to the laws;
so its bare will can also annihilate them: ... the Legislative power can
change the Constitution as God created the light.
J.L. DeLolme, The Constitution of
The necessity of the private,
individual ownership of firearms as protection against tyranny is not
simply an “outdated” American idea. Through the ages philosophers
and statesmen have warned of the dangers of government abuse of power.
The warnings of the philosophers are recorded for our enlightenment
- see Appendix F.
In 1761 when James Otis wrote
Against Writs of Assistance he did not consider it “a
chimerical suggestion of a heated brain” to suggest that the Parliament
of Great Britain was abusing the Liberties of her citizens. Does it take
an over-stimulated brain or a wildly fanciful imagination to suggest that
now in
B. State Sponsored Genocide
More people have been murdered
by their government than by criminals.
Kates, Don B., Democide and Disarmament,
(2003), p.1
Book Six/ item 6
That is a sobering statement,
but as the list of genocides reveals, genocide is not a once-in-a-millennium
aberration that died with the defeat of the German Nazi war machine in
1945 Genocide continues unabated - see Appendix G. As the authors on the
articles about genocide demonstrate, too many Canadians have been bombarded
with false propaganda and therefore believe that firearms are inherently
dangerous. Governments, not firearms, are more often the problem.
Kates, Don B., Henry E. Schaffer, Ph.D., John K. Lattimer, M.D.,
George B.
of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda ? 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994)
Book Six/ item 2
Polsby, Daniel D., & Don B. Kates, Of Holocausts
and
U. L.Q. 1237 (1997)
Book Six/ item 4
Olson, Joseph E. & David B. Kopel, All the Way
Down the Slippery Slope:
Gun Prohibition in
Hamiline
Law Review Vol. 22, April 1999
Book Six/ item 5
As retired Canadian General
Romeo Dallaire makes brutally clear in Shake Hands with the
Devil, genocide is something that the people of the world must face,
or be forced to endure again and again.
In light of these international
outrages against humanity should citizens
be forced to ask the government for permission to own firearms ? Is
The fact that the Canadian Criminal
Code has recently been amended to include “hate crimes” seems
to argue that
As Hurricane Katrina has so
graphically demonstrated, when the “thin veneer of civilization”
is violently stripped away, self-protection becomes an individual responsibility.
Gery Klein, It could very well happen here, StarPhoenix
Book Seven / item 18
The warning of Canadian historian,
writer, and poet George Woodcock is apropos:
When the duty to obey without
question is accepted, that is the moment of freedom’s death.
George Woodcock (1912 - 1995), Civil Disobedience Seven
Talks for
CBC Radio, T.H.
Best,
The Firearms Act
demands obedience to rules and regulations which make the mere possession
of a firearm illegal. Obedience to the Firearms Act would
indeed be the moment of Freedom’s death.
History teaches that citizens
can not trust their government when the government begins to restrict
the access to the necessary means to self-defense.
For the good of all humanity,
I implore the court to declare this unjust, immoral federal licensing
scheme unconstitutional.
V. Self-defense:
A Moral Imperative
A. The Bible, The Torah, and The Talmud
The Torah and the Old Testament
of the Bible are rife with examples of God’s instructions for His
people to defend themselves - see Appendix H.
Not only are we to defend ourselves
during invasions and foreign domination, we are to defend our homes and
lives from thieves. While the Sixth Commandment of the Old Testament,
which is recognized as sacred Scripture by Jews, Christians, and Muslims,
explicitly prohibits murder; (“Thou shall not murder,” The
Torah, Exodus 20.13), the scripture instructs persons to defend themselves
with deadly force when their home is being robbed. The Torah, Exodus 22.1
declares:
“If a thief be found breaking
in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness
for him.”
The Jewish Talmud expands upon
this premise:
What is the reason for the law
of breaking in ? Because it is certain that no man is inactive where his
property is concerned; therefore this one [the thief] must have reasoned,
“If I go there, he [the owner] will oppose me and prevent me; but
if he does, I will kill him.” Hence the Torah
decreed “If he comes to slay thee, forestall by slaying him.”
Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994, 2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud:
Tractate Berakoth 1990, 58a, 62b.
As David Kopel explains:
This ... is sometimes translated
as “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”
This ... does not delegate discretion;
it is a positive command. A Jew has a duty to use deadly force to defend ... against murderous attack.
David B. Kopel, The Torah and Self-Defense,
Review, Vol. 109, No. 1, pp. 17-42,
2004 ; p. 29
Book Seven / item 3
The Current Catholic Catechism
(1994) states the principle in this manner:
2321 The prohibition of murder
does not abrogate the right to render an unjust
aggressor unable to inflict harm.
2263 "The act of self-defense
can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the
killing of the aggressor ... The one is intended, the other is not."[St.
Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.]
2264 Love toward oneself
remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate
to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends
his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor
a lethal blow:
http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/wlegitimate_defense.htm
While some religious groups
suggest nonviolence in the face of personal attack, Thomas Paine succinctly
states the underlining problem of this approach:
Could the
peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and
the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world
of angels . . . [The] peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun
by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defense.
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand, arms like the laws discourage and keep the invader and the
plunder in awe, and preserve order in the world, as well as property.
... Horrid mischief would ensure were one half the world deprive of the
use of them; the weak will become prey to the strong.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809), Thoughts on Defensive War,
1775
Thus when asked about the utility
of nonviolence as a means of self-defense, the leader of Tibetan Buddhism,
The Dalai Lama, offered his belief:
[l]ogically you have the responsibility
to protect. Then if something attacks, a human being is going to attack
on your child, then if you let that person attack not only does your child
suffer, but then that person (also) committed a negative action. Then,
I think, thinking both sides, the protection of your child ... –
with that motivation stop, if necessary with some stick or even gun.
If someone has a gun and is
trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own
gun.
The Dalai Lama, CBC Interview & The
The English philosopher John
Locke captures the essence of self-preservation
as “not simply or primarily a right, but ... a duty to God.”
[I]t being reasonable and just
I should have a Right to destroy thast which threatens me with Destruction.
For by the Fundamental Law of Nature ... one may destroy
a Man who makes War upon him ... for the same Reason, that he may kill
a Wolf, or a Lyon; because such Men are not under the ties of the Common
Law of Reason ... so may be treated as Beast of Prey ...
“This makes it Lawful
for a Man to kill a Thief, who has not in the least hurt him ... let his
pretense be what it will ... therefore it is Lawful for me ... to kill
him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself ... .”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, (in
Two Treatises on
Government, ed Peter Laslett,
278- 281, 284 [1988] in
Gun Control and
Rights, ed Andrew
J. McClung, David B. Kopel, and Brannon P. Denning
Obviously one does not need
to be a believer in the Judeo-Christian God to have a firm belief in self-protection,
for as
[T]herefore, is a law, O judges,
not written, but born with us,--which we have not learnt or received by
tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in and imbibed
from nature herself; a law which we were not taught but to which we were
made,--which we were not trained in, but which is ingrained in us,--namely,
that if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from
the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety
is honourable. For laws are silent when arms are raised, and do not
expect themselves to be waited for ... .
Even Thomas Hobbes, the great
apologist for the sovereignty of the monarchy recognized the inalienable
right of self-preservation:
Of the First and Second Natural
Laws and of Contracts: A covenant not to defend myself from force, by
force, is always void. For ... no man can transfer or lay down his right
to save himself from death ...
An individual can neither sell
nor give away his right of self-defense. This is an inalienable right.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan pt II Chap 29, pp. 80/82 & p. 85
Or as Hugo Grotius, the “Father
of International Law” said:
[W]hen our lives are threatened
with immediate danger, it is lawful to kill the aggressor, if the danger
cannot be otherwise avoided .... [T]his kind of defense derives its origin
from the principle of self-preservation, which nature has given every
living creature ... . For I am not bound to submit to the danger or mischief
intended, any more than to expose myself to the attack of a wild beast.
Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace,
(ed. A.C.
The practicality of having a
firearm for self-defense was most vividly demonstrated by John Adams (1735
- 1826), defense attorney, in recalling the testimony at the trial of
the British soldiers accused of murder in the so-called Boston Massacre
of 1770, in which the unit commanding officer did not give the order to
fire:
[P]eople crying “kill
them! kill them! knock them over!” heaving snowballs, oyster shells,
clubs, white birch sticks. ... consider yourselves, in this situation,
and then judge whether a reasonable man . . . would not have concluded
they were going to kill him.
He was knocked down at his station,
... Had he not reason to think his life in danger?
If an assault was made to endanger
their lives, the law is clear, they had the right to kill in self-defense
. . . .
From the trial of Pvt.
Constitutional Rights Foundation, Bill
of Right in Action, Winter 1999
(16:1)
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria16_1.html
We have a God-given, moral imperative
to defend ourselves. To defend ourselves we must
have effective means to do so. For the government to require a licence
to those means is for the government to deny those means.
C. The “Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law”
Many of the cases which I have
presented to the court dwell long and laboriously on “The Rule of
Law.”
Reference:
Book One / item 1
But the preamble to the Charter
of Rights and Freedom recognizes two founding principles:
Canada
is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the
rule of law
The Constitutions Act, Schedule B, 1982; p.1
Book Four / item 19
In Halsbury’s The Laws
of England helps to explain the significance of God in the British Constitution.
The Holy Bible is mentioned as being:
presented [to the sovereign]
as the most valuable thing on earth, and signifies wisdom, royal law,
and the lively oracles of God;
And at the coronation the
Sovereign is presented the orb which signifies:
that the whole world is subject
to the empire of Christ.
The Constitution of the United
Kingdom clearly recognizes the preeminence of God and the Holy Scripture.
The Laws of England,
3rd ed, Lord Simonds, edVol. 7, Butterworth , London
1954 p.204
Book Seven / item 1
Therefore, as a founding principle
of the Constitution of Canada, “the supremacy of God,” which
precedes the second principle, “the rule of law,” would seem
to command a greater rank.
If the court should decide that
the “rule of law” grants Parliament the authority to pass
the Firearms Act, I suggest that “the supremacy of God” would
nullify the requirement that we surrender our God-given, inalienable Right
of self-defense.
Conclusions
The Supreme Court recognizes
that:
The
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are not, however, absolute.
It may become necessary to limit rights and freedoms in circumstances
where their exercise would be inimical to the realization of collective
goals of fundamental importance.
R. v. Oakes 1 S.C.R. [1986] 103, p. 17
Book Seven / item 19
But the criminalization of the
mere possession of a firearm goes far beyond the scope of the “so
gentle and moderate” restraint recognized by William
Blackstone.
As the Supreme Court has previously
stated:
The Courts will not question
the wisdom of enactments which, by the terms of the Canadian Constitution
are within the competence of the Legislatures, but it is the high duty
of this Court to insure that the legislatures do not transgress the limits
of their constitutional mandate and engage in the illegal exercise of
power.
Reference: Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C. R. 721; p. 12,
pg 49
Book One / item 1
Therefore, since
-
The English Declaration of Right
of 1689 recognizes “Armes for their Defense” as a basic,
fundamental, essential civil Right,
-
Canadians inherited this Right
from England, and have used firearms throughout our history,
-
The American Right “To
Keep and Bear Arms” is not a “foreign” concept to
Canada, but is part and parcel of our shared North American history,
- The fact that citizens have
more to fear from our their own government than from criminals should
provide ample reason not to submit to a governmental licencing scheme,
and
-
Who would deprive men of the
use of fire for fear of their being burnt ?
Sincerely,
Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS
402 Skeena Crt
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K
4H2
1-306-242-2379
11 September 2005
Appendix
A
English Declaration of Rights,
1689
The Words of the Framers
The significance of the Declaration
of Rights is inherent in the words of the drafters of the document. Recorded
over three hundred years ago, these are the words of the Parliamentary
drafters of the Declaration of Rights:
Anthony Cary, Lord Falkland:
It concerns us to take such
care, that, ... we may secure ourselves from Arbitrary Government. The
Prince’s Declaration is for a lasting Government. I would know what
that foundation is.
Mr. Garroway:
We have had such Violation of
our Liberties in the last reigns, that the prince of Orange cannot take
it ill, if we make conditions, to secure ourselves for the future; and
in it we shall but do justice to those who sent us hither, and not deliver
them up without good reason.
Sir William Williams:
When we have considered the
preservation of the Laws of England for the future, then it will b e time
to consider the persons to fill the Throne.
Sir Richard Temple, complained
of the previous king’s malicious intention:
to disarm all England [and]
to provide for a standing army [in peacetime].
Said another:
Redeem us from Slavery; What
you omit now is lost for ever.
To the concern that they could
not cover everything necessary, Edward Seymore challenged:
Will you do nothing, because
you cannot do it all? Will you establish the Crown, but not secure yourselves
?
Sir John Maynard, at age eighty-six
the “father of the House,” was incensed that:
An Act of Parliament was made
to disarm all Englishmen, whom the Lieutenant should suspect, by day or
night, by force or otherwise ... an abominable thing to disarm a nation
... .
Of the abuses of the militia,
Mr. Boscawen complained:
[U]nder pretense of persons
disturbing the government, disarmed and imprisoned men without any cause
... I myself was so dealt with.
Thomas Earl:
There is a law made against
it soe that tis not the gun or musket that offends but the man that makes
ill use of his Armes and he may be punished for it by the law.
Mr. Finch:
No safety but the consent of
the nation - The constitution being limited, there is good foundation
for defensive arms - It has given us right to demand full and ample security.
The House agreed to assert:
Rights and Liberties of the
Nation, to bring in general Heads of such things as are absolutely necessary
for securing the Laws and Liberties of the Nation.
As note by a contemporary commentator,
Englishmen are “the freest subjects under heaven” because
they have the right:
to be guarded and defended from
all Violence and Force, by their own Arms, kept in their own hands, and
used at their own charge ... .
On 13 February 1689 the Convention
Parliament presented to William and Mary the Declaration of Rights. That
document of thirteen “ true, ancient, and indubitable” Rights
and Liberties forever proclaimed:
That the Subjects which are
Protestants may have Armes for their defense Suitable to their condition
and as allowed by Law.
As Bishop Gilbert Burnet stated
in his history, the Convention Parliament had presented a document meant
to be no less than “a new Magna Carta.”
Above quotes from:
Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms, the Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Harvard
University Press, 1994 pp. 113 - 121
Appendix
B
The Significance of the Convention
Parliament
In January 1689 (New Style date),
the Lords and Commons assembled as a Convention Parliament to declare
the throne vacant and to invite William and Mary to become King and Queen
of England. Before they did so, they took two weeks to formulate a Declaration
of Rights to ensure that their “true, ancient, and indubitable Rights”
would never again be usurped.
The Declaration of Rights is
not simply an act of Parliament. A Convention Parliament is not “summoned”
or called in the normal manner. The Convention Parliament device has only
been used three times throughout a thousand years of English history.
In all three cases the Convention Parliament was used to resolve an highly
unusual circumstance.
The Declaration of Rights is
significantly more than mere “legislation.” The Declaration
of Rights is an international treaty signed as an agreement between a
sovereign people and a prince of a foreign nation.
Convention
Parliament
The term Convention Parliament
has been applied to three different English Parliaments, of 1399, 1660
and 1689.
The definition of the term convention
parliament is generally taken to be:
"A parliament which does not
derive its authority or legitimacy from an existing or previously enacted
parliamentary action or process".
Features
of the convention parliaments
The features which unite the three convention parliaments and which mandate their status as convention parliaments, are:
- The recognition by the convention
of the preceding parliamentary process as having come to an end of its
powers in terms of determining future parliamentary proceedings
- The implicit self-empowerment
of the parliamentary convention to act in place of the preceding process,
thereby establishing its own legitimacy in determining the future of
parliamentary proceedings
Convention Parliament of 1399
The first example of a convention
parliament (a parliament which is not often referred to as a 'convention
parliament' but is always recognized as being one) in September 1399,
came about as a result of the deposition of King Richard II of England
and a parliament which accepted Henry Bolingbroke as King Henry IV of
England.
Convention Parliament of 1660
The second example is the Convention
Parliament also known as the English Convention which was elected in April
1660. It was elected after the Rump of the Long Parliament had finally
voted for its own dissolution. It was predominantly Royalist in its constitution.
It assembled for the first time on the April 25, 1660.
The Convention, after the Declaration
of Breda had been received on the 8th of May, declared that King Charles
II had been the lawful monarch since the death of Charles I in January
1649. The Convention Parliament then proceeded to conduct the necessary
preparation for the Restoration Settlement. These preparations included
the necessary provisions to deal with land and funding such that the new
regime could operate.
Convention Parliament of 1689
This parliament, which met in
1689 after the departure of King James II of England, formally recognized
Prince William of Orange as King William III of England.
A assembly of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and the Commons, the Convention convened on Jan. 22, 1689
to deal with the crisis created by the arrival of William , the flight
of James II, the collapse of the government, and the disappearance of
the Great Seal. On Feb. 12, 1689, the Convention approved the
Declaration of Rights, which enumerated the crimes and illegalities
of James II, declared the throne vacant, and resolved that William and
Mary be made king and queen. On Feb. 20, 1689, one week after William
and Mary became king and queen, the Convention enacted the Parliament
Act of 1689, 1 W. & M., ch. 1, which transformed the convention into
a Parliament, later known as the "Convention Parliament."
http://www.answers.com/topic/convention-parliament
http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~glorious/convention.html
Appendix
C
British Royal Charters of North
American
-
The Raleigh Charter granted
by Elizabeth I in 1585
- The Charter of Virginia granted
by James I in 1606
- Nova Scotia granted by James I in 1625
- The Charter of Massachusetts
Bay granted by Charles I in 1629
- The Charter of Maryland granted
by Charles I in 1632
- The Connecticut Colony Charter
by Charles II in 1662
- The Charter of South Carolina
by Charles II in 1663
- Royal Charter of the Hudson’s
Bay Company by Charles II in 1670
- Charter of Massachusetts Bay
granted by William & Mary in 1691
- The Charter of Georgia by George
II in 1732
Appendix
D
Wars in Canada
1. Beaver Wars 1640-1670
2. European Wars also fought in North America
a. King William's War (1689–97) (War of the Grand Alliance)
b. Queen Anne's War (1702–13) (War of the Spanish Succession)
c. King George’s War 1744 (War of the Austrian Succession)
d. The French and Indian War 1754 - 1763 (The Seven Years War)
3. Pontiac’s Rebellion 1763
4. Revolutionary War 1775 - 1783
5. War of 1812
6. Battle of Seven Oaks 1816 (HBC v. NWC)
7. Patriot's Rebellion in Lower Canada 1837
8. The Upper Canada Rebellion 1837
9. Caroline Affair 1837
10. Aroostook Border War 1839
11. The Pig War 1859 (San Juan Boundary Dispute)
12. Fenian Invasions 1865
13. Red River Rebellion 1869
14. Northwest Rebellion 1885
Canadians in Foreign Wars
- Boer War in South Africa 1899
- 1902
- World War I
- World War II
- Korean War
Canadian International Peace
Keepers
Since 1947,
the Canadian Forces have completed 72 international operations, e.g.,
- Suez 1956
- Cypress 1964
- Middle East 1974
- Rwanda 1994
- Bosnia-Herzegovin 1995
- Afghanistan 2004
Appendix
E
American Jurisprudence:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
- Report of the Subcommittee of
the United States Senate, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
February 1982
- Malcolm, Joyce Lee, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 10:285-314
(1983).
- Hardy, David T. Armed Citizens: Towards a Jurisprudence of
the Second Amendment 9 Harv. J.L. Pub. Pol’y 559-638 (1986)
- Vandercoy, David E. The History of the Second Amendment 28
Val. L. Rev. 1007-1039 (1994)
- Cottrol, Robert J. & Raymond
T. Diamond, The Fifth Auxiliary Right Yale Law Journal,
Vol. 104: 995-1026 (1995)
- Malcolm, Joyce Lee, Gun control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second
Amendment Tennessee Law Review vol. 62, no. 3 (1995)
- Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney
General Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual
Right 24 August 2004
Appendix
F
The Admonitions of the Philosophers
As noted by Sir Walter Raleigh
(1552 - 1618), who was framed in a plot against James I, a basic principle
of a tyrant is:
to
unarm his people of weapons, money, and all means whereby they resist
his power.
The Works of Sir Walter Raleigh, ed T. Birch, 8 vols (Oxford,
1829), 3:22 (pp 9)
James Harrington (1611–1677),
English political philosopher and author of Commonwealth of
Oceana (1656) who was imprisoned in the Tower
of London and held without trial by Charles II, had this to say about
a citizen’s relation to government:
The election or suffrage of
the people is most free, where it is made or given in such a manner that
it can neither oblige nor disoblige another, nor through fear of an enemy,
or bashfulness toward a friend, impair a man's liberty.
John Locke, (1632-1704), was
less sanguine in his view of the trustworthiness of government:
Any single man must judge for
himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands
of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged
to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover,
is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty
to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to
the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights
without which we can preserve no other.
Locke continues:
For the legislative acts against
the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property of
the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters
or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.
§ 222. Whensoever, therefore,
the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and
either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves,
or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives,
liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit
the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends,
and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original
liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall
think fit), provide for their own safety and security, which is the end
for which they are in society.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, (1680-1690)
Algernon Sydney (1623 –
1683), was more explicit:
That which is not just, is not
Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed.
[T]he
principle of liberty in which God created us . . . includes the chief
advantages of the life we enjoy, as well as the greatest helps towards
felicity, that is the end of our hopes in the other. I:2:5
[T]hey
could not . . . lay more approved foundations, than, that man is naturally
free; that he cannot be justly deprived of that liberty without cause;
and that he does not resign it, or any part of it, unless it be in consideration
of a greater good, which he proposes to himself. I:2:5
The
Liberty of a people is the gift of God and nature. III:33:406.
The
legislative power is always arbitrary, and not to be trusted in the hands
of any who are not bound to obey the laws they make. III:45:455.
It
is ill, that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults, and wars;
but it is worse, to bring nations to such misery, weakness, and baseness,
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have
nothing left worth defending, and to give the name of peace to desolation.
II:26:206.
Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, ed. Thomas West, Indianapolis,
Ind.: Liberty Classics, 1990
Andrew Fletcher (1653 - 1716)
member of the Scottish Parliament, understood the process of parliament
very well. He had some observations which we need to heed:
The possession of arms is the
distinction between a freeman and a slave. He who has nothing, and belongs
to another, must be defended by him, and needs no arms: but he who thinks
he is his own master, and has anything he may call his own, ought to have
arms to defend himself and what he possesses, or else he lives precariously
and at discretion. And though for a while those who have the sword in
their power abstain from doing him injury; yet, by degrees, he will be
awed into submission to every arbitrary command. Our ancestors, by being
always armed, and frequently in action, defended themselves against the
Romans, Danes and English; and maintained their liberty against encroachments
of their own princes.
Andrew Fletcher, A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias , (1698)
Swiss author J.L. DeLolme, (1740-1806)
made this observation of the English government in 1755:
[It
is] absolutely necessary, for securing the Constitution of a State, to
restrain the Executive power ... it is still more necessary to restrain
the legislative. What the former can do only by successive steps (I mean
subvert the laws) and through a longer or shorter train of enterprises,
the latter does in a moment. As its bare will can give being to the laws;
so its bare will can also annihilate them: ... the Legislative power can
change the Constitution as God created the light.
J.L. DeLolme, The Constitution of England; or an Account of the English Government,
(New York, 1792), p. 164
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805
- 1859), a Frenchman observing America, has a relevant message for Canadians:
When I refuse to obey an unjust
law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply
appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind.
Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries
of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and
that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it
is represented. But this is the language of a slave.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy
in America, Vol. I 1835 & Vol. II, 1840
Thomas Macaulay (1800 - 1859),
British historian, understood the parliamentary system of government very
well:
The Englishman's ultimate security
depended not upon the Magna Carta or parliament but upon ‘the power
of the sword’ ... the legal check was secondary and auxiliary to
that which the nation held in its own hands ... the security without which
every other is insufficient.
Thomas Macaulay, Critical and Historical Essays, Contributed to Edinburgh Review,
vol I (Leipzig, 1860) pp 154-162
Probably the most telling of
all English commentary on the right of Englishmen to have arms is William
Blackstone (1723 - 1780):
The fifth and last auxiliary
right ... is that of having arms for their defense, ... of the natural
right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society
and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
... security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as
these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species
of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or
other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly
be employed. To preserve these from violation, ... to vindicate these
rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are
entitled ... to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation
and defense. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to
enjoy entire; ... .
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1765 - 1769)
James Burgh (1714-1775), a Scottish
writer who advocated parliamentary reform:
When we elect persons to represent
us in parliament ... We make a lodgment, not a gift; we entrust, but part
with nothing. And, were it possible, that they should attempt to destroy
that constitution which we had appointed them to maintain, they can no
more be held in the rank of representatives than a factor, turned pirate,
can continue to be called the factor of those merchants whose goods he
had plundered, and whose confidence he had betrayed. ... .
That all history shows the necessity,
in order to the preservation of liberty, of every subjects having a watchful
eye on the conduct of Kings, Ministers, and Parliament, and of every subjects
being not only secured, but encouraged in alarming his fellow subjects
on occasion of every attempt upon public liberty.
James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects,
and Abuses, London, 1774-1775
James Otis (1725 - 1783), a
British colonist living in Massachusetts, knew firsthand of the abuses
of the legislative power of Parliament:
Now, one of the most essential
branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house
is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince
in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally
annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers
may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit
their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and
everything in their way; and whether they
break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion
without oath is sufficient.
This wanton exercise of this
power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain.
James Otis, Against Writs of Assistance, February 1761.
Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803),
another British colonist living in Massachusetts makes these points:
Among the natural rights of
the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than
deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first
law of nature. ...
If men, through fear, fraud,
or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural
right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely
vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become
a slave.
The
absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society,
are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.
All persons born in the British
American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common
law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled,
and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to
all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties,
and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm.
Among those rights are the following, ...
The Legislative has no right
to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people;
nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for
angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.
Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
William Pitt, “the Younger”
(1759 - 1806), who advocated peace with the American colonies and parliamentary
reform, reminds us:
Necessity is the plea for every
infringement of human liberty; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the
creed of slaves.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
reminds us laws like the The Firearms Act degrade us,
yet the law offers neither protection nor security:
War is an ugly thing, but not
the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. ...
A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war
to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their
own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice,—is
often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he
is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does
about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of
being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself.
John Stuart Mill, “The
Contest in America,” Dissertations and Discussions,
vol. 1, p. 26 (1868). First published in Fraser’s Magazine,
February 1862
Joseph Story (1779 - 1845),
Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, the American equivalent of William
Blackstone, states:
The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even
if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist
and triumph over them.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Hillard,
Gray & Co., Boston, 1833
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
noted how the British continued to usurp power:
Among the many misdeeds of the
British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole
nation of arms, as the blackest.
Mahatma Gandhi, The Story of my Experiment with Truth p. 238
George Orwell (1903 - 1950),
no stranger to firearms, nor their effects on the human body, reminds
us of our duty:
That rifle hanging on the wall
of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there.
Michael Shelden, Orwell: The Authorized Biography, New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
1991, p. 328
Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), the Italian utilitarian
reformer challenges us:
A principal source of errors
and injustice are false ideas of utility. ... who would sacrifice a thousand
real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience;
who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt,
and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means
of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are
those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed
to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed,
that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity,
and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable
and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so
little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive
the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise
legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable
circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes
the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and
rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to
attack unarmed than armed persons.
Cesare Beccaria , Of Crimes and Punishments, 1764
Translated
by Edward D. Ingraham. 2nd American ed. Philadelphia, Philip H. Nicklin
1819
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
still has a message for Canadians:
Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety.
An Historical Review of the
Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918
-), a survivor of the Soviet gulag, gives
us ample warning of what we may become:
How we burned in the prison
camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police
operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain
whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people
had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang
of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood
they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall
an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever
was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of
officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine
would have ground to a halt.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The
Gulag Archipelago, Vol. I, p.13 Note 5
Appendix
G
Government Sponsored Genocide
Canada: 1755 Acadians
United States: 1830 Cherokee Indians
Turkey: 1866 Armenians
United States: 1890 American Indians
Turkey: 1911 Armenians
Soviet Union: 1929 - 1953 political opposition
Soviet Union: 1932 - 1933 Ukraine
Japan: 1937 Rape of Nanking
Germany: 1938 - 1945 Jews, Gypsies, & Homosexuals
Soviet Union: 1944 Chechnya
China: 1949 -1952
China: 1957 - 1960
Guatemala: 1960 - 1981 Maya Indians
China: 1966 - 1976 Cultural Revolution
Nigeria: 1967 - 1970 Biafra
United States: 1968 My Lai, South Viet Nam
Uganda: 1972 - 1979 Acholi & Lango
Cambodia: 1977 - 1979 Killings Fields
Iraq: 1988 Kurds
China: 1989 Tiananmen Square
Rwanda: 1994 Tutsi
Yugoslavia: 1995 Bosnians
Somalia: 1991 -1995 southern Somalians
Indonesia: 1999 East Timor
Sudan: 2003 - current Darfur
Appendix
H
The Torah and The Bible
Scriptural examples of Self-defense:
Abraham defending Lot (Genesis
14.13-20),
When Abram heard that his kinsman
had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, ...
went in pursuit ... and routed them ...
After his return from the [victory],
Melchizedek ... priest of the God Most High ... blessed him ... .
Moses against Pharaoh (Exodus
13.18 - 15.3),
Torah v. 13.18b “and the
children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.”
Joshua against the Amalekites
(Exodus 17.8 - 14), Torah vv.9 & 13
And Moses said unto Joshua:
“Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will
stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.”
And Joshua discomfited Amelek
and his people with the edge of the sword.
Joshua against the Amorites
(Joshua 10.5 - 11), v. 7
So Joshua went up ... he, and
all the people of war with him, ... And the Lord said, “Do not fear
them, for I have given them into your hands ... .”
Deborah against the Canaanites
(Judges 4.6 - 8),
Now Deborah, a prophetess, ...
said to [Barak], “The Lord God of Israel commands you, ‘Go,
gather your men ... I will draw ... the general ... with his chariots
and his troops; and I will give him into your hand.’ ”
Gideon against the Midianites
(Judges 6.11 - 7.25), vv. 7.19
So Gideon and the hundred men
with him came to the outskirts of the camp ... And the three companies
blew the trumpets and broke the jars ... and cried, “A sword for
the Lord and for Gideon!” ... the Lord set every man’s sword
against his fellow ... and the army fled ..
Samson against the Philistines
(Judges 16.23 - 31), v. 23
Now the lords of the Philistines
gathered ... So they called Samson out of prison, and he made sport before
them ... Then Samson called to the Lord ... Then he bowed with all his
might; and the house fell upon the lords and upon all the people that
were within it ... .
David against Goliath (I Samuel
17. 12 - 53), vv. 37 - 46
And David said, “The Lord
who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear,
will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine ... then .... he chose
five smooth stones from the brook ... with his sling ... Then David said
to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and a spear and
with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts ...
This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you
down, and cut off your head ... that all earth may know that there is
a God in Israel ... .
the Jews in Persia (Ester 8.11
- 14), v. 11
By these [writings] the king
allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives,
to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or
province that might attack them.
Nehemiah in Jerusalem (Nehemiah
4.16 - 20). vv. 11 - 15
And our enemies said, “They
... kill [us] and stop the work.” ... So ... I stationed the people
... with their swords, their spears, and their bows. ... and said ...
“Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and terrible,
and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and
your homes.”
Harper Study Bible The Holy
Bible, Revised Standard Version,
Harold Lindsell, Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978
The Torah,
Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1996
List of Authorities
Book One
Cases
1. Reference: Manitoba Language
Rights, [1985] 1 S.C. R. 721
2. Reference: re Secession of
Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R.
3. Reference: Resolution to
Amend constitution [1981] 1 S.C.R.x
Book Two
Cases
1. R. v. Demers, [2004] 2 S.C.R.
489
2. R. v. Smith (Edward Dewey),
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045
3. Canada (House of Commons)
v. Vaid, [2005] SCC 30
4. Ford Credit Can Ltd. v. Canada
(National Revenue), [1994] BC S.C. 1782
5. Reference: re Remuneration
of Judges of Prov. Court P.E.I., [1997] 3 S.C.R.
Book Three
Cases
1.
Reference re Firearms Act (Can) [2000] 1 S.C.R.
2. King
against George Dewhurst & Others
The King versus George Dewhurst and Others, John Macdonell, ed
Reports
of State Trials, new series, vol I
pp 529-608 *(pp 167)
3. Rex
v. Gardner, Michaelmas Term, 12 Geo. 2
John Strange, Reports of Adjudged Cases in the Courts of Chancery,
King’s
Burn, Justice of the Peace, I:443 *(pp
129)
4. Wingfield
vers. Stratford & Osman, Hilary Term, 25 Geo.II 1752
Joseph Sayer, Reports of Adjudged Cases in the Courts of King’s
Bench
Beginning Michaelmas Term, 25 Geo.
II England Trinity Term, 29 & 30
Geo. II 1751-1756 London, 1775, pp. 15-17 *(pp 129)
5. R.
v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, 2005 SCC 43
6. R.
v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025
7. Simon
v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387
8. R.
v . George, (1963), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 31
9. R.
v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378
10. R. v. Hasselwander, [1993]
2 S.C.R. 398
11. R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2
S.C.R. 443
12. R. v. Wayne Soroka, 17 November
2004 Saskatoon Provincial Court
13. Canadian Council of Churches
v. Canada (Minister of Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
14. Chamberlain v. Surry School
Division No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710
15. Reference: Motor Vehicles
Act [1985] 2 S.C.R.
Book Four
Declarations, Charters, Proclamations,
Acts, and Regulations
1. English Declaration of Rights
-1689
2. I William & Mary, c.1
3. I William & Mary, c.
6
4. Charter to Sir Walter Raleigh
- 1584
5. First Virginia Charter -
1606
6. Charter of New England -
1620
7. Nova Scotia - 1625
8. Charter of Massachusetts
Bay - 1629
9. Charter of Maryland - 1632
10. Charter of Carolina - 1663
11. Royal Charter of the Hudson’s
Bay Company - 1670
12. Charter of Massachusetts
Bay - 1691
13. Charter of Georgia - 1732
14. Royal Proclamation - 1763
15.
The Quebec Act - 1774
16. The Constitution Act - 1791
17. The Colonial Laws Validity
Act - 1865
18. The British North America
Act - 1867
19. The Constitutions Act, Schedule
B, 1982
20. The Firearms Act, chapter
39, Statues of Canada -1995
21. Proposed regulations, Firearms
Act - 1996
Book Five
Authors
1. Report of the Subcommittee
of the United States Senate, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
February 1982
2. Caplan, David I. The Right
of the Individual to Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend 4 Det. L.R.
789-823 (1982)
3. Malcolm, Joyce Lee, The
Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition,
Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 10:285-314 (1983).
4. Hardy, David T. Armed Citizens: Towards a Jurisprudence of
the Second Amendment 9 Harv. J.L. Pub. Pol’y 559-638 (1986)
5. Vandercoy, David E. The History of the Second Amendment 28
Val. L. Rev. 1007-1039 (1994)
6. Cottrol,
Robert J. & Raymond T. Diamond, The Fifth Auxiliary Right
Yale Law Journal, Vol. 104: 995-1026 (1995)
7. Malcolm, Joyce Lee, Gun
control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment
Tennessee Law Review vol. 62, no. 3 (1995)
8. Memorandum Opinion for the
Attorney General Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual
Right 24 August 2004
Book Six
1. United
Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December
1948
Authors
2. Kates,
Don B., Henry E. Schaffer, Ph.D., John K. Lattimer, M.D., George B. Murray,
M.D., & Edwin H. Classem, M.D. Guns and Public Health:
Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda ? 61 Tenn. L. Rev.
513-596 (1994)
3. Latham,
Andrew, Light Weapons and International Security: A Canadian
Perspective, YCISS Occasional Paper No. 41, August 1996
4. Polsby,
Daniel D., & Don B. Kates, Of Holocausts and Gun Control,
75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1237 (1997)
5. Olson,
Joseph E. & David B. Kopel, All the Way Down the Slippery
Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties
in America, Hamiline Law Review Vol. 22, April 1999
6. Kates,
Don B., Democide and Disarmament, SAIS Review 23.1, 305-309
(2003)
7. Mauser,
Gary A., The Failed Experiment Gun Control and Public Safety
in Canada, Australia, England, and Wales Public Policy Sources No.
71 November 2003
8. Diefenbaker
Canada Center, Anne Frank in the World 1929 - 1945, May
2005
9. Wilkins,
Kathryn, Deaths involving firearms, Health Reports vol.
16, No. 4
June 2005
10. Breitkreuz, MP., Garry,
But Did Our gun Laws Actually Save Any Lives ? Press Release 30 June
2005
Breitkreuz, MP., Garry, RCMP Say They Have No Information
on Why 70-Years of Registering Handguns Hasn’t Worked, Press
Release 15 December 2004
11. Zim Online (SA), Police have ordered all civilians to surrender firearms,
30 June 2005
12. Hansen, Darah, & Nicholas
Read, Warriors Society Ready to Defend Native Land, Vancouver
Sun 30 June 2005
13. Editorial, Katrina focuses spotlight on need for disaster plans, StarPhoenix
02 September 2005
14. Goodchild, Sophie, &
Paul Lashmar, Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the
battle, The Independent 04 September 2005
15. Kopel, David B., Paul Gallant,
& Joanne D. Eisen, Micro-Disarmament: The Consequences
for Public Safety and Human Rights, UMKC Law Review, Vol. 73, No.
4, 1-45, (2005)
Book Seven
Books
1. The Laws of England,
3rd ed, Lord Simonds, editor Vol. 7, Butterworth & C0., London 1954
2. Black’s
Law Dictionary, 7th ed, Bryan A. Garner editor, West Group, 1999
Articles
3. David B. Kopel, The Torah and Self-Defense, Penn State Law Review, Vol.
109, No. 1, pp. 17-42, 2004
4. Edward B. Hudson, The Philosophical Basis of Self-Protection, Firearms Ownership, and
Liberty, 2005
5. Edward B. Hudson, “Armes for their Defense” An Inherited, Historical Canadian
Right, 2005
6. John Dixon, The gang that couldn’t shoot straight, Globe & Mail, 28
January 2003
Firearms in Canada
7. Timeline of Firearms in Canada
8. Samuel de Champlain’s
Journal
9. The Northwest Smooth Indian
Trade Gun
10. The Perpetual Acts
of the General Assemblies of Nova Scotia, 1767
11. The Battle of
Seven Oaks, 1816 & John Rowand halts the Blackfoot
charge
12. An Appeal for
Arms, Province of Ontario, 1940
Miscellaneous
13. Murray,J.P.R. , RCMP Letter to Mr. George Thompson, Deputy Minister of
14. Government Sponsored Genocide
15. Overview of English History
16. David Kopel, The Failure of Canadian Gun Control
17. Coalition for Gun Control,
The Gun Control Story
18. Gerry Klein, It could very well happen here, StarPhoenix 01 September 2005
Cases
19. R. v. Oakes
1 S.C.R. [1986] 103
