From: "Gunter, Lorne (EDM_EXCHANGE)", [EMAIL PROTECTED] to appear in the Edmonton Journal Friday 2 June 2000 For all the ink I've spilled opposing Ottawa's firearms registry and defending the right of Canadians to own firearms, there's one number the federal government keeps throwing around that I kind of, sort of wish were true. I'm reluctant to concede even that much, lest I find myself being quoted approvingly by some anti-gun politician, bureaucrat or activist as favouring the federal gun registry in any way. However, the federal claim that the new Firearms Act has led to more refusals and revocations of licenses than the old law is a worthy defence of the legislation, to the extent it is valid and relevant. The trouble is, the refusal/revocation rate being claimed is likely grossly exaggerated (and thus invalid). And as a defence of the registration of all firearms, the refusal or revocation of licenses to gun owners is entirely irrelevant. As of early May, federal Justice Minister and Edmonton MP Anne McLellan was claiming 1,643 firearms licenses had been refused or revoked across the country since the Firearms Act (C-68) came into effect on December 1, 1998. David Austin of McLellan's department wrote this newspaper claiming that total represented "over 15 times more revocations from potentially dangerous individuals than the total for the past five years." It's a comforting number. No one more than law-abiding gun owners wants to keep guns out of the hands of nuts and criminals. Unfortunately, the 1,643 figure is probably meaningless, and as such, dishonest as a defence of the new act. For one thing, very few of the license applications being received by the CFC are error-free. The forms are so convoluted (containing more than 130 information fields) that according to the RCMP's records "fewer than...10 per cent of license applications arriving at the Central Processing Site (in Miramichi, N.B.) are without error." The license forms are so Byzantine both the applicants and the processing clerks are struggling with them. And since even one error can lead to a refusal or revocation of a license to own firearms, and since the forms of even the most honest gun owners are rife with errors, what does Ottawa expect? Of course there is a high refusal/revocation rate. Then there are the refusals due to incorrect police FIP files. The FIP or Firearms of Interest to Police is a huge national database (yep, another one) which collects reports of violent incidents across the country, as well as the names of anyone involved with them. More than 10 per cent of Canadians are listed by name in the FIP. The trouble is, the FIP often fails to distinguish between the witnesses to an assault and the assailant. A Canadian who turns in a crook is nearly as likely to be refused a firearms license as the crook is, since the FIP is sloppy and mammoth and very poor at distinguishing between the good guys and the bad guys. In his latest report, Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips tells the story of one law-abiding gun owner who was refused a license three times because his name is similar to that of a bad guy contained in a FIP file. The owner eventually got his license, and a permanent correction to his mistaken identity in FIP. But the Justice department would not commit to correcting hundreds of other potentially mistaken computer matches. How many of McLellan's vaunted 1,643 revocations/refusals are computer glitches similar to this one? Probably a lot, but since McLellan refuses to release even basic statistics about the reasons for refusing licenses, Canadians will not know soon. The Canadian Firearms Centre also operates a hotline for gun owners' spouses, who may call in confidence to report their partners as threats to public safety. Since an unverified complaint to this hotline is enough to cause a license to be refused, at least temporarily, how many of the 1,643 are merely unfounded troublemaking by vindictive spouses? There have been more than 3,200 calls. The government also has to answer to the low rate of refusals under the old system. Under the laws that existed before C-68, Ottawa had all the power it ever needed to revoke the firearms certificate of anyone suspected of spousal abuse or convicted of crimes. Why was an obscenely expensive and highly intrusive registry needed to get results? Justice argues the difference is the faster background checks possible with its new computers. Okay, so ask for new computers instead of a draconian, paranoid new law. Besides, even instant background checks will not prevent most criminals from buying guns. Criminals don't buy many guns legally in the first place. Nor is successful pre-screening of owners justification for registering all firearms. Car registration does nothing for driver safeness. Registration is a billion-dollar exercise in busywork. Pity, for a minute there I thought I might be able to compliment the Firearms Act. ____________________ Lorne Gunter, Columnist The Edmonton Journal -------[Cybershooters contacts]-------- Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
