Canadian Government's Rifle And Shotgun Registry On The Way Out

On December 6, 1989, a madman entered a Montreal University, segregated men and women in a classroom, and shot 14 women with a Ruger Mini 14.

As the 20^th anniversary of the shooting nears, Canadian gun control groups are frantically fighting the demise of the Canadian Long Gun Registry. It is set for a preliminary vote in the House of Commons today. If approved, a second final vote will be needed. The Bill has broad support.

The Firearms Registry Act was passed in 1995. Gun owners were required to obtain a permit by 2001. All guns had to be registered by 2003. The cost of administering the law was supposed to be low, however, with cost over runs, the cost has been about one billion dollars to implement. The Registry has had high costs and less than stellar compliance.

The Canadian version of the Bradys, The Coalition for Gun Control, had this to say about long guns, “Fundamentally, rifles and shotguns are the guns most likely to be used in domestic violence and accidents. This and suicides, particularly among youth. They are the guns most often used to kill police officers."

The President of the “Coalition” believes that if the government doesn’t have information on who owns guns, then they have no way of keeping guns from dangerous people. Perhaps they should explain exactly how that works in practice. They cannot. A gunman entered a "gun free" university and killed women. Is further explanation needed?

Many gun owners support a change in laws that require them to register their firearms and pay for licenses.The bill does not change license requirements.

The Bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis every five years to determine whether existing Canadian gun laws have been effective in improving public safety, keeping guns out of criminal’s hands, and reducing violent crime. It also requires the destruction of registry records.

Under the Parliamentary system in Canada, this bill is a “private Member’s Bill,” and Members of Parliament do not have to vote on strictly party lines.

Update: 11/05/09: With support from 18 Liberals and New Democrats, the private member's bill passed second reading 164-137 and now goes to committee.