Published in the Western Standard, June 19, 2006, p. 19. (Note that the published piece contained an erroneous paragraph, which is deleted in the html version below. An eratum was published in the magazine.)
Sticking to Their Guns
by
Pierre Lemieux
The situation in front of Parliament on May 17 would have been pathetic, were it not for the happy demeanour of the demonstrators. There was a dozen of them, invisible among the tourists. No media had come, with the sole exception of this Western Standard columnist.
The core group was from CUFOA (Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association), and included Ed Hudson, Al Muir, Joe Gingrich, Zenny Martin, Jack Wilson, Ron Pritchard, Med Crotteau, Don Hart and Yvon Dionne (Kingsley Beattie and Earlene Hart had been with the group the day before). It’s worth listing their names, because future historians, if they are still free to read and write, will be looking for them. This small group engaged in civil disobedience is the ultimate oppressed minority: for wanting to preserve their peaceful lifestyles and our traditional liberties, most of them risk 10 years in jail, the maximum penalty in the Criminal Code for having guns without a licence.
From Nova Scotia to British Columbia, the demonstrators had come to Ottawa at their own expense to mark the release, on May 16, of the auditor general’s report on the firearms control program, and to meet some politicos.
Although damning to the previous government, the auditor general’s report only told part of the story. It ignored the basic reason why the registry’s cost ballooned from the original $2 million forecast to close to $1 billion: there is no way but open violence to enforce a law on a minority whose lifestyle is at stake. A few hundred thousand Canadians have not complied with the “law” (so-called), and a few tens of thousands recently let licences lapse and received threatening letters from the government. Since, thus far, the state has been hesitant to use open violence against paper criminals, there was no other alternative but to throw money at the problem.
As for the policy announcement made by the minister of public security on May 17, it was very disappointing: a limited amnesty that does not cover the freedom fighters nor a large number of the paper criminals (including Bruce Montague, now being prosecuted); plus promised future legislation that would only dismantle the less offensive and intrusive components of the jihad against gun owners. It is, at any rate, a far cry—a very far cry—from the resolution adopted at the Conservative party convention in Montreal, a short year ago.
While in Ottawa, the representatives of CUFOA and of a couple of more moderate groups met with a few Conservative MPs, including Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz (and his able assistant, Dennis Young), who has been fighting against the 1995 and 1991 laws for more than a decade. Why did the Prime Minister’s Office forbid Breitkreuz to speak to the press the day the auditor general’s report was released?
“It took ‘them’ 30 years to get us here,” I often heard the resisters say, “it will also take us time to change the situation.” Except that they hit us with big chunks of law each time, not with timid intentions and infinitesimal steps.
Will it ever be possible to push Leviathan back? After 10 years of licensing and registration backed by criminal penalties, most people seem to think such a system is an eternal fixture of the universe—not to mention the similarly liberticidal gun control “laws” of 1991 and 1977. The majority of citizens remain “rationally ignorant” (as economists say) of this complex nexus of coercion that doesn’t appear to target them. Why would an individual make the effort to read and understand the stuff when his vote won’t make a difference, anyway? So the battle is waged by state apparatchiks, their busybody supporters often financed by the state itself, and an oppressed minority.
Jack Wilson, a Saskatchewan miner, looked at the fancy lampposts and the thick rope marking the pathway near Parliament Hill’s Eternal Flame. Lampposts and rope: with his engaging smile, Jack remarked that the guys in Parliament must be pretty brave. He has a point.