Letter published in The Ottawa Citizen, May 15, 2000, p. A-11, in reply to Pierre Lemieux's "Thank You, Commissar!" (Ottawa Citizen, May 4, 2000). Colin Greenwood published a rejoinder on this site, on May 29, 2000: "The Historical English Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

No Absolute Right

by

David McConnell
Nepean

 

It was with mounting amazement and amusement that I read Pierre Lemieux's rant against firearm registration ("Thank you, Commissar!'', May 4). Mr. Lemieux may have a point that the system of registration is too bureaucratic and tied up in red tape, but I cannot share his general disapproval of firearm registration.

One of Mr. Lemieux's arguments is an appeal to history when he claims that the Bill of Rights (1689) gives him the right to possess a firearm. This claim is much like the right-wing American appeal to the Second Amendment of their constitution for the unqualified right to own firearms. I am not familiar with the history of the English Bill of Rights since 1689, but my copy (I keep it by my bedside at all times) says "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." It is this that the bill calls one of "the true, ancient, and indubitable
rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom ...''

I will not enquire as to Mr. Lemieux's religious beliefs, but, aside from the religious aspect, it is obvious that the Bill of Rights hardly gives him an absolute right to bear arms. It also should be noted that despite Mr. Lemieux's trials and tribulations, he did not lose his weapons. I suspect the title on his diatribe in your newspaper is a rhetorical device. If it is not, I think a prima facie case could be made for the confiscation of his, because of his being a potential danger to the public peace and because the arms which he possesses are not suitable to his condition.