As Canadian courts like to tell gun owners petitioning for their rights, there is no right to arms in Canada. They're right. Legally, there isn't. You may have that right morally, but legal bodies -- Parliaments, courts, etc. -- aren't bound to acknowledge it.
Canada does have a right to arms from the English Bill of Rights 1689, but this bill only guaranteed rights against the monarchy. It doesn't apply to Parliament or other democratically elected bodies. As such, Parliament, or your provincial legislature, is free to regulate, even prohibit, firearms. Just so long as the Queen doesn't initiate the legislation, there is no violation of our Constitutional framework.
To argue that there is a right to arms in Canada, one would have to make a case under §7 of the Charter. One would have to argue that firearms are essential to liberty. That when democratic and speech rights are obstructed, one can only guarantee one's liberty with arms and, as such, your right to liberty must include a right to arms.
There would rightly be suspicion of this idea as American because only the Americans have applied the right to arms against legislative bodies. Nations in the British tradition -- UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc. -- only apply it to the Crown. You can correctly argue that when the right to arms passed in the British system only the monarch was a threat to liberty, but that won't establish a right against legislative bodies. We've had plenty of opportunity to apply the right to arms to legislative bodies since the Americans first did so in 1789 and we haven't.
That said, one would have a strong case for contending that the right to liberty includes a right to arms based on Canadian history alone. There are many cases where rebellion has been used to secure or defend liberal democratic rights: Upper Canada Rebellion (democratic, language, and minority rights), Lower Canada Rebellion (democratic rights), Red River Rebellion (democratic, minority, and native rights), and Oka (native land claims).
So no, there is no legal right to arms in Canada but a case could be made that it's part of our right to liberty. Given that §1 limits §7 and that legislative bodies can use §33 to override §7, even if one successfully made the case, gun controls would still be permissible -- the only difference being they couldn't be as severe.
Canada does have a right to arms from the English Bill of Rights 1689, but this bill only guaranteed rights against the monarchy. It doesn't apply to Parliament or other democratically elected bodies. As such, Parliament, or your provincial legislature, is free to regulate, even prohibit, firearms. Just so long as the Queen doesn't initiate the legislation, there is no violation of our Constitutional framework.
To argue that there is a right to arms in Canada, one would have to make a case under §7 of the Charter. One would have to argue that firearms are essential to liberty. That when democratic and speech rights are obstructed, one can only guarantee one's liberty with arms and, as such, your right to liberty must include a right to arms.
There would rightly be suspicion of this idea as American because only the Americans have applied the right to arms against legislative bodies. Nations in the British tradition -- UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc. -- only apply it to the Crown. You can correctly argue that when the right to arms passed in the British system only the monarch was a threat to liberty, but that won't establish a right against legislative bodies. We've had plenty of opportunity to apply the right to arms to legislative bodies since the Americans first did so in 1789 and we haven't.
That said, one would have a strong case for contending that the right to liberty includes a right to arms based on Canadian history alone. There are many cases where rebellion has been used to secure or defend liberal democratic rights: Upper Canada Rebellion (democratic, language, and minority rights), Lower Canada Rebellion (democratic rights), Red River Rebellion (democratic, minority, and native rights), and Oka (native land claims).
So no, there is no legal right to arms in Canada but a case could be made that it's part of our right to liberty. Given that §1 limits §7 and that legislative bodies can use §33 to override §7, even if one successfully made the case, gun controls would still be permissible -- the only difference being they couldn't be as severe.
No comments:
Post a Comment