Dear MP,

I write to you today to discuss a serious issue that we all hope will never affect us: self-defense.

Consider this case. In 2012, Toronto grocery store owner David Chen and two of his employees caught and imprisoned a thief who returned to his store. The thief pleaded guilty to a theft charge and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. However, Chen and the employees were charged with assault, unlawful confinement, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Crown eventually dropped the latter two charges, but pursued the former two. Though all the men were acquitted, was justice served by laying charges carrying greater prison terms than their attackers received?

Consider this case. In 2010, Port Colborne, ON resident Ian Thomson woke to three masked men firebombing his house. Thomson took two legally owned handguns from his safe, walked outside, and fired three shots with one of the guns, none of which was aimed at or hit the attackers. They pleaded guilty to arson and disregard for human life, and were sentenced to terms between two and three years. But Thomson was charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm, and two counts of careless storage of a firearm. All but the last were dropped. Though he was acquitted, was justice served by laying charges carrying prison terms equal to what one of his attackers received?

These two cases well illustrate my point: Canada’s laws regarding self-defence protect criminals and their rights far too much, and make law-abiding Canadians think twice about defending themselves, even unarmed.

Let us examine our firearms laws. Having recently become licensed to own firearms, I concern myself with them to a high degree. There are several provisions in Canadian firearms law that seem designed to prevent people from carrying concealed firearms. Handguns with barrels measuring 105 mm or less are prohibited, though a gun with a slightly longer barrel is still quite concealable. Handguns that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition are prohibited, and while it is true that such guns are often designed to be concealable, there is no reason that one must be. Meanwhile, far more powerful calibres are freely available for those licensed to acquire them.

What is the fear here? I can answer that question by examining another case of injustice, then I shall refute that fear.

The case of R. v. Felawka, 1993, was egregious in its disregard for common sense. Jeff Felawka was a licensed gun owner who took his .22 calibre (a very low-power cartridge), non-restricted rifle shooting and went home on public transit. So as not to alarm his fellow passengers, he wrapped the rifle in his jacket. His fellow passengers were nevertheless alarmed, mistaking his green work clothes for military fatigues, and summoned the police. I grant that Mr. Felawka made some poor decisions, such as telling transit staff who confronted him that he was “going on a killing spree”, or seemingly reaching for his rifle when the police arrived, but the trial judge accepted that he had made that statement in jest and moved instinctively to protect his possessions. In spite of that, he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, a verdict upheld by the provincial and supreme courts. Here are two quotes from the Supreme Court’s judgement.

> A firearm is quite different from an object such as a carving knife or an ice pick which will normally be used for legitimate purposes. A firearm, however, is always a weapon. No matter what the intention may be of the person carrying a gun, the firearm itself presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence.

> All Canadians have the right to feel protected from the sinister menace of a concealed weapon. If it was ever thought that it was lawful to carry concealed weapons more and more Canadians might come to believe it would be prudent for them to carry concealed weapons in order to defend themselves and their families. This might lead to a vigilante attitude that could all too readily result in an increase in violence in Canadian society.

The first paragraph displays ignorance. All weapons, including firearms, are tools. They are made good or evil, or “the ultimate threat of death”, only by the hand that wields them. It is unfair to elevate firearms to a distinction above other weapons — ranged weapons (bows) have been used for millenia and a person can carry deadlier weapons than a firearm.

The second paragraph is outright false from its first sentence: no Canadian has the right to “feel” anything. Section 7 of the Constitution protects real security, not perceived security. The next few sentences are voided when one realizes that one cannot legislate against potential things: I influenced a friend to seek a firearms license, so have I done wrong because he might kill someone with a gun? Ignoring how the Honourable Justice’s statement is a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy, I shall present some evidence that concealed carry, even of firearms, does not result in violence but in fact decreases it.

* Four different studies, listed in the bibliography to this letter, have concluded that injury rates among those carrying a handgun when robbed were lower.

* A Canadian study of 2,385 firearms used in homicides found that only 128 (4.5%) were legally owned by the accused.

* In the United States, all but one state issue permits to carry a concealed firearm, the one state not requiring one. The ease of obtaining such a permit is correlated with lower crime rates.

I could continue in this vein, but this letter is long already. So I must add that in Canada, licensed gun owners are certainly not criminals. Far from it, they are Canada’s most trusted citizens. The application for a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) requires extensive background checks, disclosure of a criminal record and factors that might lead to suicide, and more. Now that my license has been issued, every 24 hours my name will be run through the RCMP criminal database.

Now, firearms are by no means the only thing one cannot carry. R. v. Kerr, 2004, established that merely *possessing a weapon with intent to defend oneself if attacked* constitutes “a purpose dangerous to the public peace”, and is a criminal offense. Kerr, a prison inmate, received death threats from a rival inmate and concealed two knives to defend himself. In the altercation that followed, he killed the rival. He was acquitted of all charges by the supreme court, but it is not his trial but this quote that most troubles me:

> One might ask what the difference is between possession of a concealed weapon on a daily basis to defend oneself, if need be, specially in a dangerous place, and possession to deal with an imminent threat. I think that in the first scenario the purpose is inconsistent with the duty to avoid violent confrontation by escaping, asking for police protection or even negotiating. It reflects a willingness to engage in physical conflict, if confronted, with a weapon. This purpose is contrary to public peace. On the other hand, possession in a particular situation, on a particular day, to meet an immediate threat to one’s life with no real opportunity of avoiding it is a purpose that is not a threat to public peace as such.

Thus the only way one can possess a weapon to defend oneself is to be clairvoyant. Before an attack, one cannot ascertain the ease of escape, the speed with which police will arrive, or the negotiability of the attacker. It is arrogant to ban every person from carrying weapons assuming that one of these things will be possible. The police, moreover, do not prevent crime. By the time the police are summoned, the crime has already occurred and they must put an end to it.

I understand that in Canada, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not carved into our constitution, and has been ruled in court as a “uniquely American” concept. The process of becoming a licensed gun owner has shown me that in our country gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. But I believe that the people should at least have the permission to keep and bear arms. In our prosperity, we must not forget that there are still vagabonds who walk our streets and are prepared to violate our right to life, liberty, and security of the person. The judge of the final case I will share properly expressed this sentiment, a case that is not one of injustice, but of justice.

R. v. Sulland, 1982, concerned a youth who was stopped by the police for an open can of alcohol. The officers noticed a knife on Sulland’s hip; when questioned, he said that he had it for protection. There had recently been a large brawl of youths in the area, Sulland used the knife regularly at his job, and it was a worn collapsible knife that would be ineffectual as a weapon. Though every factor was mitigating, he was charged and convicted at trial of possession of weapon for a dangerous purpose. But the provincial courts acquitted him. From J.A. Seaton comes the crux of the matter:

> It might be unwise to defend yourself or even prepare to defend yourself. The presence of a weapon might result in greater injury. In the secure surroundings of a courthouse we might think it better that people be beaten or raped than that they, or their assailant, be injured with a weapon. But those who must walk unsafe streets and who are not robust might feel quite differently. They might not be prepared to accept a beating. Some might choose to defend themselves, and they might carry something with which to defend themselves. A woman might have a hat pin and no hat. Is she, without more, guilty of this crime? Surely not. This is a very serious crime that warrants imprisonment for up to ten years.

Returning to our firearms laws, the solution to these problems is already codified into law. A permit called an “Authorization to Carry” (ATC) exists, allowing holders to carry restricted or prohibited firearms (concealed or open defined per permit). According to section 2(c) of the Act that defines them, it may be issued where “the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual...” But it is nigh impossible to obtain, unless one is a forest ranger, armored car worker, or similar profession. The official application form does not include a way to apply under that provision.

Thus, I call upon you to be a voice in your party to, in descending order of importance:

* Repeal section 88 of the Criminal Code, “possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose”, and/or define self-defense in the event of an unforeseen attack as not dangerous to the public peace;

* Allow Authorizations to Carry to be issued reasonably easily to law-abiding gun owners who own a valid PAL, as such people have already been vetted as responsible enough to own firearms and ought to be responsible enough to carry them;

* Repeal or relax the described restrictions on firearm barrel length and calibre, so that those without an ATC may own and acquire them for the enjoyment of their hobby, and those with an ATC may carry them for those occasions for which one cannot otherwise prepare.

I look forward to your response on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

/u/WaitingForAKnock

---

*Bibliography*

David Chen: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-defence-what-s-acceptable-under-canadian-law-1.1229180

Ian Thomson: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun

R. v. Felawka 1993: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1073/index.do

Four different studies: http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Crime-Control-through-the-Private-Use-of-Armed-Force.pdf, http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/6.3/4%20-%20Guns%20and%20Violent%20Crime.pdf, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222389875_Self-defense_with_guns_The_consequences, and http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Resisting-Crime.pdf

Study of 2,183 firearms: https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/CPIC/CFRO-CPIC-2-2014.pdf

Ease of obtaining a permit correlated with lower crime rates: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ is packed with citations that cannot all be listed here

R. v. Kerr 2004: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc44/2004scc44.html

R. v. Sulland 1982: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1982/1982canlii495/1982canlii495.html