"It's the responsibility of those advocating gun controls to show that gun controls work in some way, regardless of population density or income distribution or any other factor."Gee, if only I had said something about any of that, you might be speaking to me.
What I was actually talking about was the alleged (as yet merely alleged, as far as I can see) correlation in the case of Maine between a high rate of firearms ownership and a low rate of "violent crime". Maine Mary posted that alleged fact, and wondered what it might mean or some such thing. And I asked her what she thought it might mean. How clear was that? The onus is on someone making a claim. I wasn't making one.
(And that, of course, is quite apart from the whole question of "who cares?" whether there is such a correlation -- i.e. does that alleged fact relate in any way to what concerns me, for instance, and many other advocates of restricted access to firearms -- which I have discussed in other posts in this thread).
But what the heck --
"Can you point to some evidence that gun control laws lowered or at least slowed the rate of increase in gun deaths or a crime rate? And on terms picky enough to satisfy; a genuine causal relationship between guns and crime, or guns and suicide, or guns and anything, proven by a well-respected, non-biased authority?"So glad you asked.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.htmlIt's about the Canadian firearms registry law that y'all love to hate.
In the fall of 1998, in a 3-2 decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the law. Not only did Chief Justice Fraser find the law to be a valid exercise of the federal government’s criminal law power, she also reaffirmed the importance of licensing and registration to any effective gun control system because these are: "... about the protection of public safety from the misuse of ordinary firearms. This is to be accomplished through a simple but compelling concept - individual responsibility and accountability for one’s ordinary firearms. This is a small price to pay for the privilege of being allowed to possess and use a dangerous weapon." However, the provinces have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control was represented in the constitutional challege to the legislation by Clayton Ruby (also acting for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg -- the latter two being in provinces that have announced they will not enforce the firearms registry law -- all intervenors; I don't know his co-counsel Jill Copeland, but I know the person who I assume is her daddy, a bit more of a lefty than a civil libertarian) -- a Big Time civil liberties litigator. Ack, how can that be?? Its site says:
The matter before the Court is a legal one regarding the federal government’s power to enact criminal law. We believe that the new law, including its registration component, is fully constitutional and a valid exercise of the federal criminal law and the Peace, Order and Good Government powers. The power of the federal government to legislate in the field of criminal law in a preventative way is well established: "When the object is to reduce the incidence of death to the citizens of the country by the type of violence made possible by the destructive power of a firearms, it becomes clearly within the legislative competence of the Government of Canada under the head of criminal law to so enact." AG of Canada v. Pattison (1981), 59 C.C.C. (2d) 138 at 142 (Alta C. of A.) <the appellate court in Alberta, where all the gun nuts live. Ack, how can that be??>
Demonstrating the constitutionality of the law does not depend on proving that licensing and registration are good public policy. However, in challenging the law, the Alberta government and its allies have argued that gun control in general is not effective and that licensing and registration do not work. Therefore, we have filed material countering their claims and supporting the effectiveness of licensing and registration. Our evidence includes eighteen affidavits filed by international experts in policing, public health, and domestic violence. These are summarized in our factum (available on demand).
You might want to order some copies.
Maybe you could get copies of the affidavits "regarding flaws in Mauser and Kleck arming for self protection study methodology", too.
Anyhow, here we go, the bit I was after, in case you haven't seen it before; as it turned out, I don't think this was particularly relevant to the case in question, but I'd like to adopt it as my nutshell answer to your question here:
While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.
The decision in the case can be read here:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.htmlIt's the Supreme Court of Canada's decision about Canada's 1995
Firearms Act, and I doubt that anyone who has ever commented on that Act at this board has ever heard of it, let alone read it.
I'm curious what "proof" US states have ever had that the death penalty has any effect at all ... and yet it has been upheld by your big high court as constitutionally valid legislation.
What "proof" is there that any legislation
influences anyone's behaviour?
.
The thing is, you're barking up the wrong tree here, m'dear.
What you want to be looking at (and I do try valiantly and often to point this out) -- as long as we're not talking that 2nd amendment stuff, which you have not raised here -- are the rules of constitutional scrutiny of legislation. Those rules do not require "proof" of anything to the standard you are suggesting be applied.
If you'd like to go learn what they are, and offer your views of how they apply to restrictions on access to firearms, I'd be pleased to engage in that discussion with you. I'm just a bit tired of trying to educate people about how it's done and getting nowhere, so I'll let you do the work yourself this time. Start by asking Google for "constitutional scrutiny" maybe, I dunno.
Now, the decision I cited above doesn't actually address that question -- it was decided on the basis of the constitutional division of powers between the federal and provincial governments only. (USAmericans will recognize that issue.) It did not consider individual rights under the Charter (our constitutional "bill of rights").
... Whether a law could have been designed better or whether the federal government should have engaged in more consultation before enacting the law has no bearing on the division of powers analysis applied by this Court. If the law violates a treaty or a provision of the Charter, those affected can bring their claims to Parliament or the courts in a separate case. The reference questions, and hence this judgment, are restricted to the issue of the division of powers.
We also appreciate the concern of those who oppose this Act on the basis that it may not be effective or it may be too expensive. Criminals will not register their guns, Alberta argued. The only real effect of the law, it is suggested, is to burden law-abiding farmers and hunters with red tape. These concerns were properly directed to and considered by Parliament; they cannot affect the Court's decision. The efficacy of a law, or lack thereof, is not relevant to Parliament's ability to enact it under the division of powers analysis. Furthermore, the federal government points out that it is not only career criminals who are capable of misusing guns. Domestic violence often involves people who have no prior criminal record. Crimes are committed by first-time offenders. Finally, accidents and suicides occur in the homes of law-abiding people, and guns are stolen from their homes. By requiring everyone to register their guns, Parliament seeks to reduce misuse by everyone and curtail the ability of criminals to acquire firearms. Where criminals have acquired guns and used them in the commission of offences, the registration system seeks to make those guns more traceable. The cost of the program, another criticism of the law, is equally irrelevant to our constitutional analysis.
Some of those considerations would, of course, be relevant in a constitutional challenge by an individual alleging unjustified interference with his/her individual constitutional rights. To date, no one has been charged, so no one has challenged the law.
So okay, look, I'm gonna help you out. Here's how it works up here -- it's a little different down there, but that's your part of the job.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1986/vol1/html/1986scr1_0103.htmlTwo central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.
Second, the party invoking s. 1 <i.e. saying that the rights violation is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, the kind of violation permitted by the constitution> must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.
To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.
In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible.
Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective -- the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.
You see, a government does not have to "prove" that "effect X" will result from its legislation. Even in the US, I assure you. "Demonstrably"
does not mean "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" or however else you might want to phrase your personal requirement, nor does such a standard apply in the US, I assure you.
My argument would be that, say, applying the Oakes test set out above, the Canadian firearms registry legislation, and the restrictions and prohibitions on the possession of various firearms in Canadian legislation, meet this test. They were enacted in pursuance of a "pressing and substantial public objective" -- reduction of
injuries, deaths and crimes involving firearms. (Not "reduction of crime", please note.) And they are not arbitrary, they constitute minimal impairment, and they are proportionate to the objective.
Your argument, applying the specific applicable tests from your own jurisdiction, would presumably be that equivalent legislation would not pass the relevant tests there.
Your big point, if I may presume to guess, would be interference with the "right of self-defence". I would counter that there is no such "right"; there is a right to life which may in some instances require that an individual not be punished for injuring or killing another person in order to save his/her own life, but that is not a "right to self-defence".
I might also presume that you would say that such restrictions interfere with the exercise of the constitutional right to liberty. If you were looking at the Canadian Constitution, you'd probably also say that they interfere with the constitutional right to security of the person.
I would argue that restrictions on access to firearms of the kind applied in Canada do not
unjustifiably interfere with the exercise of the right to life, or liberty, or security of the person, even if it could be shown that they do interfere with it -- according to the rules of justification that apply in Canada, and quite possibly according to the rules of justification that apply in the US. I would want to hear your argument on the latter point before I spoke, just because I like to be as informed as possible before speaking.
So, well, there you are. You asked.
Anyone whose eyes have glazed over can feel free to take his/her little shovel back to the sandbox, where there are no big words and complex ideas to trip over.
.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
