Canadian government may totally scrap long-gun registry program

During the summer of 2010, 72 percent of Canadian residents felt the long-gun registry registry was no help in reducing or solving crime. Even though there is disagreement between law enforcement concerning its value, Canada will most likely scrap the registry and destroy all records collected pertaining to non-restricted firearms.

From Calgary TV.

After a lengthy debate, MPs voted 159-130 in favour of passing Bill C-19, which will end the registry and allow the government to destroy records pertaining to non-restricted firearms.

The bill still needs final approval from the Senate, but since the Conservatives form a majority in the Upper Chamber as well, the law is sure to pass.

It turns out, the registration program introduced in 1995 had a registration deadline of 2003 and was not working as advertised. It also cost hundreds of millions to implement. When first introduced, the cost to the government was estimated to be about $2 million, with the rest of the program costs covered by registration fees. As it turns out, a CBC News Canada report indicated the costs in 2002 were estimated to be about $1 billion, with only $140 million of it covered by registration fees. (Figures are in Canadian Dollars.)

By 2009, a serious effort started to scrap the program had begun. Although some law enforcement agencies declared the program valuable, they were unable to convince members of Parliament or the people of its value, providing only anecdotal evidence of its ability to help solve crimes and no evidence at all that it actually reduced crime.

One other thing to note … although written as a law, the owners of long-guns were required to provide information to the registry and none of it was validated. Can you imagine the errors? Some estimate less than half of guns were registered since there was no effort to enforce the reporting deadline – they kept extending it – and the government was refunding fees paid by owners in 2009.

What a waste of time and resources.

P.S. – I’ve spoken to friends in law enforcement and all of them agree. Officers and those who claim cops will be safer if they know in advance someone they are interacting with has a permit or owns a gun are ignoring basic training principles. During every interaction law enforcement has with the public they should always assume the person is armed and act accordingly.

4 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Big fat hoser “DUH” to Canada here: you don’t reduce crime by (over) regulating honest, law abiding gun owners.
    ?
    I hope they learned their lesson, and we don’t have to “relearn” it because our liberals are too ignorant to learn from history or the examples of others.

  2. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    2009 FBI murder statistics: Murders with handguns 47.32%; Murders with long guns 5.62%; Murders with unknown firearm type 14.14%.? So let’s say 55% handguns and 12% long guns.? That is less than murders with both knives (13.38%) or “other weapons” (13.67%). This proves that long gun registry has nothing to do with crime. I understand registering and trying to limit the illegal use of handguns, (although it mostly is a charade) but not long guns. May as well register sharp rocks.? ? ?

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    “In 2009 a serious effort started to scrap the program”. “During the summer of 2010, 72% of Canadian residents felt the long-gun registry was no help in reducing or solving crime”.? The Canadians see a problem with a $1 billion program and respond to the public and it sounds like, they will end it. But, notice it took Conservatives to do it. Compare to the US where 72% are against an unnamed program means zero. Unless the SCOTUS bails our sorry butts out.

  4. JBS
    JBS says:

    I am curious about the Canadian requirements for possessing a long gun. I had always herd that they were onerous.
    If ?bama is reelected and he goes ahead with his expected attack on legal, law-abiding gun owners, I fear there will be considerable backlash. Four more years of ?bama will be disastrous for this country, far worse than his first three+ years in office.
    The parallels in history are very evident. We may be forced to wear a large C or R sewn to our clothing.
    ?

Comments are closed.