This phone call took some time to arrange.ME: [my name] speaking.MP: [my name], it's [their name] calling! How are you?ME: I'm great, thanks, so good to hear from you.MP: And you too! How are things going?ME: Things are going pretty well! I'm thankful you've made time for me like this.MP: No problem. We just got out of vote so I'm a little later than the appointed time, but here we are.ME: That's OK, I understand. So, uh, shall I get to business?MP: Yes please.ME: The reason I wanted to talk to you is, uh — I should note that I've spelled out these concerns in a letter before, but you might not have read it because it was pretty long — in 2004 the Supreme Court read something into the law that is not there, and shouldn't be, and it is threatening public safety. That's a bit, uh, sensationalized, I admit, but let me give you the story.R v. Kerr, 2004 is the case. Kerr was an inmate in a prison in Alberta and some other inmates made a threat on his life. He concealed a few knives to defend himself, and the other inmate did attack him, and he stabbed him, to death, Kerr did. So, uh, Kerr was tried for murder and he was acquitted of self-defense...but he was convicted of "possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace" under section 88 of the Criminal Code. He appealed to the Provincial and Supreme Courts, and the Supreme Court, in an interesting turn of events — they decided that, they created this standard that is not really in the law, it's tenuous, that in order for possessing a weapon to be lawful if you have it for the purpose of defending yourself, it must be, uh...the attack that you're defending yourself from must be imminent and inescapable. Then they decided that since Kerr's attack was imminent and inescapable, that he was justified and they acquitted him of that charge.But in doing so they prohibited peaceful Canadians from lawfully, from carrying weapons to defend themselves, when that really is no threat to public safety. Would you agree with that, that if I have pepper spray to defend myself in case I'm mugged in an alley that's not a threat to public safety?MP: Well, at least, the reading that you gave me of the court decision suggests that the test was whether or not there was imminent danger. Um, now, if you're...I suppose if you're walking through a back alley in [local shady area] at 3 o'clock in the morning on Saturday, you could make a case that you're in imminent danger because that's not a very good place to be. But generally speaking, if you're not in imminent danger...as I say, your reading of that case to me would suggest that no, you wouldn't have the right to carry around that bear spray or whatever.ME: But uh, well, you mentioned bear spray, but the funny thing is bear spray is legal; and pepper spray is not. I would —MP: OK.ME: And it's pretty strange because there was a bear attack recently and a conservation officer came on the news suggesting that if you go out into the wilderness, carry bear spray to defend yourself. But people attack people far more than bears attack people; I think you'd agree with that.MP: True; yes, yes, yes.ME: Uh, so, my requests are to first, clarify that simply carrying a weapon is not dangerous to the public peace in the Criminal Code — like, here's a draft bill I came up with off the top of my head. "Section 88 is amended to read 'the possession of a weapon to defend oneself from an unforeseen attack shall be deemed not dangerous to the public peace.'" I would still be barely OK with it being an affirmative defense, that is you could still be prosecuted but you could claim that the weapon — you had the weapon for that purpose. And also, pepper spray should be legal.MP: [pause] OK, fine.ME: You also mentioned "if there's no danger imminent". Now, um...this might be a bit of a sensitive topic, but were you there for the shooting that killed Nathan Cirillo?MP: No, I was not.ME: Um, well, he was stopped by the RCMP and other security forces on Parliament Hill. And I think that you would agree that in general you're not "in danger", that attacks like that are pretty rare, but nevertheless you want the option. You want people to be there to protect you if someone does come in and try to do something evil. But the average Canadian doesn't have that option.Justice Bastarache in his opinion mentioned that, uh, there is a duty to avoid violent confrontation by escaping, or asking for police protection, or negotiating...and carrying a weapon for that purpose — you don't try those things, and you have a weapon, that shows that you're willing not to do those things and that's contrary to public peace. And I would disagree because you yourself are protected by people with weapons when there are probably other options for some maniac who bursts into Parliament Hill.MP: Well, I think that the, uh, I mean, the police themselves of course are trained to look to their weapons only as a last resort, but they have very specific training for that, training that the average citizen wouldn't necessarily have.ME: But the average citizen could take it. And, while I would ordinarily advocate permitless carry of weapons other than firearms, like knives, batons, and pepper spray; I would be willing just to say "you have to have a license to carry these weapons". And honestly I'm not even seeking the carrying of firearms, I know that, for average citizens I know that's a long way in the future.MP: Well, I mean, I guess that the point is that you're not in agreement with the laws that now stand, so you have the right as a citizen, obviously to ask for something to change...[several minutes of him explaining his and my role in politics]MP: Now, I've kept most of the letters that I've received, particularly about Bill C-71, something different from what we're talking about here. But I will check back to see if I have your correspondence; if not I may ask you to re-send it to me, and then I'll forward it on to the people who should look at it.ME: OK, yeah. I'll be happy to provide it, although I might have deleted it in the intervening months.MP: OK, well, chances are I have it but there's a few different files to read, haha. The complexities of operating on two different sides of the country mean that sometimes what you think you have here you have someplace else, so I'll have to look at both places.ME: Um...can I just add one other point? Now, I know this isn't necessarily the best example but in the United States the number of people with concealed carry permits is estimated at about 8 million. That's 5% of the population. And I should definitely add that that doesn't represent the number of people who do carry firearms, because it doesn't include law enforcement or the several states where you don't need a permit to carry. And there are probably even more people who carry weapons other than firearms for which most states don't require a permit.I don't think those millions of people are a real threat to public safety. The funny thing I've —MP: We could get into, kind of, our own personal reflections on this, but...I recall not long ago, you know, something that kind of bears out what you're saying, but at the same time introduces another complexity. And I think it was in Miami, somebody started shooting at police officers, in fact I think a couple were killed — I might not have the story absolutely crystal clear but um...Florida's an open carry state—ME: Florida bans open carry and requires a permit for concealed carry.MP: Then it might have been Texas. It might have...I remember it was an open carry state, OK, police are getting shot at, a couple killed. And the argument that, you know, having people armed would neutralize situations like this very quickly certainly didn't pan out. People with firearms were just running for cover like everybody else, and it was difficult for the police because...you know, everybody's carrying a gun and they don't know who the bad guy was.ME: Active shooters in general, if there's an armed citizen there, will either kill the armed citizen or be killed by him. And the FBI released a report pointing out that in 94% of cases where an armed citizen did intervene, they stopped the shooter.MP: Hmm. Well, I have to tell you that again, on a personal level, if it got to a vote on open carry you would not get my vote on that, OK?ME: Right, but I'm not trying to argue for open carry; I'm just trying to argue for in general the public safety of carrying weapons, and firearms being a superset of that, as in the United States.MP: Right.ME: One thing I've noticed in the Canadian media is that you hear about the failings of carriers, for example that FBI agent who dropped his gun and shot someone while picking it up, but you don't hear about their successes quite as much. In Alabama there was an active shooter in a McDonald's right after the Pennsylvania shooting, and he was stopped by an armed citizen, but I never heard about it anywhere on Canadian news.MP: Well, I mean, I hate to say it, but somebody getting shot in the United States by good guys or bad guys isn't news anymore because it happens regularly. I mean, uh, that's a sad case. Shootings now get a ho-hum response from the mainstream media just because...honestly it's not news anymore; it happens far too regularly.But you know, that's neither here nor there. My time is short; what I would suggest to you is, I'll look for your material, I'll keep your note here. If I find it I'll let you know; if I don't find it I'll let you know, and if you can retrieve it all the better.ME: Great! I can also send you the recording of this call, which I have made, and is legal — I have thorougly checked; Canada is a one-party consent country.MP: Yep, yep. I know as long as one party knows it's being recorded it's fine. Now, it would have been ethical for you to tell me that you were recording the call, but [redacted], right?ME: Right.MP: [laughs] OK, that's it! That's all my time for you today, sir, I hope you have a good day and we'll chat again.ME: OK, thank you for talking with me, and have a good day at Parliament. via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/2r9Sfvi
No comments:
Post a Comment