Mark Holland the erstwhile MP for Ajax-Pickering decided that he would make us enemies. As you probably noticed he is the erstwhile MP..Firearms owners work very hard in that riding for his opponent logged thousands of volunteer hours knocking on doors and manning phones. The bottom line is we mobilized our forces and made a difference. Ajax-Pickering has a fine new Conservative MP now.
So why does Dalton think it is a good idea to raise the ire of my community? Does he not realize the significant voting block we represent? There is an estimated 7 million firearms owners give or take; not everyone acquiesced to the Ottawa Edict and licensed not everyone registered either; in a Province of 12 million people where do you think a good portion of that 7 million live? Though many of them may well not vote PC and quite frankly could have voted liberal or NDP. It still remains clear we as a community vote! when you do organize we have quite a bit of clout. This move by Dolton to thumb his nose at the federal legislation calling an end to non restricted firearms registration.
Dolton's contention is that the 1977 firearms act is now in play; really? since when? The Edict from Ottawa called Bill C-68 repealed that making it null and void the new firearms act supersedes it; It is the statute now; I would also like to point out section 126 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Disobeying a statute
126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Without positive law stating otherwise Dolton and Chris Wyatt have not lawful excuse. Using the clause stating that he(Wyatt) can place any reasonable condition on a licence holder is flimsy at best in the face of the legislative intent of Bill C-19 which clearly states that all data collection must stop. Secondly Wyatt is a sworn officer of the peace he is not qualified to interpret a statute; even so the statutory interpretation act is in play; which more or less states that the legislative purpose is part of the process in interpreting any act. So if ending the registering of non restricted firearms is the legislative purpose how can Wyatt claim colour of right when he in fact is committing a criminal offence. What is worse the Premier is counselling him to break the law.
Way to go Dalton! What is paramount to the rule of law is first equality before the law(though arguably statutes are not laws) no one can get around it. Secondly I would argue that them who presume to have authority over us need to obey the law scrupulously. Other wise it comes down to this. Why should we have to obey the law if they don't.