James Mangan Team Member ast November, the Conservative Party of Canada proposed Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, to parliament. A week later, Thomas Mulcair angered many local Canadians when he claimed that a New Democratic Party government would re-instate some form of registration for non-restricted firearms. Many believed that the Conservative’s Bill C-19, which brought an end to the need to register non-restricted firearms, put an end to the issue for good. However, Mr. Mulcair’s statements and the national conversation that surrounded them demonstrate that firearm regulation is still a major conversation in Canada, and compromises must be made in order to create effective legislation surrounding the issue of gun control. Firearms have a role to play in Canada, but the gun control debate is often characterized by arguments made outside of the country. The United States views gun ownership as a right of citizenship, often referencing their second amendment, which states, “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Canada does not recognize this right. Rather, Canada recognizes the privilege to own a firearm by prioritizing the need for background checks, effective waiting periods, and, with the exception of non-restricted firearms, registrations. This privilege can be removed if a citizen is proven to be irresponsible. When Conservative party delegates met in Calgary in 2013 to discuss future policies and direction for the Conservative government, a motion to make gun-ownership a “right of citizenship” was only narrowly defeated 500 - 477, telling Canadians that even the most “pro-gun” government recognizes gun- ownership as a privilege, rather than right. Although most citizens of Prince George only really need a gun for hunting game, rural communities, especially many First Nations communities, rely on firearms for subsistence. In a December 2014 article the CBC speculated that former Liberal MP Larry Bagnell lost his seat in the 2011 federal election, a seat he had held since the 2000 federal election, to Conservative Ryan Leef over the Liberal party’s introduction of the long-gun registry. Guns are tools, although dangerous ones. For this reason, they are regulated for public protection, not unlike vehicles. However, like any politically charged issue, there exist extreme interpretations of these regulations. Many firearm lobbies and organizations view gun control as a process of deterring firearm ownership through overbearing regulation. This is a reaction to calls from anti-firearm organizations to limit access to guns after gun-related crimes made national headlines, such as the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in 1989. As a result, the term “gun control” has become synonymous with the limitation of the privilege to own a firearm. Those who view gun control in this manner feel that firearm regulations are drafted with the assumption that firearm- owners are more likely to commit crimes. Considering regulations should strive to protect the public while minimizing infringements on the privilege to own a firearm, this perception is detrimental to drafting effective firearm regulations. Therefore, future legislation concerning firearms should strive to enforce effective gun control while simultaneously ensuring owners’ privileges will not be infringed upon. This is where the non-restricted firearm registry could play a pivotal role. The gun registry exists so that legally purchased guns that are used in illegal activity can be traced to their owners. In order to prove to firearm owners that this legislation is done only to promote the public’s wellbeing and not to place financial burdens to deter firearm ownership, this registration should be free for both restricted and non-restricted firearms. Owners already have to pay for a yearly licence on top of their firearms, not to mention the extra cost of attaining a restricted license. Fees on registrations perpetuate the perception of limiting the access to guns. Access to this free registration must also be made available to the most rural communities in Canada, who have the most need for firearms. This compromise can ensure that the national registry is intended to protect the public without infringing upon the privilege to own a firearm. Of course, a national registry will not end all gun-related crime, since most are committed using stolen or illegally purchased firearms. Therefore, effective gun-control legislation cannot end at a registration. This is only one compromise available to lawmakers. Promoting responsible firearm-ownership in a framework of effective firearm regulation requires many more compromises. However, they are necessary if Canada is to find an answer to this national discussion.