[RE: Get tough on crime but leave law abiding, registered gun owners alone, June 13, The News]
Mr. O’Brian spelled out quite clearly the implications of the Order In Council (OIC) firearm ban on legal firearm owners in his well-written letter, but there is a greater issue behind it.
That is the use of an Order In Council to pass such major, wide-sweeping legislation without parliamentary procedure and due process.
All 338 of our sitting MPs were elected by the people to represent all citizens in Canada.
This use of an OIC has robbed Canadians proper debate in the House of Commons and second reading in the Senate, thus denying Canadians due process in a fully functioning democracy.
On that basis alone, the use of the OIC tool must not be allowed to stand, for it sets a dangerous precedent.
If it is allowed to stand, what’s to stop future governments from using this tool to pass legislation to trample the rights of another group?
Will an Order In Council, for example, be used to enact mandatory euthanasia for anyone over, say, 85 years old, because they might be a burden to the healthcare system?
Impossible, you say?
I urge anyone reading this to revisit history, for things like this have happened before, and it would be incredibly naive to think it couldn’t happen again.
Disarming a population – from farmers, ranchers, sport shooter, and collectors – was proven to be the first step to some of the greatest human rights abuses in history by governments that have lost their way.
This use of an Order In Council, or, shall I say, abuse, was not just a slap in the face of democracy. It was a right cross, and Canadians need to remember the lessons of history in order to avoid repeating it.
M.L. Crawford, Burns Lake
• If there is more to this issue, please let us know about it. Email us at email@example.com. We look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.