Again, I wish to digress somewhat, but in keeping with my position that this IS NOT and never was a "gun issue."

Some 35 years ago, or thereabouts, I was called by a friend of mine (who will remain nameless for obvious reasons) who was very nervous because the municipality where he lived had advised him that they were going to "outlaw" his fully automatic firearms. This, notwithstanding the reality that he had never had any problems before, offered no threat to anyone and had complied with all the necessary paperwork to buy and retain those firearms. Indeed, he had gone to great lengths to add a hidden room in his house which was covered by a conglomerate of various alarms. In other words, he had gone far beyond what the law (at that time) required in order to demonstrate his responsible character.

Now, after owning these firearms for a number of years without incident, he faced some "new and restrictive" (if not prohibitive) regulations. Not wishing to offend anyone and certainly not being willing to be caught in a trap that could be construed as "belligerent," he asked if I would appear on his behalf.

The answer was, of course, "Certainly." So I attended city hall and the meeting was held on what was then termed "estimates" night, the night the public was allowed to hear the discussion on what the city council had determined would be the new tax rate, considering the necessary increases for police and fire and all the other items which would be included in the new figures.

I was asked if I would like to have my say early in the proceedings and I declined, being of the view that I did not want to get caught between, "fire," "police," "garbage" and all the rest, so I indicated I would be happy to sit and wait until the "important" issues were dealt with.

When I finally was given the floor, I proceeded with the following position (which to the best of my recollection is accurate and, if not totally accurate, certainly accurate enough to give one the complete picture).

So I started at what I would call the "necessary beginning," in order to make sure there were no misunderstandings of why I would say what I said.

I started off by indicating that what I would be talking about was, in simple language, a citizen. A citizen of the city, and of the province and, obviously, of Canada and subject to all the laws that anyone else was, plus a few extra because of his particular interests. I indicated as I started that if I could be found to be at fault in my descriptions, I welcomed interjections by those who felt I was misleading in any way.

I stressed further that the individual in question could only be referred to as "a productive citizen, engaged in honest endeavour, who recognized the need of law(s) as a "prerequisite to an orderly society" and, further, could be described as "willingly accepting that need" by the very fact that he had no criminal record of any kind and paid his fare share of taxes. As well, his working also paid the salaries of those sitting at the table with us and by willingly paying his share, he was prepared to accept that those who he was supporting as "leaders of the community" would (as would be expected from any public office holder) certainly have his best interests in mind when "bringing about new and/or necessary" bylaws for the community.

This concept was woefully absent from those "leaders" at this moment in time, because they had decided that this individual's interests had to be curtailed "in the best interests of the community," or some other catchy phrase which allowed them to simply ignore some basic realities -- based on what logic, they never put forward.

I then suggested to them that being described as a willfully lawful, peaceful and productive citizen of not only the community, but the province and the country, I would be hard pressed to find any "best interest for the community" in their proposal to ban his firearms.

I then advised them that I had researched (as had the RCMP at the time) statistics and found that there had never been an owner of full automatic firearms in Canada charged with a criminal offence involving those firearms! That was a record worth boasting about and certainly not known by many, and obviously worthy of respect -but that respect was sadly lacking.

Then we came to the nuts and bolts of the discussion which was, quite simply a review of reality.

Considering the individual, his personal record, his social record, his work record and all the rest, the only thing that had to be examined (and I would argue there was no need to "examine" anything in this case) would be another reality. This individual was not a threat to himself, his family, his community, society or the country and, for that simple reason whatever he purchased with the monies he had left after supporting the system and how he used what he purchased was, quite frankly, none of their business, period! As everything he did was already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, provincial Fish and Game regulations and local regulations, all of which he was and had been in compliance with, there could not possibly be any reason to "protect" anyone or any community from him.

I also advised them that I found myself somewhat embarrassed that I had to take the time to appear before them on such a matter when the individual's private property we had been discussing was governed by the federal Criminal Code and there was no way the municipality could pass any contrary legislation with respect to the purchase and ownership of these firearms.

So I repeat, this is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a debate or argument about guns! It is quite simply a situation where some reality has to be inculcated into the reality of "bringing out new legislation to protect society," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We have all heard the arguments plus the "If we could only save one life," plea -- all of which have no bearing on the real issue of the responsibility of ALL legislators to only bring about legislation which exemplifies that fundamental principle of: "IT IS NOT A PROPER FUNCTION OF THE LAW TO PLACE A PEACEFUL PERSON PURSUING PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES IN JEOPARDY!

If those so willing to bring about "protective legislation" cannot demonstrate beyond any reasoned argument that there is such a need with respect to the particular legislation they are supporting, then it fails the test. And, if that leaves them with a "problem" then they are beholden to fully research the "problem," "examine the problem," "clearly state the problem," be able to demonstrate that there really is a problem" and then, and only then, bring about legislation which recognizes all of the above and clearly DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS, PROPERTY AND PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES OF LAWFUL PERSONS. If they cannot do that, it would appear obvious that they should admit their incompetence, or that there really is no problem, or that they cannot find an answer, and forget the rush to "legislate for the public interest," which is a catch phrase used all too often by those thirsty for more power and less accountability. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT FINANCIALLY AND, IF YOU DO NOT STOP THEM, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT IN MANY OTHER WAYS, AS WILL YOUR CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN! And remember, it is not a game. These people are professionals and know what they are doing -- or, the alternative -- they are simple-minded and should not be allowed to hold any public office.