"Right" to own firearms

Being a hunter and sport shooter I hear and see things on a semi regular basis regarding our "right" to own firearms. Where legally is this defined in any legal document? As far as I know we have the Hunting Heritage act that provincially enshrines our right to hunt within the province of Ontario but out side that I don't know of any concrete legislated "right" to own firearms. We are not the United States, to my knowledge our firearms ownership is a "privilege" not a "right" furthermore, another glaring "right" we don't have is the "right of property" which allows the government in power to confiscate any property at any time through an order in council (usually in the guise of public safety when it comes to firearms) without any compensation.
Am I wrong or misinformed or is there any official documentation regarding Canadian citizens the "right" to own firearms? There may be some obscure document from centuries ago but I don't know if that holds any value in today's political environment. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.

We have the right to complain when the government pisses us off, I think that is our only right in this country.

you have the right to call 911 and file a complaint if your wife and daughter get raped during an home invasion.
it's not even about the right to own firearms or not. it starts with the actual right to defend yourself or your family, and if you do, be sure you will be the one in front of the judge...
in that respect we are even limited in our ability to exercise human rights in this country

There is no right to own firearms in Canada.

Someone is going to disagree with that, resurrecting an old argument originating from Ted Morton: the 1689 English Bill of Rights stated that the "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law," and this is argued to have been imported into Canadian law via the British North America Act, and then made permanent and irrevocable via Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the courts have ruled that this argument is horse pucky. This was the argument relied on by Bruce Montague's constitutional challenge. The trial judge shot it down in a carefully reasoned ruling, pointing out that S. 26 does not say "all rights not mentioned here also have the protection of the Charter," but merely that the Charter does not negate existing rights not mentioned therein; also, that the wording of the original Bill of Rights expressly allows Parliament to limit that right ("as allowed by law"). The appeals court upheld that ruling without much further comment, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. So that door is shut: it was a bad argument to begin with and the courts have said as much.

The right to own weapons arguably exists in common law. John A. MacDonald argued that this right indeed existed in Canada, as did a number of his contemporaries (one of whom became a Supreme Court justice). But our conception of "rights" and of the role of Parliament in safeguarding them has changed since MacDonald's time. Common law doesn't restrict Parliament's legislative powers, and never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

it's not even about the right to own firearms or not. it starts with the actual right to defend yourself or your family...

---

Untrue. Self-defence is fully recognized as a defence in Canadian law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

....as a defence in Canadian law.

---

so, what are the chances to end up in court as defendant? especially, if you use a firearm to defend yourself...
self defense aside; first accusation will be inappropriate firearm storage (criminal code), because you were able to actually defend yourself!

That's going to depend entirely on the circumstances.

If you were able to defend yourself because you did not store your firearm legally, then you would in fact be guilty of unsafe storage, and self-defence is not a defence to that charge.

The requirement to store a firearm safely does not negate your right to defend yourself.

In Canada you need a license to possess/acquire a gun. We don't have a right to own a gun. If it was a right, we would not need a license. Core rights cannot be licensed.

In terms of guns, there is virtually no such thing as the civilian ownership or use of weapons in Canada. Civilians can (with permission) have firearms. A firearm and a weapon are not the same thing, even though they may be the same object. A Remington 870 in the hands of the police or military performing their duties is a weapon. A Remington 870 in the hands of a target shooter, recreational hunter or sustenance hunter is a firearm. Civilians do not have the automatic right to use their firearms as weapons since we have no "castle laws" here. If we as civilians choose to use an object (gun, baseball bat, frying pan) as a weapon, then we have to answer to something we do have a right to do, which is to use "reasonable force". The Ian Thompson decision is a good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

A Remington 870 in the hands of a target shooter, recreational hunter or sustenance hunter is a firearm.

---

Any firearm is a weapon under the law, regardless of who possesses it and for what purpose. This is expressly spelled out in section 2 of the Criminal Code (interpretation). If you own a firearm, then in the eyes of the law, you own a weapon.

Civilian ownership of weapons can be seen as a common law right, reflected in the fact that there is in fact no Criminal Code prohibition against owning a weapon. A police officer cannot charge you with owning a weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

The Ian Thompson decision is a good read.

---

The only charge heard in that case was unsafe storage. Reasonable force did not enter into the court decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Any firearm is a weapon under the law, regardless of who possesses it and for what purpose. This is expressly spelled out in section 2 of the Criminal Code (interpretation). If you own a firearm, then in the eyes of the law, you own a weapon.

Civilian ownership of weapons can be seen as a common law right, reflected in the fact that there is in fact no Criminal Code prohibition against owning a weapon. A police officer cannot charge you with owning a weapon.



The only charge heard in that case was unsafe storage. Reasonable force did not enter into the court decision.

---

All very true, Welsh, thanks.

Regarding weapons, what I was perhaps clumsily trying to point out is that whereas in the U.S. there is legislation (2nd Amendment rights, castle laws) that expressly permits civilians to use their guns in defense of person or property under a comparatively broad range of circumstances, we have few such legal protections here. We bear a much higher legal burden if we choose to use a gun against another person, even if we feel it is justified. There's sometimes a lot of brash talk among some Canadian gun owners about their "home defense" guns. Such people need to think twice about whether that flat-screen is worth all the life-ruining fall-out of Daddy having to go away for a while.

The interesting thing about the Thompson case was that the careless use and pointing charges were dropped, not as part of plea, but because the Crown said convictions were not likely. Presumably what the Crown was actually more concerned with was that, had those charges failed at trial, it would have moved the bar in terms of what is considered "reasonable" in Canada.