Talk:Official Position on Justice
From Charles Zach, a position on firearms which he believes should be included in the Justice policy position:
As requested, I have composed a policy position on firearms for your review that I believe is in keeping with the core Libertarian Party principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility and limited government. Please feel free to ask questions or comment on this proposed policy.
The Libertarian Party of Ontario believes that the peaceful possession of firearms should not be a crime, and that the ownership of such firearms is part of every person’s right to own and enjoy private property.
The Libertarian Party of Ontario further believes that the ownership and use of firearms is the right of a citizen which should only be limited by threats or acts of violence.
The Libertarian Party of Ontario further believes in the inherent and inalienable right of all people to self-defence including the use of firearms for this purpose.
The Libertarian Party of Ontario further believes that education is the best means of ensuring responsible behaviour with firearms rather than legislation and regulation.
The Libertarian Party of Canada would repeal the former gun control Bills C-51, C-17 and C-68 and resulting regulations with the aim of trusting the people to behave in a generally responsible manner, while at the same time severely punishing those who would commit violence by misusing firearms.
Additionally taken from an email to Jim McIntosh and I--Allen Small 12:35, 10 November 2012 (EST):
As I have already highlighted, the 'Administration of Justice is a Provincial Responsibility'.
Section 92(14) of the Constitution gives provinces responsibility for the Administration of Justice in the province. Section 109 of the Firearms Act gives the Federal government the authority to enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act even if the provincial government opposes such a move.
Provincial governments who may be gun friendly then have at least two choices to resist in this regard:
(1) Challenge Section 109 of Bill C-68 in court, or
(2) Refuse to continue enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Act. Refusal by the province to enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act would force the federal government / RCMP to take over and incur the full administration responsibility and costs of the Firearms Act regulations that was downloaded on Ontario by the sympathetic provincial governments at that time.
PROPOSED STRATEGY:
With a sympathetic federal CPC government now in power and the province of Ontario on the edge of a financial cliff, I believe that a bold new gun friendly provincial government could unilaterally opt out of their commitment to the Firearms Act as a 'colorable' cost saving measure and hand the federal government a 'plum' of a political opportunity to reassess the entire Firearms Act as they promised long ago. The state review would invariably involve a empirical review using the newest studies and evidence to measure the efficacy of Firearms Act and other gun controls. Of course the final report would conclude that it does not promote public safety as it was intended but is a hollow piece of legislation that only constrains the compliant. It is not inconceivable to image that other 'opted in' provinces (i.e. Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) also seeking to institute cost cutting measures would also quickly follow suit which would only hasten the impetus to institute gun control social policy reforms at the federal level.
During this unilateral provincial 'opt out' period, a legal moratorium could be declared by the province of Ontario regarding all provincial enforcement of federal gun controls. The Ontario CFO's responsibilities would be immediately suspended and their legal ability to enforce any provision of the federal Firearms Act would be prohibited by provincial legislation. That same piece of provincial legislation would also temporarily free all law abiding Ontario firearms owners from all the regulatory requirements of the of the Firearms Act until the policy mess was sorted out. Imagine, a glorious period of no mandatory ATT's, no more draconian gun store and gun range inspections by the CFO, no more arbitrary granting, denying, or revoking of firearms licenses, and no more trumped up charges of unsafe storage, etc. More importantly this moratorium period would demonstrate that nothing world change. No increase in gun crime. No blood in the streets. No insurrection.
What do you guys think? Comments, suggestions etc.
I would propose a short term policy statement that would declare that if elected as the governing party of Ontario, the Libertarian Party of Ontario would move to opt out of administering the Firearms Act and put the full burden of administering the Firearms Act back on the federal government where it belongs.
Charles Zach
Hi-
I am not going to comment extensively here. i Would merely like to state an objection to the idea on the actual page, not this talk. While i sympathize with the impulse to completely remove legal aid, i think that in some cases it is justified. People who are living traditional lifestyles (meaning hunter-gatherer/homstead farming) or are of a lower class economically would be utterly laid waste to without legal representation.
If such a person were forced to pay for their own legal fees, and by some chance was found innocent, who would rightfully repay the person for their time, trouble, and hardship.
further, what of those people who would not be able to pay for representation at all.
I am simply saying that there are unintended concequences.
every act by government is a violent one, including its processes. their needs to be some kind of protection for the most voulenerable -against the government. Legal aid is this protection from undue prosecution.
fund it through donation, lottery, bursery, i dont know.
I do know that there would be even more poor non-whites in jail who didnt deserve it without legal aid.
i dont have a solution here, but i do think one is worth persueing.
Austin Williams