Hromatka challenges gun law
Hromatka challenges gun law
By Thom Barker
Mar 06 2007
Smithers (B.C.) Interior News
A Smithers court judge reserved decision on a constitutional challenge to Canada’s Firearms Act on Wednesday.
Walter Hromatka submitted to Judge John Milne that a refusal by the director of firearms to grant him a licence to possess a Walther PPK was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hromatka purchased the then-restricted pistol legally in September 1995 and, following an investigation by the RCMP, was granted a registration on Nov. 27, 2005.
The Firearms Act, which changed the designation of certain types of weapons, including the Walther PPK, from restricted to prohibited, received Royal Assent on Dec. 5, 1995 retroactive to Feb. 14, 1995, when the bill passed first and second readings.
Hromatka said the decision was a “clear violation” of section 11g of the Charter, which states a person charged with an offence has a right: “not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law...”
He argued the back-dated law established retroactive guilt and was therefore illegal.
Furthermore, he told the judge, the grandfathering clauses in the Firearms Act violated section 15 of the Charter — which guarantees every individual is “equal before and under the law” — by creating two classes of prohibited handgun owners.
But Paul Pakenham, Crown counsel, submitted Hromatka simply did not qualify under grandfathering provisions of the new law because he did not possess the firearm or its registration prior to Feb. 14, 1995.
He rejected the constitutional argument under section 11g on the basis the Firearms Act did not establish criminal guilt, but was merely regulatory.
He also disputed the applicability of section 15 saying the grandfathering provisions of the legislation did not constitute discrimination based on the characteristics of an individual or group.
Finally, Pakenham cited case law that establishes possession of any firearm, prohibited, restricted or otherwise, is not a right or freedom in Canada, but a privilege, and, therefore, any Charter argument is moot.
“It’s not that Hromatka is unsuitable to possess firearms,” Pakenham said.
“It’s probably fair to say he is, but the law simply does not permit him to possess [prohibited guns] or obtain a licence.”
Hromatka countered that the case law cited did not qualify as precedent setting because it dealt only with the discrimination issue and not the “arbitrary” back-dating of a law, which he called “equally, if not more important.”
By Thom Barker
Mar 06 2007
Smithers (B.C.) Interior News
A Smithers court judge reserved decision on a constitutional challenge to Canada’s Firearms Act on Wednesday.
Walter Hromatka submitted to Judge John Milne that a refusal by the director of firearms to grant him a licence to possess a Walther PPK was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hromatka purchased the then-restricted pistol legally in September 1995 and, following an investigation by the RCMP, was granted a registration on Nov. 27, 2005.
The Firearms Act, which changed the designation of certain types of weapons, including the Walther PPK, from restricted to prohibited, received Royal Assent on Dec. 5, 1995 retroactive to Feb. 14, 1995, when the bill passed first and second readings.
Hromatka said the decision was a “clear violation” of section 11g of the Charter, which states a person charged with an offence has a right: “not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law...”
He argued the back-dated law established retroactive guilt and was therefore illegal.
Furthermore, he told the judge, the grandfathering clauses in the Firearms Act violated section 15 of the Charter — which guarantees every individual is “equal before and under the law” — by creating two classes of prohibited handgun owners.
But Paul Pakenham, Crown counsel, submitted Hromatka simply did not qualify under grandfathering provisions of the new law because he did not possess the firearm or its registration prior to Feb. 14, 1995.
He rejected the constitutional argument under section 11g on the basis the Firearms Act did not establish criminal guilt, but was merely regulatory.
He also disputed the applicability of section 15 saying the grandfathering provisions of the legislation did not constitute discrimination based on the characteristics of an individual or group.
Finally, Pakenham cited case law that establishes possession of any firearm, prohibited, restricted or otherwise, is not a right or freedom in Canada, but a privilege, and, therefore, any Charter argument is moot.
“It’s not that Hromatka is unsuitable to possess firearms,” Pakenham said.
“It’s probably fair to say he is, but the law simply does not permit him to possess [prohibited guns] or obtain a licence.”
Hromatka countered that the case law cited did not qualify as precedent setting because it dealt only with the discrimination issue and not the “arbitrary” back-dating of a law, which he called “equally, if not more important.”
posted by Stephen at 5:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home - Resource Library and Main Page