Phase II Firearms Program Legislative Amendments Consultation with Stakeholders

Update: Dr.Gary Mauser's comments on the survey... (H/T Nimrod45 in the comments)

Executive Summary

The Government of Canada initiated a consultative process in summer of 2006, aimed at seeking the views of key stakeholders on potential measures that could improve the effectiveness of firearms control in Canada. More specifically, the objective of the consultations was to guide the development of legislative, program and administrative process changes that would achieve the following goals:

1. increase public safety by combating illegal possession and use of firearms;
2. cost-effectively collect, record and provide information about Canada’s firearms owners in a manner that is useful to both program administrators and law enforcement;
3. ensure high compliance rates among firearm owners to help ensure data integrity and to support continuous eligibility screening; and
4. increase the capacity to identify and prevent or remove access to firearms for those that could pose a risk to themselves or others.

The consultations were conducted with a broad range of key stakeholders including provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement, firearms groups, victims of gun crime, associations and public interest groups. The consultation involved the following approaches:

• a letter from the Minister of Public Safety inviting provincial and territorial governments to provide their views and advice;
  a web-enabled survey of 474 stakeholder organizations associations and public interest groups on potential measures to enhance public safety;
• the formation of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee – comprised of 14 members with backgrounds in firearms matters and law enforcement – to provide subject-specific advice and expertise;
• meetings between the Minister of Public Safety and the victims of Dawson College and other recent gun crimes; and
• the collection of ongoing views and comments from individual Canadians.

EKOS Research Associates was commissioned by Public Safety Canada to conduct the key stakeholder’s component of the consultation. The consultation focused on the following two primary areas of concern, the results of which are presented in this report:

• ways to improve the effectiveness of prohibition measures intended to prevent individuals who may pose a danger to society from possessing or acquiring firearms; and
• the implementation of a one-time licensing system that will maintain, and where necessary enhance, background and eligibility checks, safety training and safe storage requirements for firearms owners while improving efficiencies in the system.

To obtain feedback from a broad spectrum of stakeholders with an interest in firearms controls, a web-enabled survey was conducted. Public Safety Canada provided a list of 558 organizations from across Canada to be invited to participate in the consultation. This list not only included organizations with a primary focus on firearms and firearms controls, but also organizations working in related areas (e.g., law enforcement, public health, etc). It is important to note that, while there may be thousands of organizations in Canada that are involved in firearms issues, the list of organizations for this study was carefully compiled by Public Safety Canada to provide a balanced mix of organizations, both small and large, from all regions of the country.

After the duplicate and non-functioning email addresses were removed from the initial list of organizations, the remaining sample contained 474 stakeholders. These organizations were invited to participate in the study on November 22, 2006. Instructions included with the invitation asked that participants respond to the survey on behalf of the members of their organization. In order to boost the participation rate, two follow-up reminders were sent by e-mail before the consultation closed on December 22, 2006.

A total of 137 stakeholders responded to the survey for a final response rate of 29 per cent (based on the return rate of 137 out of the 474 stakeholders). An additional 46 stakeholders accessed the survey, but did not complete it.

The results of this consultation can be summarized under three main subject headings: 1) What do stakeholders think is working, 2) What do stakeholders think needs improving, and 3) What are stakeholder’s attitudes towards potential changes?

What do stakeholders think is working?

Although there were stakeholders that expressed concerns with nearly every facet of the current system, the following areas were seen as largely acceptable in their present format.

Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPOs)

• There is a high level of support for the courts imposing FPOs on those convicted of an offence.
• In general, the more serious the offence, the higher the support for imposing an FPO.
• Support varies depending on the type of FPO (i.e. higher for mandatory and discretionary FPOs, lower for preventative).

Refusals and Revocations by Chief Firearms Officers (CFOs)

• There is also significant, but somewhat less robust support for CFOs having the ability to revoke firearms licences.
• As with FPOs, the more alarming the behaviour, the stronger the support for revocation.

Mandatory Minimum Age Requirement

• Most stakeholders support the current minimum age for applying for a firearms licence; however, if given the option, some would lower it.
  

What do stakeholders think needs improving?

The following areas received less support from stakeholders and were seen by many as to be in need of reform.

Firearms Safety Training

• While a slight plurality of stakeholders consider the current safety training to be adequate, nearly one in three think it needs to be improved. Further, for reasons of public safety, a sizable majority place a moderate to high priority on improving training.
• Suggestions for improvement focus on updating course materials and instituting practical tests.

Screening of Applicants

• The plurality view is that the current screening requirements are adequate; however, for reasons of public safety, a large majority of stakeholders place a moderate to high priority on improving the screening process.
• Suggestions for improvement include omitting “irrelevant” or “unreliable” information (e.g., job loss, spousal statements) and removing the five-year cap on examining an applicant’s personal history.

Restricted Licences:

• The bare majority of stakeholders support the current additional requirements for restricted firearms (e.g., additional safety course).
• They also see little validity in the requirement to obtain Authorizations to Transport (ATTs) for these types of firearms (fewer than half support).

The Current Licencing System

• About half say they are satisfied with the way the current system is functioning, but only about 1 in 3 think it should be maintained. There are concerns with compliance rates and with the cost of administering the system.
• Stakeholders are also divided on the requirement for renewals of restricted licences. Many see this as unnecessary, but others think it provides a needed additional safety feature for the ownership of more dangerous weapons.

Attitudes towards potential changes

A number of potential changes to firearms controls were explored in this study. The following provides a summary of stakeholders’ attitudes towards these potential changes.

Potential Changes to FPOs

Creation of new mandatory FPOs

• Summary of results: depends on the type of offence; support higher for more serious offences.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: mixed

Increase length of FPOs

• Summary of results: Increasing the length of all types of FPOs endorsed by a majority.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support
  

Potential Changes to Revocations

Automatic revocations for certain behaviours

• Summary of results: half support instituting automatic revocations, but half prefer CFOs continued use of discretion
• Stakeholder’s overall position: mixed

Minimum time limit for period of revocation

• Summary of results: 2 in 3 support imposing a time limit; this should be proportionate to the offence committed.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support

Potential Changes to Tracking and Monitoring Prohibited Persons

Enhancement of a registry with names of prohibited persons

• Summary of results: 8 in 10 favours this change and less than 1 in 10 opposes
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support

Requirement to report change of residence to police

• Summary of results: 7 in 10 favours this change and less than 1 in 5 opposes.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support

Monetary fines for prohibited persons

• Summary of results: Plurality favour, but sizable opposition as well (close to 1 in 3).
• Stakeholder’s overall position: lean to support
  

Requirement to report to police on a regular /ongoing basis

• Summary of results: Plurality oppose, but also some support (close to 1 in 3)
• Stakeholder’s overall position: lean to oppose

Potential Changes to Screening

Enhanced screening for restricted licences

• Summary of results: divided; seen as increasing accountability but also creating disparity between gun owners.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: mixed

Additional background references

• Summary of results: half oppose and 1 in 3 support; arguments against seem to resonate more than in favour.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: lean to oppose

Mandatory spousal interviews

• Summary of results: half oppose and 1 in 3 support; arguments against seem to resonate more than in favour.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: lean to oppose

Requirement for CFOs to contact all references

• Summary of results: Divided; concerns with potential costs, but also see merit in contacting all references.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: mixed

Mandatory gun club reporting of suspicious behaviour

• Summary of results: about half support and 1 in 3 oppose; arguments in favour seem to resonate more than those opposed.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: lean to support

Potential Changes to Licensing

Combine POLs and PALS

• Summary of results: 7 in 10 supports and 1 in 10 opposes.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support

Make ATTs part of restricted licences

• Summary of results: 7 in 10 supports and 1 in 10 opposes.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support

Create a continuous licensing system

• Summary of results: 6 in 10 supports and 1 in 5 opposes; arguments in favour resonate more than those opposed.
• Stakeholder’s overall position: support

More Information:

• Supplier: EKOS Research Associated Inc.
• PWGSC Contract – OD160-072531/001/CY
• Contract Award Date – 11-09-06

To obtain more information on this study, please email: POR-ROP@PS-SP.GC.CA.

McGuinty calls car `loaded gun'

Time has been tight recently to follow up on some of the new issues, like the outright silliness from Jean Charest, premier of Quebec and the foolish "Anastasia's law" (what a truly sad legacy for a beautiful young girl). And what was Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant doing there? Trip paid for by the Liberal Party, I hope, because he was their to promote the Liberal Party agenda, not the business of Ontario.

Reader DF comments below on Dalton McGuinty's statements today that cars are as dangerous as "loaded guns". So, I guess we can expect a call to ban all cars - they do kill more people every year than guns do. Dalton, if no call to ban cars, why not? Or are you just the hypocrite the comment makes you out to be? Does David Miller know cars kill more people than guns? Why is he silent? Did Michael Bryant carry Dalton's message to Jean Charest that cars are as dangerous as loaded guns, and they should be banned too? Who paid for your trip, Michael?
...

Clearly - based on Premier McGuinty's comments - this is a bigger threat to public safety than firearms of any kind. Take a look at the numbers of vehicles that are out there. How many of them are used recklessly every day? How many violent incidents go by daily that are unchecked (so called Road Rage)? There are more injuries and fatalities reported related to motor vehicles that there have ever been related to firearms.

Clearly there needs to be a movement to urge Premier McGuinty to take the next LOGICAL step - given the GRAVE threat that these motor vehicles pose there should be an ALL-ENCOMPASSING BAN.

Make's sense , don't it???


Excerpt from Toronto Star Today:

McGuinty calls car `loaded gun' TheStar.com - News - McGuinty calls car `loaded gun'
June 19, 2007
CANADIAN PRESS
Premier Dalton McGuinty says a car is like "a loaded gun," and drivers must ask themselves if it is worth it to speed and drive recklessly.
McGuinty was commenting on a massive accident on Highway 400 on Monday in which police say high speeds and dangerous driving were likely factors.
Three men face a total of 11 charges in the crash that killed a tractor-trailer driver.
The crash was the third major accident in four days on the busy north-south highway, and the second fatal one.
McGuinty says when drivers are reckless they endanger the lives of somebody's father, somebody's husband and somebody's daughter.
McGuinty also said he has no intention of revisiting the idea of photo radar.