Thursday, February 25, 2010

No constitutional right to bear arms

Today's decision in R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA 141 makes clear (as if it was necessary to clarify!) that Canadians have no constitutionally protected right to possess weapons. The Court holds:

[16] Moreover, contrary to the Montagues' contention, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the question of whether the possession and use of firearms is a constitutionally protected right and has rejected the notion that Canadians have an absolute constitutional right to possess and use firearms. See R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, at para. 9; R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, at para. 414. Although s. 7 of the Charter does not appear to have been expressly invoked in those cases, the Supreme Court stated in Hasselwander at para. 414 that, "Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms." In Wiles at para. 9, the Supreme Court said: "[P]ossession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege."

[17] The Montagues submit that the above-quoted comments are obiter, as ss. 7 and 26 of the Charter were not engaged in Hasselwander and Wiles or any related jurisprudence.

[18] We disagree. The Supreme Court's comments in Hasselwander and Wiles apply with equal force to s. 7 of the Charter.


The Rat said...

"...that Canadians have no constitutionally protected right to possess weapons."

At least you had the good sense to qualify that. The great Liberal douche, Trudeau, wrote a constitution that omits many basic rights including the right to own property. But what else could we expect from a "reformed" anti-semite and rabid socialist? It' so much easier to impose a kleptocratic state when the workers can't shoot back.

James C Morton said...

In practice, and this is what the case is about -- Canadians have the entitlement to bear arms.

Anonymous said...

We can't bear arms but can we arm bears?????