I don’t study the Canadian form of government as much as I should, and their announced assault weapons ban is a good demonstration of why I tend to neglect this area of political science. Our two systems are simply so different that I often feel that I can’t find much in Canada that can be applied here in the United States.
The Liberal government is prohibiting hundreds of “military-grade assault rifles“ – including two of the firearms used in last month’s mass shooting in Nova Scotia – partly fulfilling a long-standing pledge to ban a style of gun that has become associated with mass shootings worldwide…
…Prime Minister Justin Trudeau evoked several Canadian mass shootings – including last month’s tragedy in Nova Scotia – as he announced the measures on Friday morning…
…Senior officials who spoke on background at a technical briefing said at least 105,000 restricted firearms held by 72,000 owners will come under the ban. The total number is likely much higher…
…“It’s much more sweeping than we expected,” said Alison De Groot, managing director of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association. “Based on the list, we estimate there is about $200-million to $300-million in inventory in the supply chain right now that cannot be sold.”
Just like that, it’s done. The prime minister made a decision, made an announcement, and the policy is decided. There is now a ban on purchasing AR-15 style rifles. There are eight other broad model types that are prohibited.
The bans will be accomplished through regulations, with no legislative changes needed until the government introduces the buyback program.
The Opposition said the program should have been put to Parliament. Mr. Trudeau is using “the immediate emotion of the horrific attack in Nova Scotia to push the Liberals’ ideological agenda and make major firearms policy,” Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer said in a statement. “That is wrong.”
The conservative opposition is reduced to impotent complaints about the fairness of the process, but they have no real recourse outside of the hope of using the issue in future political campaigns. There’s some talk of taking the issue to court, but there’s no 2nd Amendment to back them up.
Obviously, we can’t expect a Democratic president to bypass Congress and create a national policy by administrative fiat. It wouldn’t be enforceable and it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.
Maybe, however, America will learn something from Canada for once. We might learn that these restrictions can be put in place without it being a political liability. We might learn that it reduces mass shootings, gun accidents, and gun violence generally. He might discover that the police really like the policy since it makes their jobs safer and easier.
In other words, perhaps Canada’s ban will create some momentum for a similar set of regulations here. We can examine their buyback program and take what works while leaving what does not. In the end, we’ll need to convince Congress, not just the president. And we’ll need to convince the Supreme Court, too, which may not be possible in the next two or three decades unless we expand the Court. Maybe expanding the Court will become more politically viable.
I get frustrated with the limitations of our system, but I’m not certain I want the Canadian system either. Trudeau has too much power here for my taste, even if I happen to sympathize with his goals in this instance. But I hope we can still find ways to learn from this and to emulate it.
One way to get it started is to ban POC from owning any firearm, MAGA won’t claim to care about the constitution then.
Example? MAGA cares about not being able to go to the beach or get a haircut, but doesn’t say a word about POC being forced to work in pestilence ridden meal packing plants.
We are fucked.
Remember when Gov. Ronald Reagan freaked out about Black Panthers with guns walking around and enacted gun control?
Remember when FOX freaked out about the ‘Black Panthers’ in…..2012? Now FOX is supporting armed terrorists in state houses.
.
Surprise!!!! Racist bastards.
“Trudeau has too much power here for my taste” is a little laughable. What’s notable about the Canadian system is how *little* power the Prime Minister has in most areas. The Provinces have extensive autonomy in many domains that would make them the envy of any ambitious governor in the US. (This is one characteristic that helps keep Québec in the federation.)
I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago and until somewhat recently held onto a nostalgic reverence for the Constitution and the founding fathers. That started eroding quickly as I watched how Obama was hamstrung by the senate. My admiration collapsed entirely as it became clear there was only one path to evicting Trump. I’ve also become convinced of the superior democratic value of a system that structurally supports more than two parties and the possibility of forming a government from a coalition of minority parties.
It’s pretty clear that the US Constitution was patched together with bandaids over the major wound of slavery and that this has engendered an array of chronic and debilitating inconsistencies. Fixing it would be the equivalent of rebuilding your boat while you’re floating in it. Something like that is barely possible in a parliamentary system. I don’t see how such a thing could happen in the US. The more likely scenario is the de facto dissolution of the union, which may be where we’re at right now.
It turned out that our two party system is indeed a suicide pact.
I am very interested in knowing, if “Provinces have extensive autonomy in many domains that would make them the envy of any ambitious governor in the US”, do they the ability to get around this ban in some way? Or is Trudeau’s power absolute in this case, as Martin suggests? I also confess ignorance on the Canadian style of government, so much of how this ban is accomplished and enforced is kind of a mystery to me.
Trudeaus power is of course not absolute. There is a supreme court in canada that could overturn this federal law on constitutional grounds. Provincial governments have purview of various aspects of canadian life (social services, family law, housing, medical services), but the federal government has power over things like national security and inter-provincial commerce. I think a good argument can be made that the assault weapons ban falls under both national security and inter-provincial commerce, but I’m not a lawyer.
That’s the gist of it, I think.
I would take the Westminster parliamentary system over ours any day. There are many flaws in our system. The Senate is almost as antidemocratic as the House of Lords, and should have its power reduced accordingly. And the fact that there are three veto points to legislation (Senate, House, President) means that power inevitably accrues instead to the unelected Supreme Court, which is the only entity that can command things to happen by fiat.