[MBates]

Apologies in advance for the long constitutional law post, but I also just came across this link which helps one understand where the purported "right" to acquire and possess firearms is coming from (and being included in some manner in the new Alberta Bill of Rights):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Wwax2MaqE

The "Black Hat Group" as it is being called here (I guess he does not like the use of 'Gang') by "constitutional lawyer" Leighton Grey is operating on what he says is an "interesting question" based on an interpretation that the Charter says we "inherited the full British tradition" (no idea what he is referring to here, but we can put that aside for now) such that the 1688 Bill of Rights in England gives us as Albertans the "right to keep and bear arms" in 2024.



For those interested in trying to understand ye ole English for themselves, here is a link to the cited 336-year-old English law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/W...2/introduction

If you read it you will note the issue of owning "arms" in the 1688 Bill is an intervention to restore to Protestants what had been banned previously in relation only to them but not Papists. So it returned equal treatment in law (in other words saying you could not ban 'arms' ownership only in respect of one group literally based on religion). Nowhere does the 1688 Bill actually say there is an inherent constitutional right of all British subjects to keep and bear arms (which would be curious given the present day status of firearm ownership in Britain, but I digress). Indeed what it says suggests the opposite of an inherent constitutional right:

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

The implication being that "arms" for "defence" have to be "suitable to the conditions" and also "allowed by law".

While not fit for citation in a court brief or a law school exam, here is what seems to me is the clear and obvious rebuttal to this "interesting question"...which can be put together in a matter of minutes:

While the 1982 Charter does indeed say it "...shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada", section 26 clearly refers to what is then in existence in 1982.

It seems an impossible stretch to say that the Constitution of Canada ever included the 1688 Bill of Rights, particularly where any part of that Bill of Rights is contradicted by the text of the Constitution Act, 1867. But also there is section 52 of the Charter itself:

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52 (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

(2) The Constitution of Canada includes

(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;

(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and

(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

The schedule, does not mention any British bills of rights. What it does list, obviously, is the Alberta Act, 1905 which includes this section:

3. The provisions of The British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Alberta in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore comprised in the Dominion, as if the said province of Alberta had been one of the provinces originally united, except in so far as varied by this Act and except such provisions as are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to be, specially applicable to or only to affect one or more and not the whole of the said provinces.

I am sure this pains the UCP to no end, but from the very existence of Alberta, it has always been so that Criminal Law was voluntarily given up in 1867 as the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, and as we know from the Firearms Reference, Criminal Law includes the valid constitutional authority of the feds to decide what parts of firearm ownership / possession / use are able to be banned by making them crimes.

Even if the Constitution of Canada did somehow include the 1688 Bill of Rights, firearm ownership in that document was clearly subject to restrictions by government for what was needed for defence, suitable to the circumstances, and not otherwise made unlawful by legislation.

So, for example, if in 2024 a government with the authority over criminal law in Canada decided it should be a crime to own automatic machine guns, handguns, or some semi-auto rifles that are too risky to be used in mass killings of others, then your "right" to bear arms was subject to being restricted accordingly.

I mean, I am a law-abiding firearm owner who does not agree with the current federal government's view of where the lines should be drawn regarding firearm ownership...but that does not mean there is some non-existent Charter protected right to keep and bear arms if someone who wants it to exist just wishes for it hard enough.

I have said before, I will still wait to see what they actually try to put in the proposed Alberta Bill of Rights, but it is hard to see an Alberta government in 2024 relying on a special interest group's opinion of 1688 British Imperial legislation as a serious government that should be trusted to do anything to manage the challenges and problems we actually face as a province.