In my political days, one of my more memorable people was Dave Tomlinson. He and I served on a small political committee together for a couple of months.
Dave was valuable in this committee work; his insights were well used, and I learned a few things about working in a political party.
Dave was also quite vocal about his work outside of the political party. Dave was the president of the National Firearms Association of Canada for many years. He was often in the news, representing the Canadians who had firearms as a hobby.
The Liberal government of that day were working on their firearm registration legislation. Dave was 100% against this legislation. He did not see it working to accomplish anything useful for safer firearms usage in Canada. He was actively campaigning, as best he could, to defeat it. He was not successful. This legislation went into law in 1995.
At first, the police liked the legislation. As many gun owners complied to register their guns, the police need only bark the address into their radio to verify if firearms were in a house they were investigating. If so, they would be taking necessary precautions. But as time went on, the police discovered that more than a few reasonable Canadians did not register their firearms. And, of course, the bad guys did not register their weapons either. The registry quickly became an ineffective police tool — and was serving no real purpose. It was repealed in 2012.
But throughout this time of the registry, Dave kept preaching the right idea: “License the firearm user, not register the firearm.”
Licensing the user was about competence and background checks. Dave was quite adamant about those two processes. And Dave wanted various levels of firearm licensees: simple hunting rifles, more complex hunting rifles, and pistols all required a different license. There was no 18-year-old kid buying military grade weapons in Dave’s vision.
If a Canadian citizen was in possession of a firearm but had no license, that firearm would be confiscated by the police. No refund! The next time this citizen had a firearm but no license, a little prison time was Dave’s solution. And a little more prison time for the next offence.
Dave knew that many bad guys would not get such a license. He also knew that sometimes it is hard to put bad guys in prison for their real crimes. But it would be easy to send them behind bars for no firearm license — if that legislation were in place.
It’s been 30 years since I had those political meetings with Dave. I have not heard a better solution on how to find that balance between responsible firearm owners/users and public safety.
Canada and the United States
A few years back, I did a little internet research on firearm deaths in the two countries. It seems that Canada has about one-tenth the deaths, on a per capita basis, than the USA. I would wager that one-tenth has now become one-twentieth in the past few years.
When I tried to point this statistic out to second amendment advocates, their main debating point was something like: “Canada is not United States, so we shouldn’t compare apples to watermelons.” Really? Can not Americans learn something from other countries?
Anyways, I often think of Dave Tomlinson’s solution being applied in the USA. It makes sense to me. It gives an easier way for police and prosecution to put some bad guys behind bars. Responsible gun owners and users can demonstrate their responsibility by taking the background check and doing a little test for the firearms they want to use. They get their license; their guns will not be confiscated.
If a reduction in firearm deaths is the goal, it will take a decade to get statistically credible proof that licensing users works. Both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobby will not have the patience to wait for this result. One side will say “not enough;” the other will say “too much.” Politicians cannot look past the next election. But that is the nature of our current political process.
But I’m sure Dave’s solution will see a reduction in a decade. The Canadian experience says some restrictions do work. Maybe a 50% reduction in 20 years.
Is this 50% reduction not a worthy sacrifice for responsible gun owners to agree to a background test and demonstrate their competence? The bad guys will be harassed and flushed out more easily. Those with severe mental illnesses won’t have easy access to firearms. Yes, there will still be some needless deaths, but a lot fewer.
Dave Tomlinson’s “License the user” makes a lot of sense to me.
Published on Medium 2022
Let's End Tax Deductions for Charities
Governance Lessons from a Canadian Village
