GUILTY THROUGH INNOCENT ERROR
Where and how does Bill C-68 makes one guilty by an innocent mistake on a
registration or when verifying. I am having a hard time explaining this to
some people. They look at me and say that can't be right. Also what is the penalty for this.
Firearms Act section 106(1): "Every person commits an offence who, for the
>purpose of procuring a...registration certificate...for that person OR ANY
OTHER PERSON, knowingly makes a statement, orally or in writing, that is
false or misleading..."
The words "or any other person" expand the liability to include the
verifier, who "makes a statement" in order to get a registration
certificate for the applicant. The applicant becomes liable if he fills
in ANY "identifying" box (Make, Model, Type, Serial number, etc.) on the
application, the verifier becomes liable if HE provides any "identifying"
data to put into those dangerous boxes, and the applicant is further liable
if he uses data supplied by the verifier and SIGNS it, because that
makes him or her responsible for the "statement" as if he or she was
providing the information himself or herself.
In that FA 106(1) sentence, by the rules of English grammar, the word
"knowingly" modifies "makes a statement" but does NOT modify "that is
false or misleading." Therefore, if the "statement" is made in good
faith, and is believed by the person making it to be true and accurate --
but it TURNS OUT to be "false or misleading" -- then the person is guilty
of that offence.
Now examine Criminal Code sections 91(1) and 92(1). Those two are precisely
the same offence -- EXCEPT that CC s. 92(1) criminalizes where the
offender KNOWS he or she is offending, and CC s. 91(1) criminalizes where
the offender does NOT know that he or she is offending.
That clearly establishes government's
Now back to FA s. 106(3): "In this section, 'statement' means an
assertion of fact, OPINION, BELIEF, or knowledge, whether material or not
and whether admissible or not."
Clearly, a "statement" (made orally or in writing) of "opinion" or
"belief" can easily be wrong, and therefore "false or misleading" --
WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT
"STATEMENT."
Note carefully that even an ORAL "statement" of "opinion" can criminalize you
just as certainly as a written one -- so DO NOT DISCUSS any "identifying"
entry with ANYONE. This is a VERY dangerous area.
The Canadian Firearms Center (CFC) keeps telling us that no one will be
charged for an innocent error. DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.
The CFC has NO control over who will be charged, and who will not.
If the local police officer gets out of bed on the wrong side, bill C-68
gives him all the scope necessary to put YOU in court defending yourself.
FA s. 106 criminalizes so easily that no applicant with a brain in his or her head
would dare to fill in any of those "identifying" boxes with anything other than UNKNOWN.
No intelligent verifier would dare to do it, either.
If the applicant refuses to GUESS -- and it would be a guess -- as to what
"identifying" information the government believes to be true and accurate
for that particular "identifying" box, then the data MUST come from a
verifier.
Understandably, the government is having grave difficulty in FINDING
people willing to risk up to five years imprisonment (or even just
getting a criminal record for a firearms offence, which is enough in
itself to block the criminal from being bonded or entering any other
country). The government's refusal to PAY volunteer verifiers -- and its
inability to let them charge fees, which cannot be done under the terms of
BILL C-68 -- has left Canadians in a position where there are good
reasons to REFUSE to be a verifier -- and no reasons to volunteer.
Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa
Governments
-------