Reference re Firearms Act
| Reference Re Firearms Act | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: February 21, 22, 2000 Judgment: June 15, 2000 |
|
| Citations | [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31 |
| Prior history | none (Reference question) |
| Holding | |
| The regulation of firearms is a matter of public safety and so is in the authority of the federal government under the criminal law power. | |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | The Court |
| Laws Applied | |
| RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; s. 91(27) Constitution Act, 1867. | |
Reference Re Firearms Act is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers regarding firearms legislation and the Canadian Firearms Registry. A unanimous Court held that the federal Firearms Act was constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power.
In 1995, the government of Canada passed the controversial Firearms Act, which required gun owners to have them registered and to obtain licences for them. The government stated that the law was passed under the authority of the federal government's criminal law power. The Firearms Act was closely integrated with the federal Criminal Code, so that failures to comply with the requirements of the Firearms Act could in some cases be prosecuted as offences under the Criminal Code.
The government of Alberta submitted a reference question to the Alberta Court of Appeal to determine whether the Act was in relation to matters under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The government of Alberta argued that the law was in relation to personal property and thus was a matter in the jurisdiction of the province. The federal government, however, argued that the law was in the realm of criminal law, which is under federal jurisdiction.
The unanimous Court held that the pith and substance of the Act was in relation to "public safety" which was a matter within the criminal law power of the federal government. The Court cited the Margarine Reference for the requirements of criminal law and noted the danger of firearms, even if in some cases they could be used beneficially. Indeed, the regulations were judged to promote responsible firearm ownership, and the Court went on to argue that there would be a moral danger if firearms are used irresponsibly (morality is an element in criminal law, as established in the Margarine Reference), although the Court said that it was not just a matter of morality that gave Parliament the authority to pass this legislation.
...
Wikipedia