Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada by R. Blake Brown (review)

Early settlers in the Great Plains relied upon firearms to provide food for their families as well as to protect themselves against violence. Many Americans and Canadians still do. Lacking constitutional guarantees for an individual right to own firearms, Canada has approached regulating firearms somewhat differently than the United States. Non-English minorities have been particularly vulnerable.

Canada is known for having restrictive gun laws. But for most of its history, authorities in British North America have actively promoted the ownership and use of firearms—at least by “trustworthy” citizens. Many important nineteenth-century Canadian politicians—including Sir John A. Macdonald (the first prime minister of Canada), Edward Blake, and Robert Baldwin—argued strongly that Canadians, as English subjects, enjoyed the right to bear arms; nevertheless, they supported imposing severe restrictions on firearms ownership and use by non-English minorities.

R. B. Brown is to be commended for pointing out the racist roots of Canadian gun laws. In times of crisis, governments in British North America passed laws specifically designed to disarm groups seen as suspicious or threatening, including, in early centuries, Aboriginal peoples and the resident French population, and later, Irish and Italian immigrants. During World War I, Canada disarmed Ukrainian settlers, and during World War II, disarmed or incarcerated Japanese, Chinese, German, and Italian Canadians. Beginning in the 1990s, Canada imposed draconian firearms regulations on everyone. Unfortunately, Brown does not seem to realize that such restrictions sent a powerful message that the state viewed everyone as untrustworthy or even threatening. Such views have troubling implications in a democracy.

Brown unequivocally aligns himself as a “progressive,” citing approvingly controversial icons such as Michael Bellesiles, whose claims in Arming America have now been thoroughly discredited. Unfortunately, Brown’s ideological biases lead him to ignore or misrepresent important fundamentals, such as the American Second Amendment. Too often he seems satisfied with stereotypes. Brown also makes minor errors regarding firearms, such as confusing semiautomatic and fully automatic actions. His errors are particularly glaring when he attempts to describe contemporary politics.

Gun control endures as a robust perennial because it reflects the unresolved tension between individual liberty and governmental power. Curiously, present-day progressives appear not to fear governmental limitations on classic individual political freedoms, such as firearms rights or free speech. Without convincing evidence, promises that draconian gun laws will improve public safety merely offer false hope while encouraging government to grow ever more intrusive.