Canada’s Gun Control Debate Acknowledges 2A Keeps U.S. Antis in Check

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pushed through new gun controls. The Second Amendment prevents that from happening in the U.S. (Screen snip, YouTube, Global News)

U.S.A.-( A Duke University law professor may have unintentionally explained to a writer at Foreign why Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was able to push through new gun control measures following the deadly Nova Scotia shooting spree, when such arbitrary actions would never be permitted in the United States.

Buried deep in a story that was perhaps incorrectly headlined “How Canada Got Tough on Guns” are a couple of paragraphs quoting Prof. Joseph Blocher, who “studies gun rights and regulation.” As he explained to writer Jillian Kestler-D’Amours, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms “as a factor for why the gun debate in Canada can appear so different. In Canada, there is no constitutional right to own guns.”

It’s not that Canada “got rough on guns,” but that Trudeau got tough on gun owners; law abiding Canadian citizens who neither committed the crime nor endorsed it. But the story really does not focus on that, only on the perception that some guns, at least, including so-called “assault weapons” and handguns, are not considered necessary in Canada.

The 2008 Heller ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court put that discussion off the table when it identified the handgun as the most common firearm used for personal and home protection. Handguns are in common use and therefore, according to Heller, they’re protected by the Second Amendment.

Twelve years ago, when the gun prohibition lobby contended almost around the clock to any news willing to listen that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia corrected the record. Now anti-gunners argue the amendment does not protect “assault rifles” or carrying guns outside the home, and there are ten cases pending before the high court that—if one or more is accepted for review during the next term—could correct gun grabbers again.

WICZ News picked up a report from CNN’s Jamie Ehrlich that discusses how these cases, none of which were accepted for review this week so they go back on the list for consideration during the court’s next conference, could change the legal landscape anew. It’s been ten years since the Court accepted a Second Amendment case, so the justices are overdue.

By no small coincidence, the CNN story also quotes someone from Duke, Jacob Charles, executive director for the university’s Center for Firearms Law. Charles acknowledges the court composition has changed since Heller and the 2010 McDonald ruling, “but that is no guarantee the court will make a sweeping ruling the way some conservatives hope,” the story says.
Regardless of one’s philosophical position on the Second Amendment, both reports put the right to keep and bear arms squarely in the spotlight, a situation that could never happen north of the border, where the amendment doesn’t exist.

The Foreign story mistakenly observes that “some 30,000” U.S. citizens are “dying from gun violence every year,” which mischaracterizes the problem considerably. Fully two-thirds of those fatalities are from suicide, not homicide, and gun rights advocates in the U.S. have insisted for years that the two categories should not be mixed together. One is the result of a crime, the other an act of emotional desperation, and combining the numbers only makes for a more dramatic and alarming total, which plays well with the gun control agenda, but rather fast and loose with actual fact.

As AmmoLand’s David Codrea noted in his recent article about the Canada situation, gun control extremists in that country have essentially admitted that disarmament is the ultimate goal.

Meanwhile, gun control will no doubt be a central issue in the upcoming presidential campaign, if it ever really gets underway amid the coronavirus pandemic panic. There are several battles on that front.

In Florida, National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer—the NRA’s first female president nearly 25 years ago—is in a fight with Leon County Tax Collector Doris Maloy about her apparent plan to delay accepting new, first-time applications for Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm licenses as the county gets back to normal services. Maloy reportedly has a “five-point plan” that will open four service centers around the northern Florida county. However, new gun license applications will still not be accepted, and Hammer is not happy. She’s advised Maloy in a letter that the Tax Collector lacks authority to make such a call under state law, according to the Tallahassee Democrat.

A few days ago, the Second Amendment Foundation issued a statement declaring to local governments that if they are not issuing concealed carry licenses, citizens should not be arrested for carrying concealed. It’s something of a “Catch 22” situation. People can’t carry concealed without a permit or license. While the law allows them to apply, local governments or police agencies have blamed the COVID-19 outbreak for their decision to not accept new license applications to reduce potential contact between their employees and the public.

But there is nothing in the law, nor the Constitution, that allows for certain rights to be suspended because of a virus outbreak. So, SAF, the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups have been busy legally.

These legal and political skirmishes keep anti-gunners reined in, but they also cost lots of money. That’s why all gun rights organizations are appealing to members and supporters to keep contributing, especially now that there are signs the economy is recovering from the coronavirus shutdown.

As Blocher, the Duke University law professor noted, the Second Amendment prevents the kind of heavy handed gun control now unfolding in Canada. That’s not to say U.S. anti-gunners wouldn’t like to change that situation.

This is why, as many leading gun rights advocates repeatedly tell people, “elections matter.” Donald Trump’s election in 2016 brought about some 200 appointments of conservative, pro-Second Amendment judges to the federal bench. For that to continue, he must win in November and Republicans will have to retain the Senate.

Somewhere out there, gun control advocates are planning their election strategy to flip the nation backwards. Gun owners who are alarmed about the Canadian situation and want to prevent that from happening here—Second Amendment or not—need to get in the game right now.

According to gun rights activists, the only things separating the U.S. and Canada are an invisible border and the Second Amendment. Ignoring that or taking it for granted could prove disastrous in November.

About Dave WorkmanDave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Canadians by Constitutional law have a right to secede. Judah Benjamin, former cabinet member in the Confederacy saw to that in Canada. Maybe they better begin that process. We have the same right as well. Read Bledsoe’s, Is Secession Treason? Written in 1864 to defend Jefferson Davis in case he would be tried for treason, the work is so solid that no Yankee lawyer tried it. Not that I want this. But come November, there May be no other course of action left to avoid bloodshed.

American Patriot

Canada can make all the gun laws they want, maybe the libs that promised to move there if Trump was elected will think more about it. But Trump being the Great POTUS he is, the left decided to stay.

Arizona Don

It the Canadian people allow Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to make gun control laws they are foolish at least ignorant at best. However, it seems they are going to. When will good intentioned leaders realize restrictive gun laws do not take guns out of criminals hands. Outlaws are called outlaws because they do not adhere to laws. They ignore them! So how, might I ask, does anyone in power think passing a law will effect those who pay no attention to laws? But an even more important question is why do these leaders want the vulnerable to be more… Read more »


“When will good intentioned leaders realize restrictive gun laws do not take guns out of criminals hands.” You are making a terrible mistake by suggesting, for even a single moment, that Leftist politicians like Trudeau are “good intentioned.” The Left is anything but “good intentioned” on pretty much every issue, but on gun control they surely have no “good intentions.” Leftists want all their citizens (perhaps “subjects” would be a better choice of words) disarmed so they cannot represent a threat to the Left when they create the dictatorship that the Left always seeks to create when they gain control… Read more »


Even with the Second Amendment, governments in the United States – including the federal government – trample all over citizens rights to ” . . . keep and bear arms . . . “!!! I have to have a “Mother May I” card to bear arms in my state even though the Second Amendment clearly states that my right to bear arms ” . . . shall not be infringed.” If I do NOT have such permission from the government they will either put me in prison or, if I insist on my right under the Constitution, the government will… Read more »


The citizens of Canada deserve better.


The current Canadian leader vs. our current American leader.

Rebel VA

Trudeau sits like a girl!

Wild Bill

@Reb, Pees like a girl, too.


“…get in the game right now.”
Nailed it, Dave. I’ve tried to preach this for years. I’ve known far too many gun owners
and avid shooters who remain content to let everybody else do the heavy lifting. They’ve never joined a pro 2A organization, (“I don’t want to be on a list”), never contacted a representative in Congress, never even made a monetary contribution to the cause; several that I know can buy a new top- dollar gun every month, but can’t throw 20 bucks to GOA, SAF, NRA, etc.

Wild Bill

, Good article, and I enjoyed your column, entitled, ” How to Make a Fool Out of a “Gun Safety Advocate” ” in the July issue of “Guns”, too!


G.O.A. member #23689707


Would you present a legal discussion about how the Declaration of Independence and revolutionary war influenced the development and signing of of the 2nd Amendment ?

And projecting to possible future events do American citizens of today have legal standing to revolt in the event a government is formed by vote fraud and other criminal acts and said government resorts to rule by tyranny ?

Russiagate taught us the communist DNC will not be limited by laws when they want to sieze power
So the question are relevant today.


: Your second paragraph states the reason the Second Amendment must stand as stated. That is the only protection we have against tyranny. We need more people standing up ready to take action.



The eevnts of history fully support the value of that Second Article of Ammendment. After the rottn king of England had evacuated Boston, closing the town and port, exacted ridiculous taxes, closed their legislatures and courts, instituted search and seizure processes of anyone at any time and ay plac,e wihtout warrant or cause, seizure of perosnal property “because…”, seicure of power and shot (ammunitioi) at Forst Wiliam and Mary (they raided the fort and got it back), Salem (they got nothing), and Charlestosn, (repulsed), the one man standing in the full authorioty of the king, who had issued specific orders… Read more »

Wild Bill

, Whoever kills the biggest … is the government.