History of this sort of thing in Canada
Gathered here:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_04-2005_12_10.shtml#1134068501
1.
Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), Jan. 12, 1999:
[T]he main criticisms [of the new gun registration law] are: One, [critics] fear the slippery slope, that once their guns are registered, they can too easily be taken away. Easily concealed handguns have previously been confiscated without compensation.
Two, they sense being pegged as criminals. There is no U.S. constitutional argument to lean on — no "right to bear and keep arms" — just a feeling it's unfair and arbitrary. . . .
To a non-gun owner, a registry sounds entirely harmless. If you don't plan to engage in criminal acts, why oppose it? Count most federal officials among this group.
"Welcome to the weapons world," chuckles Jean Valin, a justice department spokesman, addressing gun owner concerns. "We are trying to tell (owners) go to sleep at night, because you have nothing to fear from this government. They like to invent bogeymen, and this is one of them."
2.
Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), Jan. 4, 2001, item written by Howard Elliott, who is now the newspaper's Executive Editor:
A concern regularly cited by those who oppose [the registration] law, and gun licensing and registration in general, is that this is the first step on a slippery slope with the final destination being the government's intention to make guns illegal, or to make them so difficult to own, people will find owning a gun isn't worth the bother.
No doubt, there are people on the gun control side of the debate who favour this sort of outcome, just as there are people on the other side who believe Canadians should have unfettered rights to own firearms with minimal or no government involvement.
But we suspect that neither of these extreme viewpoints reflects the position of the average Canadian, who tends to be moderate and fair-minded. There is no evidence that gun registration will ever equal arbitrary seizure, or a law against ownership. In the end, this is about having firearms registered, so police will have more knowledge of who has guns and be in a better position to protect the public where danger does exist. That's an eminently reasonable goal.
3.
Maclean's, May 22, 2000:
Canada . . . [is] portrayed in a pretty darn scary video by the U.S. National Rifle Association. The NRA (like many Canadian gun owners, to be sure) is particularly outraged by Bill C-68, the federal law requiring all firearms to be registered by the end of 2002. It's the old slippery slope argument: once the feds know where the guns are, it's just a matter of time before they take them away.
Or so, at least, argues the NRA . . . . It should, by all rights, be a tough sell these days. Americans have been shocked by a string of shootings at schools, churches, offices — even day-care centres. . . . [The piece goes on to discuss the Million Mom March movement.] But the early evidence is not all encouraging. It may take more than dying teens, or marching moms, to shift American attitudes.
4.
Vancouver Sun, today (thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer):
Prime Minister Paul Martin will propose a ban on most handguns in Canada, CanWest News Service has learned.
Sources say Martin, who will make the election campaign announcement this morning, wants to choke off the supply of handguns in this country, particularly guns brought into the country illegally and those sold on the black market.
There will be some exemptions, including maintaining the right for police to carry handguns. The prime minister is also expected to announce a significant increase in resources for police to deal with the ban.
The Liberals say the thinking behind this crime strategy is that if no one is allowed to have a handgun in Canada, policing authorities will be in a better position to act on anyone who has a handgun or attempts to transport or sell a handgun.
The announcement will include the banning of all registered handguns in Canada. However, sources say special arrangements will be made for gun collectors.
]