I do understand the difference between the CBoR and the Charter. But you aren't getting the concept of the Charter. Let me make this simple for you. The right to self defense and property rights are NOT in the Charter or the Constitution. That doesn't mean they do not exist. You are thinking of the Charter as the be-all and end-all of our rights as Humans/Canadian citizens. It is a DEFENSIVE document listing SOME inherent rights, not a complete list. Have you read Section 26 of the Charter??? It says that other rights and freedoms in Canada are not invalidated by the Charter.
So you and I must disagree as to whether or not we have existing rights to self-defense and property, pre-Confederation right?
The 1982 Constitution has no relevance to what I'm talking about. We do not have a current legal connection to England but our law and customs took precedence from England in our history. The rights afforded to us before Confederation still apply today. The Constitution of 1982 handed over full legislative control to Canada, it didn't however nullify all the rights afforded to us as people.
The concept of self-defense applies to reasonable measures taken to defend one's self from harm. The implement is irrelevant. You can use a fork or a shotgun or a rubber chicken. If you are in imminent danger, you have the right to use whatever force nullifies the danger. This doesn't give a citizen 'carte blanche' to start shooting thugs in the back, but it sure as hell doesn't restrict someone from owning property which could assist. A person should have access to whatever he/she needs to protect themselves from any danger, but they should also be held accountable if they commit an act that doesn't fall under self-defense or reasonable force.
section 26 certainly allows for rights that are not delineated by the charter. never claimed that it didn't, which is why your paraphrasing was incorrect. read what i wrote again. it is only because it is included in the charter in this fashion that discussion of property rights is even possible.
again, you put words in my mouth. where do i say that the charter is "the be-all and end-all" of rights? stop assuming things that i didn't actually write. have the integrity to actually quote what i said, not re-write what you think i said. how difficult is that?
the fact is that property rights, afaik, and contrary to your stated facts, is not currently entrenched in the constitution, and that past citations in old legislation do not carry the force of law. if you were correct, then that would not explain the many unsuccessful attempts and initiatives to have property rights entrenched.
while in general the courts have in practice protected most property rights, i know of many cases where they were not, especially when it comes to the government.
and contrary to what you said, the charter has acted to limit property rights in the past, especially when it applies to disability.
finally, as for reasonable force, the criminal code defines it:
"
Defense of Person
Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself."
using a firearm in response to lethal force is one thing, but the principle of minimal force necessary is, afaik, the one generally applied in court.
the circumstances where using a firearm would be considered the minimal force necessary to repel another force are thus limited.
none of this changes the fact that (and i can't believe i'm agreeing with turbodish) if you are a gun owner in canada, you should accept the regulations that go along with ownership.
that means keeping up to date on registration/licensing.
in fact, it sounds pretty bloody easy to keep your firearms registered/licensed. . .with 'rights' come responsibility.
