Firearms Owners Association
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN
 Dr. Hudson has filed argument with the federal and provincial Crown, whereby pursuant to the Charter, and also pursuant to other arguments, he challenges the legality and constitutionality of section 117.03. Written arguments have been filed by both sides. Extensive oral arguments have been made. Dr. Hudson has filed extensive supporting material.
 It must be said
that the amount of supporting material filed by Dr. Hudson is impressive
in scope, and so is his argument. A brief that ranges from the Jewish
Talmud to seventeenth-century English constitutional history to the closing
arguments of the future U.S. President, John Adams, in his defence of
the British soldiers charged
 I make the ruling
that Dr. Hudson has standing to challenge the legality of section 117.03.
I am far from sure that the Crown is accurate in arguing that “because
the Applicant was not charged with an offence under the Firearms Act or
the Criminal Code (sic), that his rights are not directly affected by
the provisions.” If I should be
 Dr. Hudson challenges
section 117.03 on several grounds. First, he argues that the section violates
the right to due process, as guaranteed by section 1 of the Bill of Rights
and section 11 of the Charter, on the grounds that “Without pretense
(sic) of either charge or trial, the RCMP have presumed me guilty and
punished me for nine
 Dr. Hudson’s second argument is that section 117.03 interferes with a constitutionally mandated “ right of self-protection.” He points out that section 5 of the Bill of Rights and section 26 of the Charter import the existence of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of the Charter. He also suggests that the alleged interference with the right of self-protection violates section 7 of the Charter, which of course, guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with fundamental justice.
 Dr. Hudson argues
that the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 guarantees the right for
citizens to have "armes for their defence,” and that this right
still inheres in every adult Canadian, such that section 117.03 is unconstitutional.
To decide this issue, it is necessary to look at the Declaration of Rights
and, for reasons which
 The Declaration of
Rights was the result of historical events: King James II had recently
come to the throne. He was a Roman Catholic in a country with a large
Protestant majority. The King set about to remove sanctions against Roman
Catholics, who had long suffered under legal disadvantages. He also built
up a substantial army, apparently with the intention of over-awing opposition.
The actions caused consternation among prominent English Protestants.
And invitation was sent to the Dutch Protestant William, Prince of Orange
to come to
 The elected legislature had effectively offered the throne conditional upon the would-be monarch’s accepting the fundamental freedoms of the subjects. For this reason, the Declaration is regarded as a fundamental milestone in English constitutional history, and so as well in nations tracing their constitutional development to England. I do not think a British legal scholar would challenge the idea that the Declaration is alive as part of British law.
 The Declaration is prefaced by the remark that King James had attempted to “Subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion,” and stated that one of the ways in which he had done this was “By causing several good Subjects being Protestant to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both armed and Employed contrary to Law.” The declared rights are then enumerated. Dr. Hudson argues that one of them is imported into modern Canadian law, such that section 117.03 offends the Charter-presumably section 7. The specific right reads in this way:
 As I suggested earlier
in this hearing, the transparent intention of this declared right was
to ensure that Roman Catholics would be placed back in the position of
legal inferiority in which they had hitherto been. To what extent is it
possible to give effect in modern Canadian law to a right which would
discriminate against Roman
 The key words in the declared
right, though, are “are as allowed by law.” What does this
mean? The whole point of the Declaration of Rights was arguably that it
signified that thenceforth only the Parliament-not the King—would
have the right to proclaim binding law. When the Declaration made the
right to bear arms conditional by including the phrase “as allowed
by law,” it was saying two things-first, that the right could be
restricted by passing of valid laws regulating it, and, second, by implication,
that it was Parliament which could pass those restricting laws. For “Parliament,”
we must read “the Parliament of any nation deriving its constitutional
 Dr. Hudson’s other points under this heading can be more summarily dealt with. It is undoubtedly true that Canadians have a long history of the use of firearms, and that firearms have often been used in righteous causes, such as opposing invasions and fighting foreign foes. This does not change the authority of Parliament to pass laws restricting access to firearms, or insisting upon licence provisions. Dr. Hudson’s resort to Judaic and Christian precepts, or the statements of philosophers, are interesting, but again these arguments cannot restrict Parliament’s lawful authority to legislate in this area.
 Dr. Hudson argues as well
that citizens require access to firearms to protect themselves against
tyranny. He says, “…citizens have more to fear from their
own government than from criminals.” Mr. Spencer reacted to this
idea with incredulity, but it has a long and respectable pedigree, from
Thomas Jefferson to Friedrich Von Hayek. It
 The facile answer to this is that in advocating freer access to firearms, Dr. Hudson is making a philosophical and political argument which has its place in the public discourse and Parliament, but not in court. Judges, however, should not be facile. It is probably true that if Parliament were to purport to take way from Canadians the right to self-defence, that would be an infringement of section 7 of the Charter, because that would impinge unacceptably on the right of Canadians to security of person. However, as Mr. Spencer pointed out, it is simply unreasonable to argue that the provisions of section 117.03 take away the right to self-defence. It is possible that in some hypothetical future Canada where a tyranny has arisen, or, alternatively, where anarchy and lawlessness have broken out, even the relatively mild restrictions of section 117.03 would so hinder Canadians in their right of self-defence that the section might be rules by courts (if there still were any) to be an infringement of section 7. I can only comment that such social conditions do not presently exist, nor do they seem likely to exist in the foreseeable future. The courts must deal with reality as it is, not as it might be in some awful and hopefully never-to-be future. No finding is possible that the Charter is offended by section 117.03 because it hinders the right to possess arms for self-defence.
 Dr. Hudson’s third argument was that in enacting section 117.03, Parliament has unlawfully extended its legislative authority. I believe that I have already dealt with this argument.
 Section 117.03 of the
Criminal Code is validly in force.