CUFOA

Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association
Association canadienne des propriétaires d’armes sans permis

Armes for Their Defense;
An Inherited, Historical, Canadian Right

homebutton contacts button articlesbutton photos linksbutton
 

Click here to view/download the pdf version of this article - 13 pages (143 KB .PDF)

Download Adobe Reader to view .pdf files:
Get Adobe Reader

Q.B. No. _ 1150 _ of 2010

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN

JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 52 OF THE RULES OF COURT;

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION DIRECTED TO SECTION 117.03 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE:


BETWEEN:

EDWARD B. HUDSON


APPLICANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA


RESPONDENT


AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD B. HUDSON

I, EDWARD B. HUDSON, of the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. That I am the Applicant herein and as such have knowledge of the matters and facts herein deposed.

2. That I was born in the City of Atlanta in the State of Georgia, United States of America on 29 April 1945.

3. That I was educated in the Sate of Georgia, completing my Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree at the University of Georgia in June 1969.

4. That in July 1969 I was commission as a captain in the U. S. Army Veterinary Corps, serving two years in the Special Forces (Airborne) until being medically retired in May 1972 after a parachute malfunction in Panamá.

5. That after completing further veterinary training, including an internship, then a residency in Small Animal Medicine, I earned a Master of Science degree in veterinary pathology from the University of California, Davis, in June 1977.

6. That I and my family moved to Canada as Landed Immigrants to live in the City of Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan on 27 June 1977.

7. That I taught Small Animal Medicine at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, for four years.

8. That I became a citizen of Canada on 21 July 1982.

9. That I worked for the Veterinary Inspection Branch, Agriculture Canada, before beginning a private veterinary practice in Saskatoon.

10. That I have not been prohibited from acquiring, owning, or possessing firearms.

11. That I applied for and received a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) in May 1978.

12. That I properly imported and registered my handgun and my restricted rifle with the RCMP.

13. That I legally purchased, owned, possessed, and responsibly used my firearms in Canada from July 1977 without a firearms licence up until the Firearms Act mandated licencing on 01 January 2001.

14. That since in 1994 I have been directly involved in active political persuasion to have Parliament recognize our innate, British constitutional heritage and Natural Right to ‘have armes for their Defense’ and repeal the Firearms Act.

15. That in March 1995 when renewing my Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) I refused to answer the application questions that violated my Right to privacy.

16. That on 18 June 1998 Provincial Court Judge Carey ordered that the federal Government should renew my Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) – see Exhibit A.

17. That since the Licencing mandate of the Firearms Act came into effect on 01 January 2001 I have owned, possessed, and responsibly used my firearms without a firearms licence.

18. That since November 2001 I have been actively involved in open, peaceful, non-violent, civil noncompliance to the Firearms Act and Criminal Code sections 91(1) and 92(1).

19. That attached hereto is a copy of a letter I sent to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in November 2001 informing the Government of Canada that I had destroyed my Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) – see Exhibit B.

20. That in April 2002, I, along with several like-minded associates, formed the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA), a duly registered not-for-profit corporation in the Province of Saskatchewan – see Exhibit C.

21. That as a founding Director of CUFOA I helped draft CUFOA’s policy statement committing ourselves to using open, peaceful, non-violent, civil non-compliance to accomplish the repeal of the Firearms Act - see http://www.cufoa.ca/.

22. That since April 2002 I have served as the Secretary of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA).

23. That to obtain CUFOA’s goal, my associates and I determined to challenge the licensing provisions of The Firearms Act and the related provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada in such a manner that we would be charged and could bring our constitutional arguments directly into open court before a judge and jury.

24. That to this end several associates and I traveled to Ottawa, Ontario, in December 2002 to organize a demonstration of firearms owners on Parliament Hill.

25. That attached hereto is a copy of my letter to Mr. Paul Bercier, Programs Officer, House of Parliament that I sent in November 2002 informing the Government of our plans - see Exhibit D.

26. That attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Paul Bercier, Programs Officer, House of Parliament, reply to me dated 29 November 2002 approving our plans - see Exhibit E.

27. That on New Year’s Day 2003 several associates and I conducted a demonstration on Parliament Hill in which we carried only a firearm’s receiver component from a British .303 Lee-Enfield rifle.

28. That during that demonstration my associates and I publically transferred that .303 firearm’s receiver component amongst ourselves; that during that demonstration CUFOA President Jim Turnbull and I were arrested and charged with “taking a weapon to a public meeting”; and that the RCMP and Ottawa City Police held Mr. Turnbull and myself in jail for two hours.

29. That after Mr. Turnbull and I, along with several associates, made two return trips to Ottawa for court appearances, the Crown stayed the charges a year later.

30. That to our knowledge the Ottawa City Police still hold that firearm’s receiver component to our Lee-Enfield rifle in their Evidence Room.

31. That on 21 January 2003, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in front of the Saskatoon Police Headquarters, Dr. Joe Gingrich of Nipawin, Saskatchewan, and I challenged the licensing provisions of The Firearms Act and the related provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada by publically transferring between ourselves a firearm’s receiver component from another British .303 Lee-Enfield rifle.

32. That at that time the Saskatoon City Police arrested Dr. Gingrich and myself for obstructing “a public officer or peace officer” when a city police sergeant attempted to use Criminal Code section 117.03 to seize the firearm’s receiver component of our rifle; and that the Saskatoon City Police held Dr. Gingrich in jail for two hours and held me in jail for thirty minutes.

33. That two months later the Crown stayed the obstruction charges; and that to our knowledge the Saskatoon City Police still hold that firearm’s receiver component of our rifle in their Evidence Room.

34. That on 29 January 2003 when several associates and I arrived on an Air Canada flight from Saskatoon at the international airport in Ottawa, Ontario, the Ottawa City Police again arrested me for obstructing “a public officer or peace officer” when a constable attempted to use Criminal Code section 117.03 to seize two firearms I was carrying in securely locked gun cases; and that the Ottawa City Police held me in jail over night, only releasing me after taking me before a Judge of the Provincial Court of Ontario for a bail hearing and demanding bail for both Mr. Turnbull and myself – see Exhibits F and G.

35. That the Ontario Provincial Crown stayed the charge a year later; and that to our knowledge the Ottawa City Police still hold these two of my two firearms in their Evidence Room.

36. That continuing our CUFOA campaign to challenge the licensing provisions of The Firearms Act and the related provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada into the summer of 2003, I, along with several associates, drafted and had certified affidavits proclaiming our ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles without the mandated federal licence to possess firearms – see Exhibit H.

37. That in July 2003 several associates and I traveled from “sea-to-sea” to each provincial capitol from Victoria, British Columbia, to St. John’s, Newfoundland; that my associates and I personally delivered these affidavits that openly declared we possessed firearms without a federal licence to the offices of the attorneys-general of these several provinces, and to the Prime Minister’s Office on Parliament Hill in Ottawa; and that no law enforcement agencies nor government officials laid any charges – see Exhibit I.

38. That in the fall of 2003 in order to continue to challenge the licencing mandate of the Firearms Act with open, peaceful, nonviolent, civil noncompliance, my associates and I determined to organize ‘duck hunting trips’ to unoccupied, rural areas of Saskatchewan wherein my associates and I would possess Saskatchewan hunting licences, Saskatchewan Habituate stamps, federal migratory bird permits, duck decoys, my Labrador retriever dog, one shotgun with a small amount of ammunition, but specifically we would not possess a federal firearms licence.

39. That before each of these events I notified the local RCMP detachments of the dates, times, and locations of these ‘duck hunting trips’ – see Exhibits J.

40. That on 11 September 2003 I notified the Biggar RCMP Detachment of our intentions to be duck hunting with a shotgun in the Biggar district of Saskatchewan and that neither of us would have a licence to possess Mr. Wilson’s shotgun – see Exhibit K.

41. That on 13 September 2003, my associate, Jack McKelvie Wilson, and I were duck hunting with his shotgun in the Biggar district of Saskatchewan when two RCMP members attended to our isolated location, interrupted our hunt, asked Mr. Wilson if he had a federal licence to possess his shotgun, detained him, and seized and confiscated his shotgun; and that Sergeant Weber of the RCMP then issued Mr. Wilson an Appearance Notice alleging that Mr. Wilson had violated Criminal Code section 91(1) – Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm – see Exhibit L.

42. That when Mr. Wilson and I subsequently appeared in Provincial Court in Biggar to address the CC s. 91(1) charge, the Crown Attorney withdrew the s. 91(1) charge.

43. That to our knowledge, the RCMP still hold Mr. Wilson’s shotgun in the Evidence Room of the RCMP Biggar Detachment.

44. That on 24 September 2003 my associate, Jack McKelvie Wilson, and I, having previously notified the Unity RCMP Detachment of our intention to be in possession of a firearm without a licence, were duck hunting with a shotgun in the Wilkie district of Saskatchewan – see Exhibit M.

45. That on that morning two RCMP members attended to our isolated location, interrupted our hunt, asked Mr. Wilson if he had a federal licence to possess his shotgun, detained him, seized and confiscated his J. C. Higgins Model 60 12-gauge shotgun; and that Constable Flaman of the RCMP then issued Mr. Wilson an Appearance Notice alleging Mr. Wilson had violated Criminal Code section 91(1) – Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm – see Exhibit N.

46. That subsequently Constable Flaman withdrew the Criminal Code section 91(1) – Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm - allegation and prepared an application under the authority of s. 117.03 of the Criminal Code seeking an order of the Court that the firearm and ammunition be forfeited to Her Majesty to be dealt with as directed by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan; that Mr. Wilson opposed the application; and that the matter was set to January 5, 2004, at Unity, Saskatchewan, for hearing.

47. That on 05 January 2004 Ms. Nicole Leinenweber, Senior Crown Prosecutor of the Battlefords Prosecution District, represented the Crown; that the Crown sought an adjournment of the hearing as it proposed to call an expert to testify as to whether the item purportedly seized was a 'firearm'; that the Crown expert was not present on 05 January; and that when Mr. Wilson agreed that the seized item was indeed a 'firearm' the Crown then sought to withdraw the Application for Destruction.

48. That Provincial Court Judge L.P. Deshaye then called an adjournment of these proceeding for consideration; and that Judge Deshaye then issued a decision dated 20 February 2004 that the Application for Destruction “is withdrawn at the Crown's discretion” – see Exhibit O.

49. That to our knowledge the Unity RCMP Detachment still hold Mr. Wilson’s shotgun in their Evidence Room.

50. That on Monday, 29 September 2003, I notified the Humboldt detachment of the RCMP that Mr. Wilson and I would be in their area with a firearm for which we did not have a licence to possess; and that we gave the RCMP the date, time, and location of this action – see Exhibit P.

51. That on 30 September 2003, a sergeant and a constable from the Humboldt detachment of the RCMP attended to our location near Carmel and, without laying any criminal charges, used the authority of Criminal Code s. 117.03. to seize and confiscate my hunting shotgun.

52. That two or three days later the Humboldt detachment of the RCMP called and asked me to come in and pick-up my shotgun because the firing pin was broken.

53. That on Monday, 06 October 2003, I again advised the Humboldt detachment of the RCMP that Mr. Wilson and I would be in their area with a firearm for which we did not have a licence to possess; and that I again gave the RCMP the date, time and location of our activity – see Exhibit Q.

54. That on Tuesday, 07 October 2003, Mr. Wilson & I returned once again to hunt migratory game birds in the same location in a farmer's canola stubble field near Carmel; that we again set up our hunting blind on a trailer mounted with a black casket with dead flowers, camo nets, decoys, and the red and white CUFOA “Protecting Our Liberty” banner; that Cassie, my Labrador Retriever dog, was again on hand to retrieve whatever we might shoot; and that this time we had my fully functional Ithaca, Model 3, 12-gauge pump shotgun which a Saskatoon gunsmith had examined and test fired for us the previous day.

55. That at approximately 10:45 a.m. two RCMP vehicles passed our location, stopped, reversed directions, and drove onto the approach to the canola field.

56. That the two RCMP constables politely introduced themselves, shook our hands, and then asked who owned the shotgun and if one of us had a possession license for the “weapon”; and that when I answered that I owned the shotgun and stated that all we needed to hunt were our Saskatchewan hunting licenses, the constables quickly informed me that since neither of Mr. Wilson nor I had either a POL or a PAL that they were going to “seize” my shotgun, which they promptly did.

57. That as noted in the affidavit of B.W. Batrum, for the next forty-five minutes Mr. Wilson and I were “invited” to sit “voluntarily” in the front seat of the two RCMP vehicles to “answer a few questions”; that half way through my interview, which was being both video taped and audio recorded, RCMP Constable Stephens issued me a “warning” that I “might be charged with a crime”, and inquired if I understood the situation and asked if I wanted to contact a lawyer – see Exhibit R.

58. That on Thursday, 09 October 2003, I advised the Craik detachment of the RCMP that, to challenge the licensing mandate of the Firearms Act, we would in their area with a firearm for which we did not have a licence to possess, again giving the RCMP the date, time and location of our activity – –see Exhibit S.

59. That on 10 October 2003 at a rural location north of Davidson, Mr. Wilson and I again set up our hunting blind on our trailer mounted with a black casket with dead flowers, camo nets, decoys, and the red and white CUFOA “Protecting Our Liberty” banner; that Cassie, my Labrador Retriever dog, was again on hand to retrieve whatever we might shoot; that a reporter from the Davidson Leader News was present to record the activity; and that morning Corporal Warren from the RCMP detachment in Craik attended to our location.

60. That Corporal Warren, without laying any criminal charges, used Criminal Code s. 117.03 to seize and confiscate my 16 gauge Stevens pump shotgun.

61. That subsequently Corporal Warren applied to the Provincial Court in Craik for a destruction order for my shotgun.

62. That on 17 August 2004 I served notice as required by the Constitutional Questions Act that I would be making a constitutional challenge opposing RCMP Corporal Warren’s application for a destruction order of my shotgun – see Exhibit T.

63. That on 07 September 2004, without any Crown Counsel present, I made a preliminary constitutional challenge to the application of the destruction order in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in Craik before Judge David Orr – see Exhibit U.

64. That subsequently Judge Orr agreed to allow me to develop my constitutional arguments more properly and present more evidence to support my position vis-à-vis our Right to have ‘Armes for their Defense’.

65. That on 20 April 2005 I served notice as required by the Constitutional Questions Act that I would be opposing RCMP Corporal Warren’s application for a destruction order of my shotgun based upon our Right to have ‘Armes for their Defense’.– see Exhibit V.

66. That on 04 October 2005 in Craik, with federal Crown Counsel present, I made a specific constitutional challenge to the application for destruction on the sole basis that licencing violated our Right to have ‘Armes for their Defense’ – see Exhibit W.

67. That on 06 December 2005 Provincial Court Judge David Orr gave his decision negating my arguments – see Exhibit X.

68. That on 02 May 2006 in a hearing before Provincial Court Judge David Orr in Craik, Judge Orr ordered that my shotgun be forfeited to the Queen – see Exhibit Y.

69. That on 07 December 2006 I made an unsuccessful appeal of Judge Orr’s decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Moose Jaw – see Exhibit Z.

70. That on 05 June 2007 I then made a further appeal – also unsuccessful - to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal who issued their decision 02 August 2007 see Exhibit AA.

71. That thereafter I applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon for a Judicial Review of Judge Orr’s decision; and that on 18 October 2007 I appeared before the Honourable Justice Gabrielson in Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon – see Exhibit BB.

72. That on 12 December 2007 the Honourable Justice Gabrielson ruled against my arguments – see Exhibit CC.

73. That on 08 September 2008 we appealed the Honourable Justice Gabrielson’s decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal; and that on 21 September 2009 the Honourable Chief Justice Klebuc ruled against our appeal, declaring that:

[22] None of the aforesaid factors was adequately addressed by Dr. Hudson before this Court or the Chambers judge. This deficiency is due, in part, to his claim having been brought before the courts by way of a Chambers application, rather than a trial where expert witnesses could articulate the nature and applicability of a particular fundamental right and related historical values to a specific circumstance and comment on relevant material jurisprudential writings. In these circumstances, I will go no further than to dismiss Dr. Hudson's argument on the second question, on the basis that the limited evidence and jurisprudence placed before the Chambers judge and this Court do not establish the broad inalienable right to possess an unlicenced?firearm for self-defence he advanced.
– see Exhibit DD.

74. That we subsequently applied for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; and that on 28 January 2010 that Honourable Court decided not to grant our application – see Exhibit EE.

75. That previously in July 2004 the Humboldt RCMP detachment had filed an application for a forfeiture order of my shotgun with the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in Humboldt.

76. That following that RCMP application, I appeared in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in Humboldt before Judge Ebert; that I informed the Court that I had a constitutional challenge to the licencing mandate of the Firearms Act under consideration before Judge Orr in Craik; and that I asked for an adjournment to await the results of that challenge.

77. That Judge Ebert adjourned the Humboldt proceedings awaiting the outcome of the Craik constitutional challenge; and that Judge Ebert and other judges in Humboldt subsequently adjourned the hearing several times more as my Craik constitutional challenge to firearms licencing wended it way through the Saskatchewan court system.

78. That after the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rendered the decision noted above, on 09 February 2010 I informed the Saskatchewan Provincial Court in Humboldt that I would raise a constitutional challenge to Parliament’s pretended authority to authorize the seizure, confiscation, and involuntary forfeiture of my legally acquired and peacefully and responsibly used personal property without lying a charge or obtaining a conviction of any crime at a trial by jury under either the Firearms Act or the appropriate Criminal Code section 92(1); and that I filed the required documents under the Constitutional Questions Act – see Exhibit FF.

79. That in due course on the morning of 10 May 2010 in Provincial Court in Humboldt the Honourable Judge J. A. Plemel heard our constitutional arguments; that in a verbal decision pronounced later that day on the afternoon of 10 May 2010, Judge Plemel dismissed our constitutional arguments; and that Judge Plemel them promptly ordered the forfeiture and destruction of my shotgun – see Exhibit GG.

80. That on 12 May 2010 I wrote to the Provincial Court in Wynyard requesting that Judge Plemel prevent the destruction of my shotgun until the completion of a judicial review of his decision – see Exhibit HH.

81. That to date, all of our several concerted efforts to obtain a trial by jury prior to the Courts of Saskatchewan ordering the involuntary forfeiture and destruction of our legally acquired, responsibly owned, and peacefully used private property have been unsuccessful.

82. That we now petition this Honourable Court to redress our grievance under the laws of Saskatchewan and Canada.

83. That I take this Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to declare that Criminal Code section 117.03 is ultra vires Parliament on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 (the British North America Act, 1867); that Criminal Code section 117.03 violates sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and that Criminal Code section 117.03 violates sections 1 and 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960.

SWORN before me at the City of )
Saskatoon, in the Province of )
Saskatchewan, this 11th day of )

June 2010. )

___________________
Edward B. Hudson

Sharon Schmidt
A Commissioner for Oaths in and for
the Province of Saskatchewan.
My commission expires


This document is delivered by:
Edward B. Hudson
Applicant

402 Skeena Court
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 4H2
(306) 242-2379

 

sitemap