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

A Cancer of the Soul

homebutton contacts button articlesbutton photos linksbutton

01 March 2013

An Open Letter:
To Every Canadian Gun Owner who has a Licence to possess your Firearms,

Armed Self-Defence
What Do You Believe?

“The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”*

“The right of ordinary citizens to possess weapons is the most extraordinary, most controversial, and least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen ... It lies at the very heart of the relationship between the individual and his fellows, and between the individual and his government.”**

Do you have the Right to defend yourself – and your family – against an armed intruder?

Do you have the Right to defend yourself – and your family – against a tyrannical government?

In 1995 Jean Chrétien’s Liberal Government passed the Firearms Act along with several attendant changes to the Criminal Code. Section 117 of this Act proclaims:

The Governor in Council may make regulations … regarding the issuance of licenses
(and) prescribing the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms … to protect the life of that individual, ... .1

The passage of the Firearms Act represents a major change to Canadian law. This Act negates our proud Canadian history and culture of responsible use of firearms.2 The Firearms Act made every firearm that previously had been legal for you to possess, illegal to possess on 01 January 2001. Thereafter Canadian history and culture would be damned. To legally own that old Cooey .22 rifle your Dad gave you when you were a twelve-year-old kid, you would now have to ask the Government of Canada for permission merely to possess it. Legally to possess a firearm – any firearm – you now have to apply for a federal firearms licence, take a test, and have your life severely scrutinized in a manner that violates your Charter Rights.3

Most significantly, this unjust law means you now have to ask for a Government-issued licence in order to have legal possession of a firearm to defend yourself.

Bruce and Donna Montague in Ontario, and I in Saskatchewan, challenged the constitutional validity the licencing mandate of the Firearms Act. We intentionally and openly refused to apply for a firearms licence in order to test this law in court. After a lengthy “legal” process, the Courts of Appeal for our respective provinces eventually ruled that the federal licencing scheme is valid law.4,5 And the Supreme Court of Canada “dismissed” our applications for leave to appeal.6,7 By “Dismissed” they meant ‘go away; your question is not worthy of our time and effort to even consider your argument.’

As a point of fact, did the Supreme Court of Canada have the final answer on the question of our Right to armed self-defense?

No. Actually, a very emphatic “No!

The real answer rests solely upon what you personally believe.

If you believe that the Government has the authority to decide whether or not they will allow you to possess a firearm to protect yourself, then you indeed to do not have a Right to defend yourself with firearms.

if you believe that you are the only person who can decide this serious life-and-death decision for yourself and your family, then you indeed have that Right.

What you may need is a bit of a philosophical argument to undergird and support your personal belief.

Natural Law - “The Human Right of Self Defense

In an excellent article, “The Human Right of Self Defense,” David Kopel, et al, have provided a great service by exploring the origin of Natural Law and emphasizing the significance of Natural Law in international law.8

Dr. Kopel first calls our attention to the ancient relationship of individual self-defense to Natural Law:

The Law of the Hebrews:

When a burglar is caught breaking in, and is fatally beaten, there shall be no charge of manslaughter.
- Exodus 22.2, 450 BC

The Law of the ancient Romans:

If a theft be committed at night, and the thief be killed, let his death be deemed lawful.
- Twelve Tables, Table VIII:, Lex Duodecim Tabularum, 449 B.C.

The Law of the ancient Greeks:

If a brother kill a brother in self-defence during a civil broil, or a citizen a citizen, or a slave a slave, or a stranger a stranger, let them be free from blame, as he is who slays an enemy in battle.
- Plato, Laws, c351 BC

The law of Rome at the time of the Republic:

This, therefore, is a law, O judges, not written, but born with us—which we have not learned, or received by tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in and imbibed from nature herself; a law which we were not taught, but to which we were made—which we were not trained in, but which is ingrained in us—namely, that if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honorable.
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Speech in Defence of Titus Annius Milo, 52 BC

The law of Rome at the time of the Empire:

All peoples who are governed by laws and customs use law which is partly theirs alone and partly shared by all mankind. … But the law which natural reason makes for all mankind … is common to every nation.
- Gaius, Roman jurist, Commentaries on the Twelve Tables, 130–180 AD

The law of Rome at the time of the Eastern Roman Empire:

If I kill your slave who is lying in ambush to rob me, I shall go free; for natural reason permits a person to defend himself against danger.
- Corpus Juris, 534 A.D.

The authors then skillfully show how Natural Law is inextricably interwoven into the laws of the Western Civilization, if indeed not all of the nations of the world:

“Self-defense proceeds from natural law, and not from positive law, civil or canon.”
- Giovanni da Legnano, De Represealiis Et De Duello,

“For to kill in self-defence is just, … And it is a necessary right; for what can be done against violence, says Cicero, without resort to violence? This is the most generally accepted of all rights. All laws and all codes allow the repelling of force by force. There is one rule which endures forever, to maintain one’s safety by any and every means.”
- Alberico Gentili, On the Law of War, Book Three, 1589

“Neither … would have been possible to do away with the right of self-defence - springing from the law of nature - against a criminal charge, … for it would not be permissible that the Emperor should abolish those things which proceed from the natural law.”
- Francisco Suárez, Tractatus de legibus ac deo legislatore, 1612

Significantly as Dr. Kopel notes, Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius in his 1625 -The Rights of War and Peace established the foundations of “the law of nations” on “the common sense of mankind” and “the general law of nature.

“We have before observed, that if a Man is assaulted in such a Manner that his Life shall appear in inevitable Danger, he may not only make War upon, but very justly destroy the Aggressor; and from this … It is to be observed that this Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one … .

“There are two ways of investigating the law of nature:… either by arguing from the nature and circumstances of mankind, or by observing what has generally been approved by all nations. … .

“For such a universal approbation must arise from some universal principle; and the principle can be nothing else than the common sense of mankind.

“Since, therefore, the general law of nature may be investigated in this manner, the same law as it is applied particularly to nations as moral agents, and hence called the law of nations, may be investigated in the same manner.”

And in his 1672 Of the Law of Nature and Nations Samuel Pudendorf, Swedish “Professor of the Law of Nations” has shown:

“ [W]hat Possibility is there of my living at Peace with him who hurts and injures me, since Nature has implanted in every Man’s Breast so tender a concern for himself … that he cannot but apply all Means to resist … him, who … attempts to wrong him.”

“For Example, if a Man is making towards me with a naked Sword and with full Signification of his intentions toward me, and I at the same time have a Gun in my Hand, I may fairly discharge it at him whilst he is at a distance….”

For since the chief Aim of every human Socialness is the Safety of every Person, … we ought not … make every good and honest Man of necessity miserable, as often as any wicked Varlet should please to violate the Law of Nature against him.

“But Defence is a thing of more ancient date than any Civil Command…”

In 1689 the British fully recognized “Armes for their Defense” as one of the “true, ancient, and indubitable” Liberties in the English Declarations of Rights.9

Kopel notes that in 1729 Jean Barbeyrac, the translator of Pufendorf & Grotius states:

“The People have as natural and unquestionable a Right to defend the Religion by Force of Arms… as to defend their Lives, their Estates, and Liberties…”

And in The Principles of Natural and Politic Law (1747 – 1751) - Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui declares:

“Every one has a natural right to take care of his preservation by all possible means” (if) “the state can no longer defend and protect the subjects, they … resume their original right of taking care of themselves, independently of the state, in the manner they think most proper.”

Specifically, Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) states:

“On all these occasions where the public authority cannot lend us its assistance, we resume our original and natural right of self-defence.”

And Kopel reminds us of William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769 that affirms:

“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defence ... and it is indeed a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

By 1795 German jurist and diplomat George Frederick von Martens in The Summary of the Law of Nations Founded on the Treaties and Customs of the Modern Nations of Europe could declare:

“The roman law ought to be considered as the subsidiary law in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Polon, and in some of the tribunals in Great Britain.”

Or as Gaius had said, “natural reason … is common to every nation.

Dr. Kopel thus clearly shows that the Natural Law Right of self-defense is an integral part of both ‘civil law’ and international law. And notably, Canada’s Right - our Nation’s Right of national self-preservation – is directly and tightly bound to our personal Right of self-defence.

“Legal Positivism,” the Sworn Enemy of Natural Law

However much we may esteem these Natural Law philosophers, we need to understand the enemy of Natural Law: Legal Positivism.

Legal positivism is the “ruling theory of law.”

Legal positivism holds:

“that the truth of legal propositions consists in facts about rules that have been adopted by specific social institution, and in nothing else.”10

Unfortunately, it is a gross understatement to say that “legal positivists” simply reject the concept of Natural Law. To say it more emphatically, legal positivists both mock and scorn Natural Rights.

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)

Bentham is the founder of modern utilitarianism, the proponent of the "greatest-happiness principle", and is one of the most prolific writers after William Shakespeare. The philosophy of legal positivism begins with Bentham. And Bentham allows no place for Natural Rights in law.

Bentham refers to Natural Rights as “bawling upon paper” and “nonsense upon stilts”.

To Bentham, “The notion of a right not created by law is a contradiction like a ‘round square’, ‘a son that never had a father’, ‘a species of cold heat’, ‘a sort of dry moisture’, ‘a kind of resplendent darkness’.”

Bentham declared:

“Rights are the fruits of the law and of the law alone; there are no rights without law – no rights contrary to law - no rights anterior to law.”11

Bentham was a contemporary of William Blackstone and Bentham had nothing but contempt for Blackstone’s praise of the Common Law in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Writing in 1792 Bentham degradingly referred to the Common Law as “Dog Law”:

“It is the judges (as we have seen) that make the common law.
Do you know how they make it?
Just as a man makes laws for his dog. When your dog does anything you want to break him of, you wait till he does it, and then beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way the judges make law for you and me.”

For Bentham, nothing good could possible arise from the Common Law, and certainly no “right” arose from “Natural Law.”

John Austin (1790 – 1859)

Austin, a student of Bentham, developed the theory of legal positivism and likewise totally rejected the concept of Natural Law:

“Laws proper or properly so called, are commands: laws which are not commands, are laws improper or improperly so called.

“Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set by a sovereign person, or a sovereign body of persons … is set by a monarch, or a sovereign number, to a person or persons in a state of subjection to its author.”13

H.L.A. Hart (1907 –1992)

Even the modern version of legal positivism, as espoused by Oxford University professor H.L.A. Hart in The Concept of Law, disavows the concept of Natural Rights. Legal Positivism denies the idea:

“that legal rights can pre-exist any form of legislation; it rejects the idea, that is, that individuals … can have rights in adjudication other than the rights explicitly provided in the collection of explicit rules that compose the whole of a community’s laws.”10

In the defence of excluding Rights based on Natural Law, Professor Hart submits:

“there are not necessary conceptual connections between the content of law and morality; and hence morally iniquitous provisions may be valid legal rules or principles.”14

Activity of a “morally iniquitous” character certainly seems to have been at play during the 1995 House of Commons debate on Bill C-68 (the Firearms Act). The Liberal Government submitted and relied upon fraudulent data to support the passage of their legislation:

"The incorrect reporting of RCMP statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions.

"It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament … .”15

Yet in spite of important police data – altered, misleading police data - having being submitted, under the theory of “positive law” this legislation is LAW. And this law declares that you may not legally possess a firearm without a licence. Therefore you must have a licence to defend yourself legally with a firearm.

And based on this concept of ‘positive law’, some federal bureaucrat will assess your application, and may, at his or her discretion, decide whether or not you “need” a firearm for your individual self-protection.

There Are Chinks in the Armour of Positive Law

There are however, some major deficiencies in the theory of “positive law”.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains two sections that recognizes that the Charter does not contain an exclusive list of our Canadian Rights, that is, sections 25 and 26:

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.16

Aboriginal Canadians have made good, effective use of Charter s.25 in protecting their land claims and their treaty Right to fishing. For example, Mi’kmaq Indian Donald Marshall, Jr. in R. v. Marshall where the Supreme Court declared:

“where a treaty was concluded orally and afterwards written up by representatives of the Crown, it would be unconscionable for the Crown to ignore the oral terms while relying on the written ones.”17

In like manner, the recognition in Charter s.26 of “the existence of any other rights” provides tangible support for our Natural Right of armed self-defense, especially when combined with the positive law acknowledgement in 1689 of “Armes for their Defense” in article seven of the English Declaration of Rights.9

Our own Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, offers firm support for Natural Rights. In a major presentation,18 Justice McLachlin quotes the former President of the Court of Appeal for New Zealand, Lord Robin Cooke who stated:
“Some common law rights presumably lie so deep that even Parliament could not override them.”

The Honourable Chief Justice then offered her own observations about “unwritten constitutional principles”:

“Unwritten constitutional principles refer to unwritten norms that are essential to a nation’s history, identify, values, and legal system.

“The idea of unwritten constitutional principles is not new and should not be seen as a rejection of the constitutional heritage of our two countries.

“The contemporary concept of unwritten constitutional principles can be seen as a modern reincarnation of the ancient doctrines of natural law.”

Justice McLachlin then quoted from “The Common Law Constitution in Canada: Return of Lex non Scripta as Fundamental Law” by Professor M.D. Walters:

“Insofar as unwritten fundamental laws is regarded as an assertion of the supremacy of natural law, right reason or universal principles of political morality and human rights over legislation, it is part of a rich intellectual heritage that had informed common law thinking from medieval times through the English and American revolutionary ages, and into the high Victorian era of empire out of which Canada’s written constitution emerged.”

In agreeing with Dr. Walters’ proposition Justice McLachlin stated:

“This idea is neither American nor British, but is shaped by both legal traditions and a common heritage that goes back much further.”

“It rests on the proposition that there is a distinction between rules and the law. Rules and rule systems can be good, but they can also be evil. ... a proper legal system is founded on certain minimum values ... (that) demands our allegiance.”

Although Canada’s Chief Justice has not quoted Lord Cooke’s proposition in a court decision, none-the-less Justice McLachlin’s acknowledgement of the existence – and application - of “unwritten constitutional principles” adds support for our Natural Law Right of armed self-defense.

Legal Positivism has Fatal Faults

While legal positivists are quick to discredit Natural Law, the theory of Legal Positivism contains some major faults; faults that are fatal both to the theory and to mankind.

In The Rule of Law and its Virtue, Oxford educated Joseph Raz makes a bizarre claim for legal positivism:

“A non-democratic legal system, based on the denial of human rights, on extensive poverty, on racial segregation, sexual inequities, and religious persecution may, in principle, conform to the requirements of the rule of law better than any of the legal systems of the more enlightened Western democracies …
The law may … institute slavery without violating the rule of law.”19

Thomas Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, author of The Rule of Law, demonstrates the absurdity of this claim of legal positivism. Lord Bingham calls our attention to what V. D. Zorkin, President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation said at the International Bar Association in Moscow:

“Law cannot be simply what is dictated by political authority or issued by the state. In the 2oth Century there have been two examples of legal tragedies, …
One was totalitarian Soviet Communism, and the other was German Nazism.
In the USSR … the law was identified with statutory law, and law was identified with the will (or rather dictatorship) of the proletariat. Through such logic, whatever was prescribed by the state in the form of statutory law was lawful.
Hitler flowed yet a different ideological pathway … but the result was the same.
In Nazi Germany, the law was the expression of the will of the German nation,
and … the law existed only as a body of statutory laws.
Both systems were killing millions of people, because for both the law was given and contained in the statutes.”20

Further underscoring the deficiencies of Positive Law, A.P. d’Entreves in Natural Law, An Introduction to Legal Philosophy, discusses the inadequacies of legal provisions of the post-World War II Nürnberg Tribunal that sent many former German officials to the gallows. Professor d’Entreves observes that their death sentences:

“were based, or purported to be based, on existing or ‘positive’ international law. … The rejection of the defense of superior orders … is nothing less than the old doctrine that the validity of laws does not depend on their ‘positiveness’, and that it is the duty of the individual to pass judgment on laws before he obeys them.”21

In approval of the death sentences of these Nazi war criminals, the Report of the International Law Commission of the General Assembly, Principle IV, noted:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his Government or a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. 22

In effect the German Nazis used “Positive Law” to murder over six million innocent people. And then the Allies used Natural Law to prosecute the Nazi leaders because there was no “positive law” applicable at that time.

German legal scholar Gustav Radbruch lived through that Nazi regime. Dr. Radbruch “descended into Hell,” and “brought back a message for human beings.” Reflecting upon Radbruch’s recantation of the theory of positive law, even Professor Hart seemed to recognize the fallacy of positive law when he asked:

“Ought this rule of law be obeyed?”

In answering this question, Professor Hart states:

“Law is not morality, do not let it supplant morality.
“We speak plainly, we say that laws may be law but too evil to be obeyed.”

Thus, A.P. d’Entreves, can definitively declare, “The undying spirit of Natural Law can never be extinguished.”

Dr. d’Entreves then quotes von Gierke:

“If it (Natural Law) is denied entry into the body of positive law, it flutters around the room like a ghost and threatens to turn into a vampire which sucks the blood from the body of the law.”21

Can Refusing to Obey this Positive Law be Justified?

In considering our answer to this question, Cesare Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments (1764) would suggest that we need to guard against false utility:

“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility.
For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility … who had rather command the sentiments of mankind … and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave';

“who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience;

“who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; .

“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent.”24

John Locke, author of Two Treatises of Government (1690) would most likely answer “yes”, disobeying a positive law can be justified.

“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature.”25

And even after ‘sober second though’, Algernon Sydney, who was executed by King James II in 1683 would surely answer “Yes”:

“That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed.”26

Political philosopher John Rawls, writing in A Theory of Justice, directly addresses the refusal to obey a positive law by peaceful civil disobedience, declaring:

“Civil disobedience is a crucial test for any theory of the moral basis of democracy.

“The persistent and deliberate violation of the basic principles … especially the infringement of the fundamental equal liberties, invites either submission or resistance.

“Civil disobedience expresses disobedience to the law within the limits of fidelity to law, although … The law is broken, but fidelity to law is expressed by the public and nonviolent nature of the act, by the willingness to accept the legal consequences of one’s conduct.

“To deny justice to another is … to refuse to recognize him as an equal … deliberate injustice invites submission or resistance.

“If justified civil disobedience seems to threatened civic concord, the responsibility falls not upon those who protest but upon those whose abuse of authority and power justifies such opposition.”27

It is Time to Make a Tough Decision

What we believe matters.
What we believe is the standard for who we are.
What we believe determines what we do, how we live.

What do you believe?

Do you believe you have the Right to defend yourself, and your family, against an armed intruder – without having to ask leave from the Government to possess a firearm?

Do you believe you have the Right to defend yourself against a tyrannical government without first having to ask that Government for permission to possess a firearm?

Are you going to submit meekly to this unjust law that gives the Government the power to ban every gun in Canada when, as Garry Breitkreuz reminds us, “not even the Supreme Court of Canada can overturn it.”28

You face a grave question that deserves your deepest thought and reflection.

You have a choice – a very serious choice.

You can submit to this unjust law and continue to ask the Government for permission to possess your firearms.

Or you can refuse to surrender your Natural Right of armed self-defence.

The choice you make will affect not just yourself, but your children and your grandchildren.

In public defence of the most vital Right and Freedom we have – our “true, ancient, and indubitable” Right to “have Armes for Their Defense” - my colleagues and I have declared openly that we will never submit to asking the Government for permission to possess a firearm for our self-protection. We possess our firearms openly without a licence.29

We ask that you join this campaign of peaceful civil disobedience.

Burn your firearms licence.


Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS


*Andrew Fletcher, A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias, (1698)

**Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms; The Origins of an Anglo-American Right
Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994, (p. ix)

1. The Firearms Act, chapter 39, Statues of Canada - 1995; p. 54

2. Gary Mauser, Professor, Simon Fraser University, The Federal Firearm Licence Will Destroy Traditional Canada.

3. Dr. Ted Morton, How the Firearms Act (Bill C-68) Violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 05 October 2002

4. R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA, Decision:

5. Edward B. Hudson, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Decision, 21 September 2009

6. Bruce Montague, Supreme Court of Canada,
Leave to appeal Denied, 17 September 2010

7. Edward Burke Hudson v. Attorney General of Canada (Sask.), Supreme Court of Canada,
Dismissed with Costs, 29 March 2012

8. David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, The Human Right of Self Defense

9. English Declaration of Rights, 1689

10. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass 1978

11. H.L.A. Hart, Essays on Bentham, Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1982 (reprinted 2001);see footnotes #39 Anarchial Fallacies, in Works II 494;#2 Anarchial Fallacies, Works II 501; #18 Economic Writing I 334-5

12. Jeremy Bentham, ‘Truth versus Ashhurst; or, law as it is, contrasted with what it is said to be’ (1792). In The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the superintendence of his executor, John Bowring, vol. V (Edinburgh, Tait; London, Simpkin, Marshall; (1843), pages 231-237.

13. John Austin, Esq., The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, John Murray, London, Albemarle Street, 1832, p. xv - xviii

14. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961

15. Garry Breitkreuz, M.P., Yorkton - Melville, RCMP Commissioner says Justice Department Misrepresented Statistics for Firearms and Violent Crime During Debate of C-68

16. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

17. R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456

18. Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.,Given at the 2005 Lord Cooke Lecture in Wellington, New Zealand December 1st, 2005

19. Joseph Raz, ‘The Rule of Law and its Virtue’, in Raz, The Authority of Law, Essays on Law and Morality, p. 96

20. Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, Penguin Books, 2010

21. A.P. d’Entreves, Natural Law, An Introduction to Legal Philosophy, Hutchinson Univ. Lib, London 1951, see p.108 FN 1 O. Von Giertic, Natural Law and the Theory of Society I. p.226

22. Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with commentaries, 1950

23. H.L.A. Hart, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1983

24. Cesare Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments, 1764

25. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1690), Edited with an introduction and notes by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988

26. Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, ed. Thomas West, Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Classics, 1990

27. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971

28. Garry Breitkreuz, MP, Yorkton – Melville, Registration Does Lead to Confiscation,
21 September 2000

29. Edward B. Hudson, et al, “The Time for Sacrifice Has Arrived

Special Acknowledgement:
I would like to acknowledge and thank David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, of the Independent Institute in Golden, Colorado, for their commitment to protecting our Rights and Freedoms. I highly recommend The Human Right of Self Defense, which is the primary source for many of the quotation in this article.

Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association
Association canadienne des propriétaires d’armes sans permis
402 Skeena Court Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 4H2
(306) 242-2379 (306) 230-8929