AHC: Canada with less-restrictive gun laws

but I'm pretty sure the US is the only country on the planet with a constitutional right to bear arms.
Mexico has that, but in the 1970s, Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution, had the small change, 'as allowed by law' added in.

And then a flood of new laws. The NRA 'Slippery Slope' made real.

so now you can have nothing in a military caliber, like 9mm or 5.56mm, semi-automatic rifles in anything but 22rimfire, and there is only one gunshop in the country, and it's on an armybase.

No semiauto pistols more powerful than 9mm short, No revolvers more powerful than 38 Special.
Self Defense license, one weapon. Hunting license, up to 8 longarms and one 22 pistol, with Shotguns at least 25 inch barrel, no 10 gauge or larger.

And a lot more, that I've forgotten.
 

MatthewB

Banned
OK I give up. there is no way to have this conversation without it being Current Politics.
Not true, we can do an ATL His on Canada's gun laws. But we need a premise. The OP just tells everyone to suggest something, rather than giving us a launch idea.
 
Canadians have always had access to guns for hunting/animal defense purposes but as seen in the clip above the agreement was you didn't wear them on your person and certainly not for the purposes of use against other people.

I am quite familiar with Canadian Firearms laws :) The RCMP helpfully has a section on their website outling how one can lawfully possess certain types of fire arms for protection from wild animals in remote areas (or words to that effect..)

The consistent federal approach to most forms of firearms related laws in Canada is nice IMHO. (I do realize there are some local and provincial rules in Canada as well.)
 

Pretaporter

Banned
Having educated myself to degree level on US Constitutional Law by having a quick butchers at the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment (1791), it appears to have already been US law prior to then, as part of the English Bill of Rights (1689) which the US kept when they went independent in the first place; 2A was just re-emphasising it.

Could an ATL where, eg, the war over that bloke's pigs (1859) gets a bit out of control lead to a Canadian legal re-emphasis, with all the stuff about "well regulated militia" being struck down by courts over time, as per the US?

(Dates emphasised because they may not count as current politics....best I can do, anyway!)
 
Having educated myself to degree level on US Constitutional Law by having a quick butchers at the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment (1791), it appears to have already been US law prior to then, as part of the English Bill of Rights (1689) which the US kept when they went independent in the first place; 2A was just re-emphasising it.

Could an ATL where, eg, the war over that bloke's pigs (1859) gets a bit out of control lead to a Canadian legal re-emphasis, with all the stuff about "well regulated militia" being struck down by courts over time, as per the US?

(Dates emphasised because they may not count as current politics....best I can do, anyway!)
The military myths of Canada and the US are so different. When I say myths, I mean "meaning making stories" that may be true, not true, or partially true.
To wildly oversimplify, the US has the myth of the citizen soldier, like the Athenians. The Minuteman who took the musket down from over the fireplace and kicked the Brits out and built a Nation.
Canada has the myth of the British Regulars.
In the war of 1812, when invaded by the US citizen soldiers, Canada was defended by the British Regulars who defeated units of citizen soldiers many times their size. And the American political class rethought their ideas about citizen soldiers while literally standing on the sidelines watching the British Regulars thrash their citizen soldiers and sack Washington DC.
Canada is one of I think 2 countries (maybe 4) in the Americas that did not come to being in a revolution. (The others being Belize, and maybe Guyana and Surinam)
Canada does not imagine the musket over the fireplace is a tool for national liberation.
Canada is fine with the idea of the rifle as something regular soldiers use to storm Vimy Ridge or Juno Beach.
Canada is fine with the idea that a rifle is a tool you use in the bush.
"The right to bear arms" is an American idea that some Canadians parrot, but it is not an idea that comes from here.

So Maybe the POD would have to be the Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions of 1837 succeed, and Canada becomes a republic in 1837. Although the POD would have to start before then because those rebellions were doomed OTL. Dunno. First half of the 19th century is not my area of expertise.
 
This is another reason for the differences in gun cultures despite some similar foundlings. Not that the natives were treated great but there were less overt "Indian wars" in Canada than in the US. The Texas Rangers who could thought of as a Texas analogue to the Mounties were actually founded to protect white settlers in Texas from the Comanches and engaged in many battles/raids against them.

Not quite true. While not to the same scale as the US's genocide and indian wars, there still were some conflicts mostly involving the Metis IIRC.
 
Canada has the myth of the British Regulars.
No no no no...
Canada had THE militia myth. In Canada the all pervasive myth, lasting until WWII, was that the British Army had merely served as a supplementary force to the Canadian militia men who had defended their colony from the southern invaders.
It also had some regional variance with the Quebecois extending it back to the militia of New France and the Ontarians citing their Loyalist founders as proof that they are all descendants of Butler's Rangers.

Canada's militia myth was so pervasive that it came to embody the Canadian military. Perhaps the best illustration of this being how on the eve of WWII Canada's standing army numbered only 4,000, whereas the "Non-Permanent Active Militia" numbered around 50,000.

Canada does not imagine the musket over the fireplace is a tool for national liberation.
Well obviously not, but it was very much imagined as a tool for the defence of both home and nation.


If you want to try to connect Canada's military traditions to its gun culture (personally I wouldn't) I think a more relevant point of comparison with the US is that in Canada the "well regulated militia" was the military, rather than a theoretical check on the military's monopoly on violence.
 
Not quite true. While not to the same scale as the US's genocide and indian wars, there still were some conflicts mostly involving the Metis IIRC.

What did I say is not true? i'm aware of the metis revolts but the level of bloodshed and all-out war was not to the same level of the Americans. As well there were less native raids against Canadian settlers by the time Canadians started moving west, compared to those on American settlers. So having arms to fight against against native raids was not as big a factor for Canadian settlers as for Americans.

On a different note the American experience with widespread slavery was another factor for the pervasiveness of firearms ownership with the fear of slave revolt, a factor that was of course not seen in Canada
 
Last edited:
Not quite true. While not to the same scale as the US's genocide and indian wars, there still were some conflicts mostly involving the Metis IIRC.
There was a single armed conflict with the Metis (the Red River Rebellion was resolved via negotiations before the militia arrived). And the North-West Rebellion was a short and conventional conflict with minimal civilian involvement, unlike the gruelling decades long US Indian Wars which frequently had civilian homesteads as the frontline.
 
There is something cultural in Canada ... that allows the Ecole Polytechnique [shooting]... to be meaningful events that drive policy
IMO, that's absolutely true, which is why I find this idea improbable--but interesting. (I'm leaving off NZ, or Oz, since I know so little about them.)

I do agree, avoiding Ecole Polytechnique would be a good start, but AFAIK, Canada has never been close to allowing the kind of guns the U.S. routinely does. (That said, there are collectors who've got ex-military arms, like M1919s, AIUI, so it wasn't impossible.)
If we look at the NRA as an effect, rather than a cause of this different culture, then we see we have to go really far back for a POD.
I think both of those are true, in the U.S. case. (See this thread for just how far back. {Unabashed plug.:openedeyewink: })
I know a number of Canadians who own quite competitive sets of firearms for "three gun matches." (Pistol, shotgun, semi auto rifle.) IMHO magazine capacity limits are the main regulatory issue they need to deal with vis a vis their American colleagues. I'm told some Canadian three gun shooters buy different magazines when they visit the U.S. for matches and leave them behind when they return to Canada. (Even if they were legal in Canada I suspect they would need a U.S. Export permit to take them out of the U.S.)
I did not know about that. Thx. I agree, too, a permit is likely.

I'm less sure mag capacity is the biggest problem. I get a strong sense of restriction on type of arm, & use, here, & a strong sense all the Federal parties would ban all guns if they thought they could get away with it.
Canada is one of I think 2 countries (maybe 4) in the Americas that did not come to being in a revolution. (The others being Belize, and maybe Guyana and Surinam)
Canada does not imagine the musket over the fireplace is a tool for national liberation.
Canada is fine with the idea of the rifle as something regular soldiers use to storm Vimy Ridge or Juno Beach.
Canada is fine with the idea that a rifle is a tool you use in the bush.
I think you've captured the difference well. Why it turned out this way is what puzzles me (& something discussed fairly extensively on the other thread).
the 2nd Amendment (1791), it appears to have already been US law prior to then, as part of the English Bill of Rights (1689) ... 2A was just re-emphasising it.
That's something else I didn't know. Thx. (Honestly, it never occured to me to look at it.:oops::oops: )
So Maybe the POD would have to be the Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions of 1837 succeed, and Canada becomes a republic in 1837. Although the POD would have to start before then because those rebellions were doomed OTL. Dunno. First half of the 19th century is not my area of expertise.
Not my area, either, but AFAIK, there's never been much republican sentiment here, so that seems pretty unlikely. (Not to mention, I'm not really wanting to remake Canada entire.;) )

I do wonder if 1837 might not lead to a sense of need for *Minutemen, & if that could be compounded by the Fenian Raids. It might (just) be enough for a change in attitude at Confederation: maybe enough for a "right to own arms" (if not "bear"), maybe just a stronger sense of need & so seeds for a culture of acceptance (& not prohibition), & if it's in the English BoR, there's acceptance, since the Brits have already done it, & we had a strong attitude of being "junior Brits".
I hope you'll both carry on for a Family Size bucket of popcorn length.
So do I.:)

For anyone interested in a Family Size discussion of the (U.S.) flipside, see the other thread. I learned a lot, there. (I really have no shame, do I? :openedeyewink: )
 
Not my area, either, but AFAIK, there's never been much republican sentiment here, so that seems pretty unlikely. (Not to mention, I'm not really wanting to remake Canada entire.;) )

The defining reason for Canada's existence is not wanting to be part of a republic and remaining loyal to the crown. It is not surprising that it would take a long time for Republican sentiment to take hold. Republicanism has to overcome the inertia of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." and Canada is hardly broken.


If I can add something from the Australian perspective... Both Canada and Australia have had to develop without the population density of the US. That means you have to rely more on the government to do things like raise money for railroads. That has put central governments and their agents (like the Mounties or troopers) closer to people's lives than in the US. So that means there is more trust in them.

For most of Australia's history you could be free to own just about any weapon, but at the same time, because of centuries of trust most people are accepting of the loss of those weapons. Even if it is not ideal. I have to assume Canada is similar.
 
Last edited:
Both Canada and Australia have had to develop without the population density of the US. That means you have to rely more on the government to do things like raise money for railroads. That has put central governments and their agents (like the Mounties or troopers) closer to people's lives than in the US. So that means there is more trust in them.
That's the best explanation of it I've seen.
For most of Australia's history you could be free to own just about any weapon, but at the same time, because of centuries of trust most people are accepting of the loss of those weapons. Even if it is not ideal. I have to assume Canada is similar.
Owning, I can't say, but generally accepting the restrictions, yeah, that looks true.
 
If I can add something from the Australian perspective... Both Canada and Australia have had to develop without the population density of the US. That means you have to rely more on the government to do things like raise money for railroads. That has put central governments and their agents (like the Mounties or troopers) closer to people's lives than in the US. So that means there is more trust in them.

For most of Australia's history you could be free to own just about any weapon, but at the same time, because of centuries of trust most people are accepting of the loss of those weapons. Even if it is not ideal. I have to assume Canada is similar.

I agree very much but I'll add the other aspects that played a role in American gun culture that were either less of a factor or non-existent in the Aus/Canadian experiences are, less frequent and bloody clashes with native populations (not that they never happened in Canada and Australia) and the issues regarding slavery and perceived fears over slave revolts and/or lingering racial issues that followed abolition.

Both of those aspects played a role in my view to the American belief that arms should be seen primarily as a self-defense tools as opposed to for just hunting/sport shooting.
 
I did not know about that. Thx. I agree, too, a permit is likely.

I'm less sure mag capacity is the biggest problem. I get a strong sense of restriction on type of arm, & use, here, & a strong sense all the Federal parties would ban all guns if they thought they could get away with it

IMHO at times two of the major political parties in Canada use (quite different positions about) gun control as a part of their messaging. I'll avoid commenting about that now to avoid talking further about current politics :)

Yes I agree that in essence the acquisition / ownership rules are not the biggest difference between Canadian and U.S. Firearms laws. (Edit to add although the Magazine capacity limits for certain firearms in Canada are a significant difference IMHO.) IMHO the biggest difference is what you can legally do with the firearms you legally own in Canada vs the U.S. I don't see any easy way there can be a change in Canadian attitudes about what one can legally do with certain types of fire arms unless something happened earlier in Canadian history to bring about a change in sensibilities in this area.
 
Last edited:
Top