Dismantling Regulatory Structures: Canada's Long-Gun Registry as Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English abstract: The story of the creation and destruction of Canada’s long-gun registry tells us much about the legal framework for deregulation, a topic which has received little consideration. The abolition of the registry and the destruction of the data created during its operation have led to an important court challenge, two very interesting judgments and, potentially, a hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada. The issues canvassed will be of interest not only to Canadian public lawyers, but all those interested in administrative and constitutional law in the common law world, especially those jurisdictions with a federal structure.I begin with a brief overview of gun control in Canada, including a description of the basic regulatory structure and the legal challenges it has withstood. I move on to consider the long-gun registry established in the 1990s and, again, the legal challenge it withstood. I turn then to the steps taken to dismantle the long-gun registry before considering the two key legal issues that arise: One, the scope of the power to repeal legislation; Two, the means of dismantling a regulatory structure. I conclude with some thoughts on the application of the principles of federalism.The dismantling of Canada’s long-gun registry is an interesting case study on deregulation, especially deregulation effected in a federation. Political concerns are never far from the surface and they had a great deal of influence on the means of deregulation chosen by Parliament. The legality of the means employed, however, is questionable. I should not hide my ultimate conclusion: the attempt to destroy the long-gun registry data is unconstitutional; the constitutionally appropriate action would be to transfer the remaining data to the provinces.French abstract: L’histoire de la creation et de la destruction du registre des armes d’epaule au Canada en dit long sur le cadre juridique de la dereglementation, un sujet qui a recu peu d’attention. L’abolition du registre et la destruction des donnees creees durant son exploitation ont mene a une contestation judiciaire importante, deux jugements tres interessants et, potentiellement, une audience devant la Cour supreme du Canada. Les questions examinees seront d’interet non seulement pour les avocats canadiens du secteur public, mais pour tous ceux interesses au droit administratif et constitutionnel dans le monde de la common law, en particulier les territoires avec une structure federale.L’auteur commence par un apercu du controle des armes a feu au Canada, notamment une description de la structure reglementaire de base et les defis juridiques auxquels il a ete expose. Il poursuit avec l’examen du registre des armes d’epaule etabli dans les annees 1990 et, `a nouveau, le defi juridique auquel il a ete expose. Il passe ensuite aux mesures prises pour demanteler le registre des armes d’epaule avant de considerer les deux questions juridiques qui se posent: la premiere sur la portee du pouvoir d’abroger la legislation, et la deuxieme, sur les moyens de demanteler une structure reglementaire. Il conclut par quelques reflexions sur l’application des principes du federalisme.Le demantelement du registre des armes d’epaule au Canada est une etude de cas interessante sur la dereglementation, notamment la dereglementation effectuee dans une federation. Les preoccupations politiques ne sont jamais loin de la surface et elles ont eu une grande influence sur les moyens choisis par le Parlement pour proceder a la dereglementation. La legalite des moyens employes, toutefois, est discutable. L’auteur ne cache pas sa conclusion ultime, soit que la tentative de detruire les donnees du registre des armes d’epaule est inconstitutionnelle, la mesure constitutionnellement appropriee etant de transferer les donnees restantes aux provinces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".