"Government of Canada's" response to the question of why they felt it was necessary to arm border guards with large calibre high powered handguns, particularly in light of their claim to want to reduce (or eliminate) firearms in Canadian society.

Why, in light of their response, are they infringing OUR private right to carry, in open defiance of the Law of the Land as proclaimed and eternally sealed by King Edward III in 1368?

Note government lists "self protection" as reason why border guards are required to carry.... and even acknowledge that their use would be for exceptional situations.... and are in addition to their already impressive range of self defence weapons and aids, which they list below in part.

Their position renders untenable any previous position that the public has "no need" for such devices, as the public is clearly in a FAR WORSE situation than the guards were/are, and suffer a much greater likelihood of the need for such weapons, EVEN IF regarded as "exceptional". You may only have one necessity to defend yourself, but that could also be your last if you are not able.

Furthermore, under RULE OF LAW, as defined and consented to by the "government of Canada" we have an EQUAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (and benefit) of the law.... and under the Canada Act (aka Charter) we have a right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY!

Our Magna Carta CAN NOT in any ways be breached by an heir of the crown, OR ANYTHING OF THEIR CREATION, which is Canada's parliament, and this Great Charter makes it TOTALLY UNLAWFUL for any statute to outlaw (criminalize) any citizen outside the preserved Anglo-Saxon common law - which fully recognizes (and has for centuries) OUR COMMON LAW RIGHT to self defence and possession of weapons for the LAWFUL DEFENCE of ourselves, our property, and FREEDOM FROM TYRANNIES that would seek to remove our aforesaid rights, while claiming them exclusively for themselves.

[below is response to letter sent in December of 2006]