Bruce Montague
Bill C-68 Court Challenge
CCF Takes Montague Case | News | Sign-Up for email-updates | donate Donate
This Case Epilogue written February 1, 2017 is intended to provide context to this web site as it documents a Canadian constitutional challenge spanning from 2004 to 2016. Bruce Montague determined to expose the constitutional violations in the Canadian Firearms Act. After being charged, mounting a constitutional challenge and appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, Montague's case was dismissed without reasons. With Bruce in jail, the Montagues then faced an another twist of injustice -- the confiscation of their home and property by the Ontario government. The Montagues fought the civil forfeiture of their home for years until, in the summer of 2016, the Canadian Constitution Foundation was instrumental in negotiating with the Ontario Civil Forfeiture department to drop the lien against the Montague home. The Canadian Constitution Foundation deserves our support as they continue to fight other cases of injustice around the country. YOU COULD BE NEXT! Canada is undergoing a quiet revolution and your fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake!
What's Wrong with Civil Forfeiture» | Write to Stop Civil Forfeiture»

News Archive


Site Map

Oct26: Awaiting decision

News Archive Index
Source: Kenora Daily Miner and News

Constitutional ruling to come before November court date
By Garett Williams
Friday October 26, 2007

Arguments wrapped up in Bruce Montague’s constitutional challenge of the federal Firearms Act Thursday in Kenora Superior Court.

Crown attorney Peter Keen finished his arguments that the right to possess a firearm in Canada has always been subject to parliamentary supremacy and the registry promotes public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

He cited that between 1998 and 2006, 20,000 licenses were refused or revoked as an example the registry is meeting its goal.

“It certainly establishes that you are denying the people guns, but that doesn’t prove it’s doing it responsibly,” Justice John Wright said.

“Because it does (restrict ownership) on a basis of public safety only, I say it does,” Keen replied. Keen addressed remedies put forward by Montague’s lawyer, Doug Christie, by saying if the legislation is struck down, anyone could store and carry firearms anywhere they wish. Adding a provision the restrictions only apply outside one’s home doesn’t make sense, he said, saying if something is illegal outside ones home, it is still illegal inside.

Christie concluded his arguments by reiterating his claim that the right to possess firearms in Canada has roots in the British Bill of Rights of 1689, carried over through the British North America Act and guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“All rights are subject to some limitation,” he conceded. “But they are not to be regulated out of existence.”

Montague, from Eton Rugby, near Dryden, is scheduled in a Kenora courtroom in November to face 53 counts of weapons-related offences under the Firearms Act, including the unauthorized possession and careless storage of non-restricted firearms, explosives and restricted firearms.

His wife, Donna Montague, is facing three charges the unauthorized possession of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm.

Wright will make a decision on the Constitutional challenge before Montague’s Nov. 13 appearance on the firearms charges.


back to top | search | home | site map
DISCLAIMER: is maintained by friends and supporters of Bruce Montague.
It is NOT an official mouth-piece for Bruce Montague's legal defense.