While firearms have largely been a federal affair in Canada, one province is taking matters into its own hands, declaring an unfettered right to own and use guns as part of a more comprehensive Bill of Rights. The United Conservative Party (UCP) board approved the new gun rights law which was carefully crafted to deny any opportunity for intentional misinterpretation that could be used for future infringement, as has been the case with the Second Amendment in the United States. 

The origins of the new law stem from a group of UCP activists in Medicine Hat who drafted the detailed Bill of Rights for Alberta residents, a bill that also focuses heavily on COVID-era grievances and the general rights of citizens. The Medicine Hat bill, endorsed verbatim in a vote of the party’s elected board, was suggested to be representative of the UCP’s entire membership by party president, Rob Smith, lending credibility to the proposal in advance of the party’s annual convention on November 1-2. 

Crime has been on the rise in rural Alberta since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized guns in High River after the 2013 flood, causing residents to escalate the demand for legal rights to property and self-protection. The UCP group in Medicine Hat is demanding the “freedom to use sufficient force to defend person, family, home and property from any and all occupation, theft or destruction,” a concept that is reasonable enough to beg the question as to why any government would deprive its citizens of such a right.

Among the rights spelled out in the draft bill, number five reads, “freedom to keep and bear arms, including ownership and use of firearms,” echoing the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, but eliminating any nuance in language that may be used to misrepresent its intention, attempting to close all loopholes that might threaten their rights. This lesson was learned by observing the conflict here in America, where antagonist groups pretend to have an understanding of the Second Amendment that has been proven diametrically opposed to what the Founding Fathers intended. 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is clear, and any person with an elementary understanding of language and punctuation can determine this right was granted to “the people.” Regardless, America has been forced to debate its meaning, questioning if the intent is to arm an official force or “the people” as it states in plain English. The U.S. Supreme Court has, for the most part, long since sided with “the people,” but has failed to protect the right in its entirety, as is the case with the NFA and thus far allowing individual states to infringe on the right which the federal government is obligated to guarantee.

It is uncertain whether or not UCP Premiere Danielle Smith will include the gun rights measure in the government’s draft of the Bill of Rights, which focuses on property guarantees and the freedom to make choices for one’s own body, including the right to refuse vaccines and unwanted medical intervention, a human rights overhaul influenced heavily by fallout stemming from COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, and government restrictions.

“My concern with the Medicine Hat proposal is it’s just too complicated — it’s too lengthy, it’s too much legalese — If we’re going to do something like that, it needs to be simple, needs to be easy for people to read, easy to understand,” says Nadine Wellwood, who was rejected as a UCP candidate during the 2023 election and now sits as chair of the 1905 Committee, painting itself as a conservative watchdog on the Smith government.

The Full Medicine Hat Proposal:

As mentioned earlier, firearms have largely been a federal matter in Canada, drawing uncertainty when it comes to the impact of declaring such a provincial right. If the people of Alberta are able to pass this Bill of Rights, they will have the envy of American conservatives who would love to see the Constitution upheld as it was intended. It could also lead to a larger battle with Canada’s federal government, not too different from when state and federal laws conflict in the U.S. It is noteworthy, however, to point out that here in the US, the federal government does not seem to mind when states conflict with them by legalizing drugs or instituting sanctuary policies to protect migrants that have illegally entered the country but try to enact a state law that contradicts the federal government’s Second Amendment infringements, and you may find yourself questioning their intentions.