Harry Needham wrote:

> Date:    Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:54:59 +0000
> From:    "Harry Needham (Tel 776-8612)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Firearms in Canadian Museums and new Firearms laws
>
> The fact of the matter is that museums and the needs of their firearms
> collections were virtually ignored in the process of developing the Firearms
> Act and we are now struggling with the consequences. Nonetheless, we have taken
> vigorous action to comply with the new legislation, along the following lines:
>
> For our public displays, we have:
>
> a. taken firearms out of displays, in some cases, where they are non-essential
> to tell the story
>
> b. replaced prohibited weapons with restricted or non-restricted weapons (e.g.,
> a bundle of machine guns in a scene dealing with the Italian campaign was
> replaced by a bundle of rifles)
>
> c. where we had several copies of the same weapon, we permanently incapacitated
> one of them (in a way the viewer would not notice) and placed it on display
>
> d. where we only had a single copy, we temporarily deactivated the weapon by
> removing at least two essential (and difficult/impossible to procure)
> components
>
> e. securely fastened each weapon in place and alarmed the case/display.
>
> We already had very stringent controls over weapons not on display and these
> are being continued. Access to weapons vaults is EXTREMELY limited. We also
> store the few weapons owned by the Canadian Museum of Civilization in our
> vaults.
>
> Ammunition, other than a small amount of black powder/blanks used in
> re-enactments, is stored in a commercial facility, several miles outside the
> city.
>
> We have withdrawn firearms on loan to other museums which have demonstrated an
> inability to comply with the law. Other museums have voluntarily returned
> weapons, generally prohibited weapons.
>
> Weapons not directly related to the mandate of CWM, such as sporting weapons,
> have been removed from the collection and destroyed.
>
> Where such weapons are offered to us at the door, we accept them, but transfer
> them as soon as possible to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police force, where
> they are destroyed.
>
> The Office of the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario has reviewed all our
> arrangements and is very satisfied with what we have done, which they admit
> exceeds the requirements of the law.
>
> With respect to the USE of firearms in demonstrations and re-enactments, as
> well as the routine handling of firearms, we have trained all our staff who
> have to handle firearms (including secretaries/clerks who might have to handle
> walk-in donations) to FAC standard and are also training most staff to Ontario
> Handgun Association standards in the handling of handguns. All staff involved
> in blackpowder demonstrations are required to complete our own training course
> and pass a tough exam. We have adopted new and very strict procedures for
> carrying out such demonstrations. In this, we have used the Parks Canada
> procedures as a guide.
>
> Harry Needham
> Director, Programmes & Operations
> Canadian War Museum

Harry:

The CWM's standards for the exhibition, curation, and handling of
firearms are, as one would expect, outstanding. However, I think it
would be impractical for most small community historical museums to
follow your example in personnel training, firearms storage, disabling,
etc., if for no other reason than that, for many, it would be
prohibitively expensive. This is part of the reason that some museums
are frantically trying to figure out what to do with the guns they
already have in their collections and why others have already begun to
strip their collections of anything even resembling a firearm.

That aside, a couple of your points caused me to raise my eyebrows with
concern. For example, you state that if a would-be donor offers your
institution a gun which does not fit your mandate, you accept it
nonetheless and then promptly turn it over to the police for
destruction. Similarly, you state that all weapons in your collection
which did not exactly comply with your mandate were also turned over to
the police for destruction.

First, I would ask if you inform prospective donors that if the guns
they wish to donate do not suit you they will be destroyed? Do people
still give you their guns anyway and, if so, do you give them a tax
receipt for the fair market value of the weapon? If you do not inform
them that their sporting guns will simply be destroyed, are you not
being unethical in your dealings with them when they are presumably
trying only to ensure that these guns will, for whatever reason, be
preserved?

Second, if a prospective donor offered you a very valuable antique
sporting piece or a gun with important historical or other associations
such as, say, a really fancy Weatherby shotgun with gold-plated and
hand-engraved receiver, a gun used by a Canadian marksman in winning an
Olympic medal, or Simcoe's personal brace of duelling pistols, would you
accept them and still have them destroyed? If so, are you not then
destroying valuable historical artefacts and even, in some cases, works
of art?

Third, were the unsuitable guns in your collections offered to other
museums or institutions, or offered for sale to collectors (domestically
or internationally) before they were destroyed? If not, were you not
depriving other museums/institutions/individuals (who would have had to
comply with the FAC requirements in order to qualify to acquire the
weapons in the first place) from having the opportunity to acquire and
preserve them? Weren't you also missing a potentially lucrative source
of revenue?

I am well aware of the numerous difficulties posed to both individuals
and to museums (not to mention the real financial costs) by Bill C-17
and Bill C-68. But I'm not sure that the wanton destruction of our
material past, as distasteful as it may be to some, is a proper or
acceptable solution to the problem. Guns of all types exist, have
existed, and will certainly continue to exist for military,
recreational, law enforcement, and, yes, even for criminal purposes. To
destroy them outright is tantamount to denying their existence, and it
deprives us of the physical evidence of a very important part of our
material culture and its evolution over time.

Your comments?

Regards,

Chris J.-Andersen