Question

the attorney general for alberta v. the attorney general of canada (2001) 1 s.c.r. 783 background prior to 1995, the criminal code restricted access to firearms, mainly automatic weapons and handguns, by classifying some as prohibited and some as restricted. in 1995, parliament amended (revised) the code by passing the firearms act. this act extended the classification to include all other firearms, including rifles and shotguns or ordinary fire - arms. under this amended statute, owners of all firearms must obtain licences and register their guns. the province of alberta challenged the constitutionality of this legislation in the court of appeal, claiming that the law falls under provincial power over property and civil rights and cannot be argued that guns are private property and regulated by the federal government. the federal government claimed that gun - control laws fall under its criminal - law authority. the majority of the court of appeal ruled that the act is intra vires parliament. in other words, it was within the jurisdictional power of the federal government to enact such legislation. alberta appealed this decision to the supreme court of canada. legal question does parliament have the constitutional authority to enact the firearms act? decision in examining the case, the supreme court of canada considered the purpose of the act - to deter the misuse of firearms, to control those given access to guns, and to control specific types of weapons. the court also considered the essence of the act - the promotion of public safety. moreover, analysis 1. the alberta government claimed that the federal government was making law outside its jurisdiction. what is the legal term for this argument? 2. the supreme court of canada disagreed with the alberta government and sided with the federal government. what reasons did the supreme court have for its decision? 3. if you were a lawyer for the government of alberta, the arguments you would use to show that the federal government could not make such a law?

Explanation:

1. The legal term for such an argument is "intra - vires" (within the powers) and "ultra - vires" (beyond the powers). Here, Alberta claims federal overreach (ultra - vires).
2. The Supreme Court sided with the federal government as it considered the purpose of the Act - to deter misuse of firearms, control types of weapons, and promote public safety. These are valid criminal - law purposes which fall under federal criminal - law authority.
3. As a lawyer for Alberta, one could argue that the regulation of property (firearms) and civil rights related to their ownership fall under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Also, one could claim that the Act is more than an incidental interference with provincial powers.

Answer:

1. Ultra - vires/Intra - vires argument.
2. The Act had valid criminal - law purposes like deterring misuse, controlling weapons, and promoting public safety, which fall under federal criminal - law authority.
3. Argue that regulation of firearms as property and related civil rights fall under provincial jurisdiction and the Act oversteps provincial powers.