Let's be direct: this may be the issue that makes Albertification impossible.
Healthcare is complicated but negotiable—money and time can bridge most gaps. Taxation is math with politics attached—difficult but solvable. Cultural integration happens naturally over generations.
But firearms policy touches something deeper. It's not just about regulations; it's about fundamentally different understandings of rights, safety, government authority, and what kind of society we want to live in.
Alberta and Texas have built their firearms frameworks on incompatible foundations. Pretending otherwise wastes everyone's time. So let's be honest about what each system is, what each system values, and whether any bridge exists.
THE TEXAS FRAMEWORK
Texas operates under constitutional carry as of September 2021. Any adult (21+) who can legally possess a firearm may carry it—openly or concealed—without a permit, license, or training requirement.
What this means in practice:
- No government permission required to carry a handgun in public
- No mandatory safety training or proficiency demonstration
- No registration of firearms
- No waiting periods for purchase
- Background checks required only for purchases through licensed dealers (private sales exempt)
- Open carry of long guns has been legal essentially forever
The philosophy behind it:
The Second Amendment, as interpreted in Texas, establishes an individual right to keep and bear arms that predates and supersedes government authority. The default is freedom; restrictions require justification. Licensing carry is seen as equivalent to licensing speech—a fundamental right shouldn't require government permission.
Self-defense is understood as a personal responsibility, not something outsourced to police who are minutes away when seconds matter. An armed society is believed to be a polite society, or at least a society where citizens aren't helpless against criminals who ignore laws anyway.
The statistics Texas cites:
- Exposed to decades of violent crime, yet murder rates comparable to or lower than many states with stricter laws
- Exposed as a major border state to cartel activity that respects no gun regulations
- Exposed to mass shooting events that occurred in "gun-free zones" where lawful carriers were prohibited
The criticisms Texas faces:
- Gun death rates (including suicide) significantly higher than national average
- Domestic violence situations more likely to turn fatal when firearms are present
- Constitutional carry is new; long-term effects unknown
- "Good guy with a gun" narrative has limited empirical support in mass shooting interventions
- Children's access to unsecured firearms remains a persistent tragedy
THE ALBERTA FRAMEWORK
Canada operates under a federal licensing system that Alberta implements. All firearms owners must hold a valid Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), which requires:
- Completion of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (and additional course for restricted firearms)
- Passing written and practical examinations
- Background check including criminal history, mental health inquiries, and reference interviews
- 28-day waiting period for first-time applicants
- Spouse/conjugal partner notification and consent process
- License renewal every five years with continuous eligibility monitoring
Firearms are classified into three categories:
- Non-restricted: Most rifles and shotguns (hunting firearms)
- Restricted: Handguns, AR-15 style rifles, short-barreled firearms—require additional licensing, registration, and can only be transported to approved ranges
- Prohibited: Automatic weapons, converted automatics, certain handguns—effectively banned for civilian ownership
What this means in practice:
- Carrying a firearm in public for self-defense is essentially illegal
- All restricted firearms are registered and tracked
- Transportation of restricted firearms requires authorization and specific protocols
- Safe storage laws mandate locked containers, trigger locks, or both
- Acquisition of ammunition requires showing a valid PAL
The philosophy behind it:
Firearms ownership in Canada is understood as a privilege granted by the state, not an inherent right. The framework prioritizes collective safety over individual autonomy. The assumption is that reducing access, requiring training, and tracking ownership will reduce harm—and that legitimate uses (hunting, sport shooting, collecting) can coexist with regulation.
Self-defense, while legally recognized, is not considered sufficient justification for carrying firearms in public. The social contract assumes the state maintains a monopoly on legitimate violence through policing.
The statistics Canada cites:
- Firearm homicide rate approximately one-seventh of the US rate per capita
- Mass shootings rare (though not absent—Polytechnique, Portapique, Quebec City mosque)
- Suicide by firearm significantly lower than US rates
- Accidental deaths and injuries substantially lower
The criticisms Alberta faces:
- Regulatory burden falls on lawful owners while doing little to address illegal firearms (predominantly smuggled from the US)
- Rural Albertans face predator threats (bears, cougars, wolves) that urban lawmakers don't understand
- Self-defense rights effectively don't exist in practice
- Recent federal restrictions (2020 "assault-style" ban, handgun freeze) imposed without provincial consultation, fueling Western alienation
- Criminals by definition don't follow licensing requirements
THE CULTURAL CHASM
This isn't just a policy difference. It's a different understanding of the relationship between citizen and state.
In Texas: The government serves at the pleasure of the people, who retain ultimate sovereignty including the means to resist tyranny. An armed populace is the final check on government overreach. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.
In Alberta: The government exists to protect citizens from each other and from external threats. Reasonable regulation of dangerous items is a basic function of civil society. Individual rights exist within a framework of collective responsibility.
These aren't positions that split the difference easily. You can't be half-sovereign. The state either has authority to regulate firearms or it doesn't.
POSSIBLE INTEGRATION MODELS
Despite the chasm, several models have been proposed. None is without serious problems.
Model 1: Regional Autonomy
Each zone maintains its existing regulations. Alberta remains licensed; Texas remains constitutional carry. Internal "borders" enforce compliance through checkpoints, vehicle searches, and severe penalties for violations.
Problems: Creates a fragmented nation-state. Enforcement is nearly impossible along a boundary of thousands of miles. Does a Texan driving through Lethbridge commit a crime by existing? Do Albertans feel safe knowing the car beside them may contain legally-carried handguns? Border enforcement costs could be enormous.
Model 2: Harmonization Toward Texas
South Alberta adopts constitutional carry nationwide. Alberta's licensing system is dismantled as an infringement on newly-recognized rights.
Problems: Fundamentally unacceptable to a large majority of Albertans, who view American gun culture with genuine horror. Would likely collapse public support for Albertification entirely. Potential for increased violence, suicide, and accidents during adjustment period.
Model 3: Harmonization Toward Alberta
Texas adopts Canadian-style licensing. Constitutional carry is revoked. Registration is implemented.
Problems: Fundamentally unacceptable to a large majority of Texans, who view this as tyranny with a maple leaf. Would likely collapse public support for Albertification entirely. Potential for mass non-compliance, black markets, and confrontations with authorities.
Model 4: Federal Baseline with Provincial/State Options
South Alberta establishes a minimal federal baseline (background checks for all sales, prohibited categories for violent offenders) while allowing regions to add restrictions—but not remove them.
Problems: This is roughly the current US system and satisfies no one. Texas sees the baseline as infringement; Alberta sees the optionality as inadequate.
Model 5: Graduated Licensing with Carry Permits
A unified system where basic ownership requires safety training and background checks, but permits for public carry are available to those who complete additional requirements. Neither constitutional carry nor effective prohibition—a middle path.
Problems: Both sides view this as a loss. Texans give up permitless carry; Albertans accept widespread public carry they currently prohibit. The compromise pleases no one, which might mean it's actually fair—or might mean it's politically impossible.
Model 6: Accept Incompatibility
Acknowledge that firearms policy cannot be harmonized and build South Alberta as a federation where this specific issue remains under regional control indefinitely, like abortion policy in pre-Dobbs America.
Problems: Can a nation function when its citizens have fundamentally different rights depending on which side of an internal line they stand on? What does citizenship mean when your rights change at a provincial boundary?
THE DATA QUESTION
Both sides claim evidence supports their position. Both are partially right.
What the research suggests:
- Permissive carry laws correlate with higher gun death rates, but causation is contested
- Licensing and registration correlate with lower gun death rates, but confounding variables abound
- Defensive gun uses happen, but frequency estimates vary by orders of magnitude depending on methodology
- Gun availability increases suicide completion rates—this finding is robust
- Mass shootings are statistically rare; policy based on them is emotionally driven but mathematically marginal
- Illegal firearms dominate criminal use; regulations affect primarily legal owners
The honest answer is that firearms policy is an area where empirical evidence is genuinely contested, methodologically fraught, and insufficient to definitively resolve the debate. Values matter here. People weigh liberty against safety differently, and data doesn't tell us how to weigh them.
QUESTIONS FOR THE FORUM:
- Is firearms policy harmonization necessary for South Alberta to function, or can we live with regional differences indefinitely?
- Which integration model (if any) could you personally accept, even if it's not your preference?
- For Texans: What would a licensing system need to look like for you to consider it something other than tyranny?
- For Albertans: What would a carry system need to look like for you to consider it something other than madness?
- How do we handle the transition period? Amnesty? Grandfathering? Hard cutover dates?
- What role should Indigenous nations play in setting firearms policy on their territories?
- Is there a model from another federation (Switzerland? Czech Republic? Australia's state variations?) worth studying?
- If this issue proves truly irreconcilable, what does that mean for the Albertification project?
THE GROUND RULES
This forum will be moderated firmly but fairly.
What's welcome:
- Personal experience with firearms (ownership, victimization, neither, both)
- Policy proposals with reasoning
- Data and sources, presented honestly
- Questions asked in good faith
- Acknowledgment that the other side has legitimate concerns
What's not welcome:
- "Shall not be infringed" as a conversation-ender
- "No one needs an AR-15" as a conversation-ender
- Dehumanizing language about gun owners OR gun control advocates
- Conspiracy theories about confiscation or false flags
- Celebrating violence of any kind
This is the hardest conversation South Alberta will have. It's also the most necessary. If we can discuss firearms policy respectfully—acknowledging the depth of disagreement while seeking any possible common ground—we can discuss anything.
If we can't, we'll learn that too.
Visit Consensus for the South Alberta Firearms Policy