Headline News

Majority of survey respondents oppose bylaw regulating firearms in Mono, council considers limiting scope to residential areas

October 2, 2025   ·   0 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS

Recent survey results in Mono indicate much opposition against council adopting a bylaw to regulate the discharge of firearms.

A staff report to Mono council on Sept. 23 states that the survey results should be balanced against the recognition that the majority of respondents owned firearms and bows. About a third of respondents were in favour of the restrictions proposed.

The survey generated feedback from 753 respondents. Of those, 383 were Mono residents while 309 were non-residents. Sixty-one responses were tossed because they were either duplicates or ineligible.

The non-residents who completed the survey were, on aggregate, more opposed to the bylaw.

The 383 residents who responded to the survey are considered statistically representative based on the number of households in Mono.

The staff report focused on resident feedback through the survey.

Respondents were asked whether the proposed prohibitions in the bylaw were appropriate.

Fifty-two per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed that the bylaw prioritizes safety, well-being, and security of the individual and broader community.

Fifty-eight per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed that the bylaw respects the rights of firearm and bow owners.

Fifty-five per cent of residents who inked an opinion by way of the survey were opposed to any form of municipal regulation.

Fifty-three per cent indicated that the discharge of firearms or bows should be allowed in hamlets and settlement areas.

Thirty-six per cent felt there should be no minimum lot size, and the proposed bylaw suggests a minimum lot size of two hectares.

The respondents who were opposed to regulations were asked to indicate which specific prohibitions they were opposed to.

Of the 209 residents who were opposed to the bylaw, 51 per cent opposed a 150-metre setback from parks, educational facilities, or religious institutions;

Sixty-six per cent opposed a 100-metre setback from a building or structure without the owner’s permission; 62 per cent opposed a 50-metre setback from a highway or recreational trail; and 92 per cent opposed a 50-metre setback from an adjoining property.

Eighty-seven per cent were against a setback from parks, educational facilities, or religious institutions; 62 per cent said no setback from a building or structure; 46 per cent said no setback from a highway or recreational trail; and 72 per cent were against a setback from an adjoining property.

Sixty-three per cent of residents agreed with the exemptions, including normal farm practices, a bona fide gun club, educational institutions teaching proper use of firearms, and the use of blank rounds for specified reasons.

Twenty-four per cent of respondents did not own a firearm or bow. The remainder did or preferred not to answer the question about ownership.

Of those who own a firearm or bow, 30 per cent were hunters and 21 per cent use them for protection. The remainder indicated Other Uses or preferred not to say.

Councillor Ralph Manktelow said survey figures that jumped out at him was that 24 per cent of respondents did not own a firearm or bow, and the remainder did or preferred not to answer that question.

“So we really do not know how many do own a firearm or a bow, but it looks like it’s a fairly high number, according to the survey,” Manktelow said. “I wonder if that doesn’t skew the results.”

Deputy Mayor Fred Nix said Manktelow made a good point, but Nix said he wasn’t certain if he agreed.

“Everyone was given a chance to answer the survey and I was struck by the number of negative responses we got, particularly in the comments section,” Nix said. “But just in the numbers, I think, what, 52 per cent of the respondents did not like the bylaw. Roughly, I can’t remember exactly.”

But Manktelow’s point was that the majority of responders were gun owners, and that skews the survey results.

“We don’t know that, but I would say a very high possibility,” Manktelow said.

“I think that’s a good point, Coun. Manktelow,” Nix said. “I’m just not sure it sways me.”

Coun. Elaine Capes said she hoped the survey reference to firearms for protection was to protect livestock from predators and not for personal protection.

“Because we do not live in the United States where we have the right to carry arms to protect ourselves in case somebody walks up our driveway that we don’t like,” she said.

“With regards to protection, the bylaw goes on to define protection as the protection of property and it goes into detail on what that means,” said Fred Simpson, the town’s clerk.

Nix said there’s a suggestion in the proposed legislation that council skuttle the bylaw’s second reading. Rather, it should be sent back to Simpson to narrow the bylaw’s scope to the residential areas that are subdivisions around Cardinal Woods, Island Lake, along Highway 9, Hockley Village, Camilla, and the Mono Centre village.

“I find the bylaw so cumbersome and so bureaucratic that out in the rural area I don’t think it’s enforceable,” Nix said.

He remembers a complaint from a resident who reported somebody had fired a shot across their property, and the bullet hit a plexiglass window.

“We don’t need a bylaw to regulate that,” Nix said. “That’s when you phone the OPP. We don’t need to have six or seven layers of regulations here.”

“Fifty-three per cent of people feel that you should be able to shoot a firearm in settlement areas such as Purple Woods or Brookfield,” Manktelow said. “And I think the majority of people in those areas would say you’re crazy.”

Manktelow said the survey has been skewed by responses from firearm owners. He lives on a farm and owns a firearm, he said. But he’s used it only to protect his livestock.

“I think if I was in a settlement area, I’d be upset if people were using firearms,” he said. “If we get rid of the proposal that it affects people in rural areas, it will affect all the people who have complained to me about firearms.”

Simpson said the proposed firearms discharge bylaw will return unamended to council at another meeting.

“Clearly council would like to see an opportunity for further public oral comment,” Simpson said. “So that will be scheduled concurrently.”

Readers Comments (0)