The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Monday on the legality of a 2020 federal ban on 1,500 firearm models and variants, with the case to continue Tuesday.
The Story
The Supreme Court of Canada began hearing legal arguments Monday on the validity of a federal ban on hundreds of firearm types that the government says are suited only for the battlefield.
The hearings are set to continue Tuesday at the court, after opponents of the ban lost in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.
In May 2020, the federal government prohibited the use, sale and importation of 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14.
The government says the list of prohibited firearms has since grown to more than 2,500 varieties of what it describes as assault-style firearms.
In October 2023, a Federal Court judge dismissed a request to strike down the ban, ruling it was beyond the scope of what opponents alleged and within the limits of the powers delegated to the Governor in Council, effectively the federal cabinet.
A not-for-profit advocacy organization, firearm owners, businesses, hunters and recreational and sport shooters appealed the Federal Court decision.
In April 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, describing the Federal Court’s reasons as “thorough and persuasive.”
Before the Supreme Court agreed to examine the matter, the government said prohibited firearms would have to be disposed of or deactivated by the end of an amnesty period on Oct. 30, 2026.
That amnesty has been extended until 90 days after the Supreme Court delivers its decision, which is expected no later than next year.
On Monday, Supreme Court judges asked counsel questions about the details of the federal measures.
A key issue before the Federal Court of Appeal was whether the Governor in Council complied with a provision of the law that forbids the cabinet from using regulations to outlaw a firearm if it considers the gun “reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.”
In a unanimous three-judge decision, Federal Court of Appeal Chief Justice Yves de Montigny said he was not persuaded the government erred in assessing public safety when determining whether prohibited firearms were reasonable for hunting and sport.
Federal lawyers told the Supreme Court that the Governor in Council’s exercise of broad discretion was reasonable and justified by public safety concerns, pointing to a regulatory impact analysis statement.
The submission said that while some hunters and sport shooters used some of the firearms lawfully in the past, the firearms can increase the severity of mass shootings and have been used in such shootings in Canada and other countries.
The federal submission also estimated that the firearms prohibited in 2020 were owned by a small minority of Canadian firearms owners, between 3 and 5 per cent of the total, and said “thousands of alternative firearms remain legally available for hunting and sporting use.”
A group of appellants that includes the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights argued that neither the Federal Court nor the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether the newly prohibited items were actually used for hunting or sport shooting.
They also said Parliament chose to preserve hunting and sport shooting as legitimate, lawful and socially accepted activities and uses of firearms.
The appellants said the appeal raises more than an administrative-law question, describing the effect as a disruption of the lives of Canadians who lawfully owned and used the prohibited firearms and faced potential criminal liability.
In its submission, the group said, “They are not extremists; they are farmers, veterans, competitive athletes, Indigenous harvesters and neighbours in communities across Canada.”
← More stories