The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments this week on whether a federal ban on hundreds of firearm models is valid under the law’s hunting-and-sporting limits.
The Story
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear legal arguments on Monday and Tuesday about the validity of a federal ban on hundreds of firearms the government says are fit only for the battlefield.
The challenge comes after opponents of the 2020 ban lost in Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
In May 2020, the government prohibited the use, sale and importation of 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14.
The ban has since grown to more than 2,500 varieties described by the government as “assault-style firearms.”
Before the Supreme Court agreed to examine the issue, the government said prohibited firearms had to be disposed of or deactivated by the end of an amnesty period on Oct. 30, with that amnesty later extended until 90 days after the Supreme Court delivers its decision, expected no later than next year.
A key question before the Federal Court of Appeal was whether the Governor in Council complied with a statutory provision that bars it from using regulations to outlaw a firearm if it is “reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.”
In a unanimous decision, Federal Court of Appeal Chief Justice Yves de Montigny wrote that he was not persuaded the government erred in assessing public safety when determining whether prohibited firearms were “reasonable” for hunting or sporting use.
De Montigny said the “inherent danger” some firearms pose to public safety, including their lethality and ability to injure or kill many people quickly, and the fact they have been used in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, were valid considerations in determining reasonableness for hunting and sporting purposes.
The federal government’s written submission to the Supreme Court argues that the Governor in Council’s broad discretion was reasonable and justified by serious public safety concerns, pointing to a regulatory impact analysis statement.
That statement says that while some hunters and sport shooters lawfully used some of these firearms in the past, the guns can increase the severity of mass shootings and have been used in such shootings in Canada and other countries, and that thousands of alternative firearms remain legally available for hunting and sporting use.
The submission from a group of appellants that includes the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights says neither the Federal Court nor the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether the newly prohibited items were actually used for hunting or sport shooting.
The appellants also argue that disrupting the lives of law-abiding firearms owners was beyond what Parliament authorized through the law’s hunting and sporting limits.
← More stories