The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments this week on the validity of a 2020 federal ban on 1,500 firearm models and variants.
The Story
The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear legal arguments Monday and Tuesday on the validity of a federal ban covering hundreds of firearms.
The dispute follows the government’s 2020 prohibition on the use, sale and importation of 1,500 firearm models and variants, which opponents challenged after losing in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.
In October 2023, a Federal Court judge dismissed a request to strike down the ban, ruling it was unlawful for the government to exceed the powers delegated to the Governor in Council (federal cabinet).
A not-for-profit advocacy organization along with firearm owners, businesses, hunters and recreational and sport shooters appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which in April 2025 rejected the appeal and said the Federal Court provided “thorough and persuasive” reasons.
The federal ban has expanded to more than 2,500 varieties of what the government calls assault-style firearms.
Before the Supreme Court agreed to examine the matter, the government said the prohibited firearms would have to be disposed of or deactivated by the end of an amnesty period on Oct. 30 of this year; that amnesty has been extended until 90 days after the Supreme Court delivers its decision, expected no later than next year.
One key issue before the Federal Court of Appeal was whether the Governor in Council complied with a provision of the law that bars using regulations to outlaw a firearm if it is “reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.”
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Court of Appeal Chief Justice Yves de Montigny said he was not persuaded the government erred when considering public safety in assessing whether the prohibited firearms were reasonable for hunting and sporting use.
De Montigny wrote that the assessment could consider “the inherent danger” some firearms pose to public safety, including their lethality and ability to injure or kill large numbers of people quickly, their use in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, and that the firearms are disproportionate for civilian use.
The decision described the federal cabinet as the most senior policy-making body in government and said it was well placed to develop policy and assess the public interest.
In a written submission to the Supreme Court, federal lawyers argued the Governor in Council’s discretion was reasonable and justified by public safety concerns, pointing to a regulatory impact analysis statement.
That statement said some hunters and sport shooters lawfully used some of these firearms in the past, but argued the firearms can increase the severity of mass shootings and have been used in shootings in Canada and other countries.
The federal submission also said the firearms prohibited in 2020 were owned by a small minority of Canadian firearms owners, estimated at between three and five per cent, and that “Thousands of alternative firearms remain legally available for hunting and sporting use,” adding that “The GIC’s opinion, balancing public interest policy considerations, was reasonable.”
A group of appellants that includes the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights said neither the Federal Court nor the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether the newly prohibited items were actually used for hunting or sport shooting.
In its submission, the group said Parliament preserved hunting and sport shooting as “legitimate, lawful, and socially accepted activities and uses of firearms,” and argued the appeal is not abstract administrative-law debate for people who complied with requirements and found themselves facing criminal liability.
The submission described those consequences as affecting “ordinary, law-abiding Canadians,” including farmers, veterans, competitive athletes, Indigenous harvesters and neighbours across Canada.
It also argued that determining whether the Governor in Council acted within limits set by Parliament affects “whether the sweeping consequences imposed upon these Canadians were authorized by law.”
← More stories