r/canadaguns • u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC • Mar 19 '26

Announcement BREAKING: SCoC WILL HEAR CCFR v Canada Appeal

SCoC Decision on Appeal: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/news/en/item/8467/index.do

593 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

266 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

93

u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

To my understanding and this is JUST my educated guess, but basically, I think they're going to be deciding:

  • Was the federal government Ultra Vires (exceeding lawful authority) by using the executive branch to ban over 2000 models of firearms?

  • Can the government ban guns even if it can be used for hunting/sport shooting; are there limits in the law?

  • Was the government's desire to ban over 2000 guns through regulation "reasonable"?

  • Does the ban violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of gun owners, who are going to be thrown in jail and have their property confiscated?

  • Is this ban criminal law, or is it property regulation in disguise (divisions of power)?

43

u/-rifle-is-fine- Mar 19 '26

Thank you for mentioning sport shooting. They acknowledged sport shooting as a valid reason for ownership with the handgun exemptions, and that is not being talked about enough when talking about banned rifles which people use for shooting sports.

21

u/RydNightwish Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

I said it yesterday, I think those last two points are likely the biggest crux and why it will be heard. Prior levels ruled operating on the assumption that, as was public stated, ALL gun owners WOULD recieve fair compensation. At the time, it was a correct assumption as there was no evidence suggesting otherwise.

But now we see that the govt is openly stating and advertising that they have no intention to compensate everyone nor give the fair value for said property to the random lucky ones who will get anything.

Its a property rights violation and precedent that simply can't be allowed to stand as the abuse potential is huge.

At minimum I would expect the courts to rule the govt must pay everyone fair value. No ifs ands or buts. That will force them to inject billions into this at a time when household debt is more than the entire economy output (and cannot be spun well) or amnesty/grandfather/repeal the oics. However, given they are basically guaranteed a majority in weeks hard to say what they do if the SCC rules against the gov.

13

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Mar 19 '26

Personally, I disagree. SCC was pretty clear in rhe firearms reference case that guns are criminal not local/civil. I would be surprised if they change that precedent.

I wouldnt be surprised if this isnt the court putting their brand on the status of administrative law/procedural fairness. The big thing that people are missing is that the courts can use this case to opine on a bunch of issues/rewrite tests without actually changing the outcome. Not saying that is what is happening here, but the outcome is far from certain.

5

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Mar 19 '26

The last bullet is unlikely, SCC has clearly stated that firearms are criminal law.

2

u/MustardTiger88 Mar 20 '26

How about defining once and for all what an "aSsAUlt STylE FirEArM" is?

2

u/Lumindan Mar 20 '26

I think it already got defined.

it's literally anything the government doesn't like

1

u/IGnuGnat Mar 22 '26

Can the government ban guns even if it can be used for hunting/sport shooting; are there limits in the law?

The way I remember it the definition of the law specifically mentions that OICs can NOT be used to ban firearms used for hunting

1

u/IGnuGnat Mar 22 '26

ah here are some details: Section 117.15(2).

The "Reasonable for Use" Restriction Under Section 117.15(1), the Governor in Council (the Cabinet) has the power to make regulations prescribing firearms as prohibited or restricted. However, Section 117.15(2) provides a mandatory "Restriction" on that power:

Restriction (2): In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm... if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

How this is interpreted (and challenged) This clause is the heart of the ongoing legal battles (such as CCFR v. Canada) and the reason for the heated political debate. Here is how the "hunting" protection actually functions in practice:

The Subjective Loophole: Notice the phrase "in the opinion of the Governor in Council." Historically, the government has argued that as long as the Cabinet forms the opinion that a firearm is not reasonable for hunting (e.g., by labeling it "assault-style" or "military-grade"), they have met the legal requirement.

The 2020 OIC Strategy: When the 1,500+ models were banned in May 2020, the government explicitly stated in the preamble of the OIC that these firearms were "not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes." By including this "opinion" in the document, they technically satisfy the wording of Section 117.15(2).

The Judicial Challenge: Critics and legal challengers argue that "opinion" cannot be arbitrary. They contend that if a firearm was widely used for hunting for decades (like the Ruger Mini-14 or M305) without issue, the government cannot simply "opine" away its utility to bypass the law.