With the coming supreme court decision, I'm thinking about pistols.

[u/Ratfor]

Years ago, my license was up for renewal. While waiting for my renewal, my license expired. It only took 9 months, lol.

Unfortunately during that time, the OIC happened, and I missed out on all the cool pistol sales.

What with not being able to buy anything since then, I haven't really given attention to the world of new things. I understand we're on the glock Gen 6 now? Used to have a Gen 4. Loved it.

Maybe the supreme court bails us out, all this nonsense goes away and we can go shopping again. So what's new in the world of pistol? I have hope that sometime soon I'll be able to buy something, what should I be putting money aside for?

Anything a with a 10 or less capacity, I hate knowing I'm wasting space with pinned mags.

[u/Flashy_Inspector115]

Can someone explain to me what this supreme count decision means and what can possibly reverse?

[u/HappyCan7250 → u/Flashy_Inspector115]

The court is basically looking at whether the use of OICs was improper for banning firearms. The government is allowed to ban firearms through legislation, but most banned rifles were banned via OIC, which is not their purpose. The government was essentially using OICs as legislation, rather than the administrative tool they are intended for. 

By using OICs the government was, in essence, trying to create laws by bypassing debate and parliament. 

The other aspect of the case is that firearms are not to be deemed prohibited in Canada, if they have a valid use for hunting and sporting, which basically covers ALL banned guns. The problem is, it is the Ministry of public safety who gets to decide what "valid for hunting and sporting" means basically, but it is another aspect of the bans that the court will look at. I.e, does a Bren 2 or AR180 have a valid sporting use? I think the answer would be yes.

The supreme Court will not be touching C21 whatsoever, which was the original 2020 bans that covered ARs, but many of the rifles banned after 2020 (which were all done via OIC), will be part of this court case.

That said, the case only looks at whether the OICs were "legal" in their use of banning firearms, so unfortunately if the liberals want to double down again, once they have their majority next month, they could also rush through legalisation and cement every ban into law, making the court case irrelevant. In the eyes of the Supreme Court, bans via legislation that pass through the house and are voted on are perfectly valid, so if the liberals cram through a bill cementing the OIC bans using their narrow majority, then we're just plain fucked.

I believe the case will also be looking at the compensation aspect as well, as the government has basically said "fuck you" to all of us and said they won't pay us, while screaming to the public "they will receive fair compensation!" 

Either way, this court case is going to shed some light on topics the Liberals want to avoid, which should make things interesting. A lot of details I think about the bans and the program will be brought to light, that the government wanted to keep secret (like the compensation being slasher to $64mil down from $250mil originally).

It will be a very interesting time for us, and for the Liberals who will probably squirm a bit having this case thoroughly examined by the courts.

[u/[deleted] → u/HappyCan7250]

The government is allowed to ban firearms through legislation, but most banned rifles were banned via OIC, which is not their purpose. The government was essentially using OICs as legislation, rather than the administrative tool they are intended for. 

This is not quite correct.

Current legislation on the books allows firearm bans via OIC, but only if the government is of the opinion that they aren't suitable for hunting or sport.

The court challenge is basically asking "How does the government have to form their opinion?" From a practical sense it's very clear that the firearms banned are suitable for hunting and sport because that's what they were used for; people wouldn't voluntarily use them if they weren't suitable. The root of the issue is the word "opinion" has two conflicting definitions: one that doesn't require any facts/knowledge to back it up (ex. "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one"), the other in the context of an expert opinion which is solidly backed up by facts.

Basically, whichever defintion the court effectively chooses will not only affect us, but it will affect any area of law where a government decision maker has to form an "opinion" because it will become the legal standard of how the the government must for opinions.