That was literally exactly my thought. They contradict themselves constantly.
Not to mention the fact too that when the government needed to cull deer on an Island off the BC coast, they hired a US firm to come in with ARs and shoot them from helicopters, even though "YoU dOnt NeED aN AR-15 tO hUnT!!!!"
Literally the most popular hunting rifle on the continent I get, given the number of Americans that use them for everything from squirrels and rabbits (22lr conversion) up to bear or moose (50 Beowulf conversion).
Which are also now prohibited firearms. So in other words the government set a precedent that the Bren is fine to cull deer with (aka hunt with.) Yet then they turn around later and go "Scary assault style rifle." And ban it.
I have a feeling this may be the one of the main issues for the Supreme Court to have taken a case that was twice dismissed. I'm hoping the SCC smacks down this shit like it ought to be. It's an issue of the Governor in Council exceeding the limits placed on them, which was an issue put forth by the parties in the initial application to Federal Court (if I'm recalling correctly).
Essentially and just as people have pointed out, they are contradicting themselves and may be in violation of the law. The limits placed on the GIC to prohibit firearms is that they SHALL not prohibit anything that in their opinion is reasonable for hunting or sporting use. The power to prohibit via regulation, as much as we hate it, exists. However, it's not limitless as much as its being used as such. Some of this is (or ought to be), administrative law 101. In addition, obviously the issue is also the GIC's opinion and its ability to change on a whim due to the order of the day.
Administrative decision making power (that is, the legislated authority conferred to an agency or the executive branch and their delegates to make decisions) is both defined and limited by statute and common law in all circumstances. Even though administrative law and decision making are intended to make policy making more efficient, they are not supposed to be a surrogate for what should ultimately be legislative decisions. Only the Legislature by Act of Parliament should be able to make decisions outside said limits by amending the enabling statute itself (such as removing or amending the limits imposed on the decision maker). Obviously that's longer, slower, and subject to more scrutiny.
Also, every government has done this. It's not an exclusively Liberal and guns thing. Not defending them by any means. Govs just love delegating policy decisions so things are quicker and easier.
56
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 08 '26
I'm sure this will look great in the court case for them.