r/canadaguns • u/Noah_S_Schwartz • May 19 '26
News / Politics / Activism When did Canada ban firearm suppressors/silencers/sound moderators?
Hi all. I am a researcher who does work on Firearms Policy. I am working on a policy paper to advocate for legalizing suppressors (as is the case in New Zealand, the UK, and most of Canada's peer countries in Europe).
I'm trying to figure out exactly when Canada banned firearm suppressors, and it's proving more difficult than I thought.
Most commentary or news sources trace the prohibition to the "early 1900s" but don't reference any laws, acts, or statutes - or even a specific year. I have checked the 1919 and 1927 editions of the criminal code, and can find no reference to a ban. It's not until the 1953 edition that Section 84 lays out a clear prohibition.
I've also searched through newspaper databases from that period (Globe, Citizen & Gazette), and the Parliamentary Hansard.
It's clear I'm missing a piece of the puzzle, but I can't seem to find it. Thus, I turn to the great collective wisdom of Reddit.
Any information or ideas would be greatly appreciated.
100
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 May 19 '26
Because the US did. Well they tried and basically did for a long time. And politicians are idiots who think guns work like they do in movies.
There was a petition a few years back I belibe amd the government just laughed and shut it down.
I don't get it, we are so obsessed with being in line with European countries but firearms we insist on being just being regressive, because its un-American or something.
84
u/DryF1re May 19 '26
Canadian identity partially revolves around just being not-American. Bugs the shit out of me.
20
u/conanap May 20 '26
I’m convinced the “at least we’re not American” mentality is why Canada has been in a downward spiral.
Healthcare is getting gutted and wait times are sky rocketing? “At least it’s still free, unlike US”.
We get a public shooting? “At least we don’t have daily school shootings, unlike the US. Let’s just ban some more guns lel”.
Education budget gets slashed? “At least we aren’t Americans; we have student loan with low interest and controlled programme costs”.
It’s absolutely infuriating. We use the lowest bar possible and then give ourselves a pat on the back for being above that non-existent bar.
1
1
u/Roger_Ferris May 26 '26
Canadian Liberalism is just contrarian to whatever America is doing that day. Let's not consider that you can own handguns and AR-15's in a lot of European countries, or that private healthcare can co-exist with a public healthcare system just like it does all throughout all of Europe.
27
u/Dickastigmatism May 19 '26
It's our entire identity dude. Take away the fact that we're not technically Americans and what are we? Americans.
14
u/HappyCan7250 May 20 '26
I mean we sort of are Americans. We're (mostly) all descendants of the same folks, just one group decided to fight back against the crown, and the other didnt.
Plus, we are basically Americans, it is North America after all. We call people from Asia, Asians, so we are North Americans, not North Canadians!
It is hilarious how fixated so many Canadians are on being anything but American though. It's especially funny, because if you erased the arbitrary line between our 2 countries, you'd have a VERY hard time telling you're in a different country, anywhere. Seattle and Vancouver are extremely similar, Alberta/SK are very similar to their southern neighbours, Toronto is basically just a mini NYC. Olivia Chong might even be worse than Mamdani! Without border crossings and agents and flags, you'd have a very hard time telling where America ends and Canada begins. The folks on either side are more similar than most realize.
6
4
u/WhackDanielz I <3 shitposts May 20 '26
Ring kissers. We are, on average, nation of ring kissers.
One of the most important factors in early Canadian history is the flood of loyalist ring kissers who fled the Civil War. Those loyalists absolutely had an impact on how pre-Confederation Canada was shaped politically and culturally.
Bending the knee is baked into our cultural DNA and it has a more significant affect than most people care to admit. Revolution is a dirty word in Canada.
5
u/RememberTheBoogaloo May 20 '26
Maybe we can start being less american and protect our hearing. It's still ridiculous that in the states they have to do a bigger background check for suppressors than they do for the firearms themselves.
107
u/macfail May 19 '26
What probably happened is that Canada copied the NFA. The NFA was designed to target the firearms used by Prohibition era organized crime.
33
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 19 '26
That was my first instinct as well, but I've seen commentary pointing to an earlier prohibition in Canada.
30
u/SandySpectre May 19 '26
I’d say it was bill C51 in 1977. I don’t think there’s previous explicit bans on suppressors previous to C51.
29
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 19 '26
The 1953 criminal code lays out a ban. They are not called suppressors; they use the language "device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm". But I believe the prohibition goes further back than this.
36
u/chillyrabbit May 19 '26
Cssa had a detailed history of gun control posted on their website. Maybe reach out to them if they still have the files.
https://cssa-cila.org/for-their-own-good-firearm-control-in-canada-1867-1977/
The links are dead and its been a long time since I read it, but i felt like it was around the 1930's along with the handgun registration requirements at the time.
Iirc it was an anti poaching measure, and not one for movie silencers or crime use as people commonly express.
7
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 19 '26
Thanks so much! That's a great idea!
6
u/chillyrabbit May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
I only remember vaguely that the paper at the time was well cited as I remember chasing a quote it had in the 1970's when C-51 was being put in that an LPC member arguing in the HoC stated "that self defense is better accomplished with a rifle than a handgun" as justifying the ATT and handgun self defense restrictions.
Though it was deliberately imo misquoted/misrepresented as 2 exchanges later when I read the orginal proceedings the LPC member clarified that he meant "rifles were better suited as defense against predators, not humans". Edit: the quote was something like "i mean the 4 legged variety not 2 legged"
So make sure you follow their citation to find the original document and not quote the paper if you find it.
30
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
41
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 19 '26
I've also written a research paper on that. The short answer is xenophobia and fear of young people. Will share the article here once it's published.
5
u/zeeloniusfunk May 19 '26
Wait, for real?
6
u/_axeman_ May 20 '26
I mean it makes sense, I can't imagine any banks were ever robbed with friggin nunchucks
2
1
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/zeeloniusfunk May 20 '26
I’m pretty liberal and I love guns and axes. Maternity leave and healthcare rule. But so does my 12 gauge.
2
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/zeeloniusfunk May 20 '26
Oh if you mean party affiliation I’m with you there. Sucks not to have more center in Canada. But to your point of liberals hating guns, there’s gotta be a better vernacular for that. I knew what you meant, but those folks are dorks who also happen to be liberal
1
16
u/NiagaraBTC May 19 '26
When nunchucks are outlawed, only outlaws will have nunchucks
18
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
2
u/8x56isfmj000 May 20 '26
We use to make throwing stars in shop class, there were some stuck in the roof of the shop.
5
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/8x56isfmj000 May 20 '26
I should have mentioned that this was in the later 70’s. You know when the farm kids would burn purple gas and you could smoke on the stairs of the school.
1
u/acidboogie nb May 19 '26
My theory is that a parliamentarian heard Carl Douglas on the radio and mistook it for a breaking news broadcast.
6
5
u/ReturnOk7510 May 19 '26
Only a good guy with nunchucks (or a gun) can stop a bad guy with nunchucks.
14
u/waitwhatnothing May 19 '26
I’ve also tried to find the answer to this and not gotten nearly as far as you. I was working on a fairly detailed letter on the topic to send to public safety since they are supposedly doing a comprehensive review of all firearms laws this year. Suppressors is a pet topic of mine since I’m at high risk of occupational hearing loss in addition to being a hunter/shooter.
As someone involved in manufacturing I also think it would be a nice economic boost to the industry. Suppressors are not hard to make and most countries where they are permitted have numerous local manufacturers producing them.
My suspicion is that originally they may have been banned because of fears around poaching as opposed to influence from action movies since that hadn’t really happened yet in the 1930’s/40’s. No doubt that the Hollywood silencer perception keeps them prohibited though.
5
u/BrotherLefthand May 20 '26
I'll sign a petition if you put one forward. The UK requires them for hunting in many areas- we should as well.
45
u/6guishin May 19 '26
Dont try to make sense of things.
34
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 19 '26
Sadly, it's my job :)
11
1
u/Auto-Selected May 19 '26
Who do you work for?
2
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 20 '26
I am a university professor. You can check out my website at noahschwartz.ca
4
u/Rough_Increase1325 May 19 '26
Canada did not “ban” suppressors on a single, specific modern date; they have been treated as prohibited‑weapon accessories under the federal firearms regulations for decades, essentially since the 1970s‑style consolidation of Canada’s firearms control regime.
How suppressors are classified Under the Criminal Code and the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons… (SOR/98‑462), any device designed to muffle or reduce the report of a firearm (i.e., a suppressor/silencer) is classified as a prohibited device rather than merely a tightly‑controlled accessory.Because they are prohibited devices, they are effectively illegal for civilian ownership or use, except in very narrow, tightly controlled circumstances (for example, some military or police use).
From what I understand The modern legal framework that pulled suppressors into the “prohibited” category arose from the 1977 revision of the Criminal Code governing firearms and related devices, when Canada significantly tightened accessory controls and aligned many provisions with U.S.‑style thinking (including the negative view of silencers).
There hasnt wxactly been a standalone “ban date” for suppressors in Canada; instead, existing regulations have simply continued to treat them as prohibited, while more recent reforms (like the dang disarming of the people[ gun grab] ) have focused on firearms themselves, not on introducing a new suppressor‑specific ban. All I could find...
0
3
u/BlandRusk06 May 20 '26
Good luck with your work! If we succeed in legalizing them, we all owe you a beer.
2
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 20 '26
Research is just the beginning, but hopefully the community can use that research as a basis for advocacy.
3
u/One_Salary_9068 May 19 '26
The funny part is that it doesn't completely block the sound... it reduces it by ONLY by 30 decibels.
1
u/gspotcowboy May 20 '26
Subsonic 22LR would like a word
1
u/Bowmann-94 May 20 '26
It’s still 108-115 db. We perceive it as quiet and by standard firearms it is but it’s still over a 100 db. Just so happens the action of the gun is typically loader and muffles the shot. Or the bullet hitting the target.
1
u/_Shorty May 20 '26
Every 10 dB reduction is half as loud, so 30 dB down is 1/8th as loud. I’d say that’s significant.
1
u/One_Salary_9068 May 20 '26
Yes it is, and your ears will thank you for it. But the Gouvernement thinks you will Play sniper thats why its still prohibited.
1
u/_Shorty May 20 '26
My point is you said ONLY 30 dB like that was some small amount of change. And I’m simply pointing out that it is a huge change.
1
u/One_Salary_9068 May 20 '26
Yes it is huge you are right and i do get your point. But its not zero noise like , reason why its still prohibited. Thats my point.
1
3
u/Krazee9 on May 19 '26
I've heard the first prohibitions on them happened in the 1930s, likely with whatever the same law was that introduced handgun registration.
3
3
u/IGnuGnat May 20 '26
We're one of the few countries ignorant enough to outlaw literal SAFETY EQUIPMENT. This actually perfectly illustrates our politicians position on firearms laws: people who are almost entirely uneducated and ignorant are pandering to the unwashed masses, and making laws to enforce their ignorance upon the rest of us.
This country is going from mediocre to the bottom of the barrel very, very quickly.
Body armour is another example of something with legitimate use cases that is illegal in some provinces
3
u/tmsa_prez May 20 '26
Imagine if our traffic laws were written by someone who’d only seen cars in fast and furious. Never been in one. Driving one would be just too much. Limit of their expertise is a horse at a nice trot.
That’s how our gun laws were written. They are Byzantine by design and mostly not based on any logic or empirical evidence. They are only based on feelings and Hollywood.
2
u/RudePrior2220 May 20 '26
With the strict laws we already have on Canada there's no good reason not to allow suppressors for long guns.
The extra weight and length doesn't matter for most of us and it's a good tradeoff for protecting your ears.
I get it, ear protection helps as well. But I have it seen multiple times that people have a conversation and then just forget to put them on.
And it's very beneficial when hunting because you reduce the noise pollution. Besides the hunters health. I have met a couple old school hunters who think one shot won't hurt without ear protection.
2
u/o2pb May 20 '26
I'm pretty sure "early 1900s" was just a made up number, as it first appeared in the 2017 petition response: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-575/421-01700_JUS_E.pdf
Any device intended to muffle the sound of a firearm has been unlawful in Canada since the early 1900s. Sound reduction or elimination diminishes the public’s ability to react to gun violence and makes it harder for law enforcement to become aware of a possible criminal incident.
Then, popularized by legalbeagle, quoting the date from the petition response. I didn't find any mention of a prohibition, or the fact that they were unlawful, pre-1953 criminal code update.
Jody Wilson was probably trying to make a point that it was a "long time", and added a few extra decades to her (silly for a different reason) response.
3
u/pukalo_ May 20 '26
At some point on or before 1969. Here is an exerpt from the law from 1969 defining a "prohibited weapon" as including suppressors. The law as it read from that same time listed full-autos as "restricted weapons".
1
u/guestpassonly May 20 '26
Just look everywhere else that have suppressors in use:
It's a safety device. Especially in europe, where space can be at a premium and distances are short.
i'm instantly reminded of all of the ranges in south Ontario, which is PACKED with poeple and practically no crown land, ranges should be making MANDATORY the use of suppressors!!!
1
u/Outrageous_Order_197 May 20 '26
Because liberals think the only legit application for suppressors is for assassins. They get thier firearm "knowledge" from watching movies, and the use case for reducing hearing damage is a moot point, because to them, fuck anyone who owns and likes to shoot guns.
1
u/Old_Permission3429 May 20 '26
I talked to some provincial and federal NDP officials and their staffers and the reason is that they think they work like the movies and go: thhp thhp thhp
-3
-17
u/under_hunter82376 May 19 '26
I dont know , but maybe so people know when someone's shooting . a silencer or suppresser defeats that whole purpose .
21
u/Noah_S_Schwartz May 19 '26
Suppressors are legal in the UK, New Zealand, and most Western European countries. The New Zealand version of the Canadian Firearm Safety Course Manual even lists them as essential safety equipment to protect hearing and limit sound pollution. None of these countries have experienced problems with criminals using silenced firearms - generally because criminals don't find them that useful.
8
u/ReturnOk7510 May 19 '26
generally because criminals don't find them that useful.
Makes sense. A can adds a fair amount of length to a gun, criminals are generally more interested in easily concealed weapons, and suppressed gunfire is still plenty loud so the tradeoff isn't worth it.
-12
14
u/Jksah May 19 '26
Guns with suppressors are not Hollywood quiet. Beyond that, theyre a useful hearing protection device.
-13
u/under_hunter82376 May 19 '26
definitely not Hollywood quiet , still quieter than normal gunshots though .
12
u/Phantom2k5 May 19 '26
That's kind of the point of a muffler. Be a useless device if it didn't lower the volume.
I like to compare mufflers/suppressors on firearms to that of a muffler on a car. I'm betting the vast majority of the population would not like to listen to vehicles without mufflers.1
1
u/rfl-kt PM me if u think the SRA is cool 🚩🏴 May 20 '26
Quieter than unsuppressed, duh, but a suppressed .308 hunting rifle is still going to be about as loud as an unsuppressed .22LR.
Do you think all .22LR firearms should be banned for being "quieter than normal gunshots"?
247
u/Cock_ball_dickin May 19 '26
Honestly this is one of the most frustrating parts of our laws here. God forbid a guy not want to piss off his neighbours when he shoots.
As for your question I have no clue