r/canadaguns • u/SpectreBallistics Spectre Ballistics International (Verified) • Jun 09 '26

News / Politics / Activism Amnesty period extended due to the Supreme Court of Canada process

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2026/06/firearms-compensation-program-for-businesses-closes--amnesty-period-extended-due-to-the-supreme-court-of-canada-process.html
394 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

166

u/SpectreBallistics Spectre Ballistics International (Verified) Jun 09 '26

This is important if you own firearms prohibited by the OICs.

Amnesty Orders Extension Amnesty Orders for the 2020, 2024, and 2025 prohibitions are in place to protect businesses and individual owners from criminal liability while they take steps to comply with the law, such as participating in the compensation program or disposing of their prohibited firearms without compensation.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal challenging the May 2020 prohibition of assault-style firearms. In light of this, the Amnesty Orders have been extended and set to expire 90 days following the date the Supreme Court of Canada renders its decision, which is expected next year. By extending the amnesty period, the Government is providing certainty to individual owners and businesses that they will continue to be protected from criminal liability while the Supreme Court hears the appeal and renders its decision.

The Government of Canada is confident in the decision to prohibit assault-style firearms due to the risk they pose to public safety. The new expiry date for the Amnesty Orders does not impact the ASFCP, which is expected to be completed by October 2026. The program remains the only opportunity for firearm owners to receive compensation for their prohibited firearms.

242

u/Bavarian_Raven Jun 09 '26

Assault style. Lol. That’s not even a thing. Assault rifles were banned in the 70s. 

104

u/neck-tourniquet Jun 09 '26

We may as well call them bogeyman guns.

63

u/Flop_Flurpin89 Jun 09 '26

A valid point we've all seen a hundred times. The problem is this sort of thinking and logic doesn't exist to the people making those gun grab laws.

2

u/Upbeat_Plane6490 Jun 19 '26

Imagine if instead of guns they banned criminals from the country

60

u/velocity__wagon Jun 09 '26

If it's something-style it's not that thing

28

u/thisghy Jun 09 '26

Like MacDonald's 'beef-style' paddies

5

u/ChooseExactUsername Jun 10 '26

I've seen mini-vans with "sport version" stickers. They are indeed Sporty...

2

u/Trilobyte83 Jun 12 '26

I’ll try paying my taxes with “money style” bits of paper.

7

u/jdavitsky Jun 10 '26

A Liberal word for any firearm they are afraid of

5

u/Norwest_Shooter on Jun 10 '26

It’s like mayo-style sauce. What is it really 🤨🤔

46

u/truthdoctor bc Jun 10 '26

Thanks for sharing this. No surprise here. This is a hot potato they keep tossing into the future. Almost 7 years later and they are still pretending this mass confiscation will happen. They will have to either keep extending it again next year when they realize almost no one is complying with the confiscation or let the deadline lapse and create a 1-2 million semi-auto black market for firearms in Canada. No one has created more illegal firearms in Canada than Poly and the Trudeau Liberals.

The Government of Canada is confident in the decision to prohibit assault-style firearms due to the risk they pose to public safety.

For those that don't know:

Canada's public safety minister who is championing the bans and confiscation in public admitted in private recordings that the program won't work, is wrongly targeting legal owners who aren't the problem and is purely being carried out for political votes in Quebec.

Legal firearms do not present a significant threat to society:

The sources of crime guns in Canada:

Statistically, the firearms seized on urban streets are handguns that are traced back to the U.S. 8-9/10 times. The other 1/10 are mostly untraceable):

In Ontario, 91 percent of handguns recovered from crimes in 2024 came in illegally from the United States, according to the provincial government. In Toronto, 88 percent of all firearms recovered from crimes in 2024 were smuggled across the border. The actual figures are almost certainly higher because many recovered guns have been tampered with to make them untraceable, the police said.

By and large, the guns found on the streets aren’t stolen or purchased from stores or even from legal gun owners, but rather smuggled in over the border.

More than 50% of illicit firearms are coming from the US, but now 1/3rd are being made by criminals themselves and the rest are mostly stolen or illegally obtained.

Banning specific types of firearms does not increase public safety:

Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates.

8

u/Sharpe_Points Jun 10 '26

Thank you for compiling such a comprehensive list of sources. Super helpful

6

u/truthdoctor bc Jun 10 '26

You are most welcome.

40

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Jun 09 '26

I thibk it more has to do with the ASFCP being delated than the SCC decision.

That said, as someone with legal training, I think the SCC is a long shot. Even if it is successful, a stroke of parliament pen makes it all moot.

35

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 09 '26

What makes you say it’s a long shot?

I don’t disagree, but I think the fact they even agreed to grant leave for appeal (and for three provincial governments to intervene and provide legal perspective) is promising since they wouldn’t take the case unless there’s some sort of legal precedent to be set.

That said, should OICs be repealed I think the government response will be hard to predict. Sure they can pass additional laws but it’s a harder to justify bill, especially if opposed by cons and NDP. They do have a majority but it’s thin and the LPC have failed to pass legislation with more seats in their majority under Trudeau.

Theres also less political juice to be squeezed from this portfolio nowadays. I think the general public won’t care much either way given their current political concerns.

51

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

What makes you say it’s a long shot?

Because historically the courts have never been friendly to firearms ownership.

Because the government has done is absolute best to obfuscate the issue.

Because a lot of judges in this country are ideologically captured.

The funny part is, even if the scc rules in our favor. With a majority they can ram an amendment to the firearms act through the house to cook it all anyways.

31

u/Candid-Tomato2971 Jun 09 '26

This case will be more so focused on property rights rather than firearms

14

u/HappyCan7250 Jun 10 '26

Did the LPC just sneak in a bill basically saying property owners can no longer negotiate when the government expropriates their property? I assume it was in preparation for the soon to be Alto boondoggle, but I worry it could also apply here. 

→ More replies (1)

6

u/IGnuGnat Jun 10 '26

I thought it was about the fact that the law which defines the OIC specificailly states that OICs are not to be used to prohibit firearms which are used for hunting

29

u/dandyarcane Jun 09 '26

Someone can correct me, but I think this case is more about OICs/unchecked executive power. While the US Supreme Court seems cool with unlimited executive power recently, ours has usually been far more measured.

Hopefully, they choose to side with limiting executive authority for the sake of everyone, including our community

19

u/NuclearMelon23 Jun 09 '26

"Because a lot of judges in this country are ideologically captured." You misspelled corrupt

→ More replies (4)

28

u/prosper_0 Jun 09 '26

sure, but with a majority, all they need to do is create a proper bill instead of issuing 'lazy legislation', and that's that. Perhaps there's not the political mojo to get that done, though.

Same idea as the halfwit's 'plastics are toxic waste' lazy legislating: they couldn't be bothered to spend the time to draft a proper policy, and tried to sneak some lazy-ass 'solution' in through a loophole. That got shut down by the SCC, and they haven't taken a run at it since. So, maybe the same'll happen with the firearms thing. It'll just get quietly get swept under the rug and forgotten. Too bad C21 and the handgun stuff will stay on the books though.

31

u/CalibreMag Jun 09 '26

It's such an interesting question because there are so many variables:

Carney's popularity has likely peaked, and it only heads one way from here. Not necessarily because he's done anything good or bad, but simply because his approval rating has risen to a statistical level that will be extremely hard to improve upon.

And given we're already seeing cracks in his caucus, combined with its composite nature (incorporating a higher number of floor-crossers than any in recent memory), any decline in popularity may create a degree of instability that could make controversial policy either fractious or uniting, depending on the context.

Add to all this the likely near-term economic issues Canada is likely to face and the conventional Liberal political wisdom that gun policy is a good "channel changer," and it could put pressure on some in caucus to feel like a legislative remedy to an SCC ruling in our favour is a preferable option.

Then again, the bans have generated more headaches for pre-existing Liberal caucus members than positive political capital, while former CPC members will recall seeing buoyed levels of support against the bans - so it's really a crap shoot.

It's going to be very interesting to observe - and quite compelling to strategize around. I think this extension gives gun owners a bit of room to swing a political fist, but we'll need to think a bit about how to throw it, and what at...

2

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 10 '26

Agree 100%. I’m not convinced we will be able to predict what will come of this either. While I’m a bit biased by my optimism, I can definitely nobody knows what will actually happen.

For the reasons you mentioned, this is an incredibly complex and peculiar political situation. Safe to say I never could’ve imagined the firearms community was my gateway to an interest in politics.

Additionally, I think regardless of political alignment and which side you’re on with gun control, an SCC ruling in our favour sets a likely beneficial precedent for all from a property rights perspective.

12

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 09 '26

Totally agree with you, but for sure it wouldn’t be a quick solution. The CCFR also touched on a good point: the majority is thin and would require all MPs to vote, which doesn’t necessarily happen.

If the NDP, Bloc, and greens are opposed, there could be difficulty passing anything after that point. Now that’s a big if, since these parties typically vote alongside the LPC. HOWEVER, this is now a different NDP who Carney has flat out said they have no interest in forming any kind of coalition with, so you can imagine voting against any legislation associated with this bad press portfolio could be to their advantage in their party rebuilding efforts. Especially since Lewis is on record opposing the prohibitions.

25

u/ActCompetitive1171 Jun 09 '26

If the NDP, Bloc, and greens are opposed, there could be difficulty passing anything after that point.

NDP, Bloc and Greens are basically guranteed to vote for gun control.

8

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

If the NDP, Bloc, and greens are opposed

I wouldn't count on the NDP, Bloc, or Greens to save gun owners here. None of those parties have a strong track record of supporting civilian firearms ownership, and all three have generally backed stricter gun control measures when it mattered.

HOWEVER, this is now a different NDP who Carney has flat out said they have no interest in forming any kind of coalition with, so you can imagine voting against any legislation associated with this bad press portfolio could be to their advantage in their party rebuilding efforts

Oh sweet summer child. They barely have any seats, they're safe to oppose Carney because they have nothing left to lose at this point.

Especially since Lewis is on record opposing the prohibitions.

The NDP trying to rebuild after an election doesn't automatically translate into pro-firearms votes either. Their disagreements with the Liberals are typically on economic and social policy, not firearms policy. Likewise, the Bloc and Greens have historically been far more receptive to additional gun restrictions than to rolling them back. Not to mention we havent even factored in the backroom deal they took.

If the government introduces legislation to replace the OIC bans (assuming we win the SCC stuff), the safer assumption is that these parties will support it, seek amendments, or criticize implementation details not suddenly become defenders of legal firearms owners. Betting on the NDP, Bloc, or Greens to stop new gun control is wishful thinking given their voting records and stated policy positions.

I hope I'm wrong but their voting history is public.

18

u/PantherD1943 Jun 09 '26

It's a long shot because a lot of the issues are settled law. Read Reference Re: The Firearms Act. That's a Supreme Court reference about the constitutional jurisdiction of regulating firearms. Courts are also extremely deferential to the legislature and executive. That is how our system works. The legislature is elected and a government is formed. The Court defers to the will of the legislature since that's the representative body in a liberal democracy (liberal in the political sense, not the "Grrr Liberals, fuck Carney" sense). 

However, decisions of the executive branch via delegated power, such as that delgated to the Governor In Council to prohibit firearms, are subject to judicial review. The idea being that the executive via its delgated authority, does not have unlimited discretion. This is especially so where the legislation delegating the authority places limits on the decision making power ("shall not"). 

The Supreme Court likely has an issue with something. But, there is going to be no enshrinment or ruling about property rights. In addition, the chances of the OICs being overturned is extremely low, and is not going to happen IMO. There is a possibility though. They could literally just here the case the make it clear someone's submission is wrong to seal the deal on it. 

I predict they want to clarify something related to administrative law and decisions by OIC, or Section 35 rights and the Governor In Councils decisions to prohibit vis-à-vis the constraints on that decision making power for sporting and hunting. They also could have a bone to pick with the FRT issues vis-à-vis criminal law and Section 7 of the Charter. I've read the previous decisions, but not in depth. In addition, without having reviewed all the parties submissions, it's hard to tell what the issues may be for the Court on appeal. 

4

u/ZedFlex Jun 10 '26

I think you’re right on the money. The Federal Court of Appeals was pretty stark in its ruling. Hard to see much that the SCC will use to reverse the program.

It’s almost certainly a delegated authority issue based on the FCA decision. Maybe even shutting the door on attacking regulations on a delegated authority basis. 

Wish there was some s35 action to be had though. Too bad the issue wasn’t fully aired at trial. 

If the OIC is overturned though, wonder what happens with the firearms compensation surrenders? Seems like the next target for the CFRC! 

7

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Jun 09 '26

The courts takes cases for all sorts of reasons. For example, they could take a case where they agree with the outcome but want to adjust the test/logic that was used by the lower courts to reach there decision.

The court also tends to be pretty deferential to the government on issues like this and the whole "opinion of..." component of the Firearms act gives cabinet pretty broad powers.

It also doesnt matter. The government has signalled their intention to rewrite the firearms act. Lets say we win, the government will jsut table new legislation to "correct the issue".

Edit: I should also say that the SCC tends to play heavily on administrative law and every court likes to put their stamp on the subject. I would bet that the current cheif justice sees this case as an opportunity to update that area of law.

14

u/CalibreMag Jun 10 '26

IANL, but having read the original committee debate around 117.15 (2) when C-68 was introduced, it would not surprise me in the least if the Chief Justice sees this case as an opportunity to make their mark, for a few reasons: the fact that legislative counsel had
"grave concerns" about the inclusion of a subjective test rendering a privative clause, the fact that the committee actually voted to amend the section to remove the entire portion about the "governor in council's opinion" and return to the pre-existing objective wording that allowed for judicial review (an amendment that was then rejected by the House), and because it's hard to square both Allan Rock's testimony about the intent of that section as well as how it was addressed during clause-by-clause with how it was used by the Trudeau government - especially given many of the models banned were available in 1995, especially given the justification provided for amending the wording away from "reasonable for" in favour of "in the GiC's opinion," and especially because one of the banned guns in particular (the AR-15) had it's prohibition in '95 overturned specifically because it was determined to have legitimate sporting purpose.

They're good reads for anyone interested:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Archives/committee/351/jula/evidence/147_95-05-19/jula147_blk-e.html

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Archives/committee/351/jula/evidence/157_95-06-05/jula157_blk-e.html

Simply put, it's hard not to read through the original transcripts and see how the SCC might not go, "yeah, sorry government, but there's no way you can do what you did while also interpreting 117.15 (2) as it was intended."

1

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Jun 11 '26

Hansard is good evidence but is not definitive when interpreting statutes.

The courts will often looks to the plain and ordinary meaning of the text. Hansard can help interpret the meaning but other evidence can be admitted.

5

u/CalibreMag Jun 11 '26

True. It isn't definitive, but it is relevant.

And given the SCC's comments in its decision on the Telus case last year, it's easy to see how they might have been also drawn to give leave to this case:

"In accordance with the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the meaning of a statutory provision is determined by reference to its text, context and purpose. Statutory interpretation is centered on the intent of the legislature at the time of enactment and courts are bound to give effect to that intent. This principle does not, however, prevent courts from applying statutes to new or evolving circumstances. Legislatures frequently use broad or open‑textured language to cover circumstances that are neither in existence nor in their contemplation, in order to ensure the long‑term objects of an enactment without constantly reopening the statute. Properly understood, there is no contradiction between the principles that the interpretative exercise is grounded in the intent of the enacting legislature and that statutes can be applied to circumstances that were not contemplated by the legislature. Dynamic interpretation is situated firmly within the modern approach. There is no bright line between statutes that are static and statutes that are dynamic. The degree to which a provision is capable of applying to new circumstances, including new technology, is an interpretive question that must be answered by reading the text and context consistent with the legislature’s purpose."

Objectively, examining 117.15 thusly does pose an academically fascinating question, to say nothing of the importance of a finding.

1

u/kennethdavid Jun 10 '26

I think they will completely redo the classification system and place all anything they think isn't a "hunting rifle" into restricted. They will probably keep a few "scary black guns - like the AR15 in prohibited".

It's also pretty clear to me that it's in the governments interest for this ruling to take as close to 2029 as possible, so I'm wondering if the ruling doesn't get magically "delayed".

3

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Jun 11 '26

Nah, the SCC wont delay on that basis -- extending the decision to 2029 would be unheard of.

I can see them holding off on a new act until 2029 tho.

8

u/Goliad1990 Jun 09 '26

What makes you say it’s a long shot?

Because there's nothing in the law or the Constitution that prevents them from doing it.

12

u/CalibreMag Jun 09 '26

There must at least be a question about the legality of the bans, or the SCC wouldn't have agreed to hear the case.

4

u/Goliad1990 Jun 09 '26

At most, there could be a procedural case to be made. But the SCC isn't going to tell the feds they can't ban the guns.

9

u/CalibreMag Jun 10 '26

The SCC isn't determining if the government can ban guns - government can always legislate.

They are determining if the government was within legal boundaries to ban these guns by regulation.

2

u/Goliad1990 Jun 10 '26

They are determining if the government was within legal boundaries to ban these guns by regulation.

I know, and the answer is yes, they were. The GiC can prescribe any gun it wants in regulation.

The argument is based on one line about the GiC's "opinion", and the interpretation required to make a case against the ban is extremely convoluted. There's near-zero odds this rules in our favour.

7

u/CalibreMag Jun 10 '26

Apparently the SCC thinks it is worth examining, so I'll defer to them.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Reasonable_Hall2346 Jun 09 '26

A year of continued suffering under the Liberals? Let them try to push of shit legislation to waste more money.

9

u/eldaniay Jun 09 '26

gangster style guns

4

u/Realistic_Value_1161 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

.

6

u/Ravens_beak224 Jun 10 '26

I think one thing the Supreme Court should take a serious look at is the actual on-the-ground effect of these bans and the pistol freeze, has violent crime gone down? No in fact its only gone up year after year increasingly so, has the gun buyback been even somewhat successful? No, in fact the most generous estimates only have compliance at around 3%, has it caused massive backlash every time a new make or model gets put on the list? Yes every single time there is an uproar from Canadian gun owners and organizations opposing these decisions, and finally in my humble opinion, have these banned firearms been proven useful in lawful actions such as sport shooting, hunting, and keeping a canadian industry alive? Yes absolutely we've seen almost on a monthly basis businesses and manufactures struggling to stay afloat as a direct effect of these bans many shut their doors, Canada used to rival the US in firearms manufacturing for the civilian market and there are still a few companies around today that will atest to that fact.

85

u/aero_universe Jun 09 '26

If it's so dangerous and threat to the public safety, why are we allowed to keep it for anothe year?

57

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

We don't use logic here.

Only vibes. Assault style vibes.

14

u/4r4nd0mninj4 Jun 09 '26

High capacity assault style vibes!

18

u/truthdoctor bc Jun 10 '26

The first nations and the trappers are still legally hunting with them 6 years later.

17

u/3202supsaW Jun 10 '26

Because the only people who genuinely believe they are a threat to public safety are Provost and her band of raving lunatics.

Gary is just doing his job assigned to him by his party (not defending him just stating the facts), and Carney + the rest of the liberals are pushing through the ban for two reasons: disarmament is a WEF and UN agenda, and the whole idea of banning guns buys them votes, primarily in Quebec, among old guard liberal voters who think scary guns don't belong on the streets.

Dragging their feet and implementing the half-assed ASFCP while extending the amnesty forever keeps said old guard liberals happy while also not provoking gun owners too much by allowing us to keep them. They know we're not voting liberal anyway, but by doing this they are keeping us placated just enough to not go out and riot in the streets and avoid the headlines of cops kicking down doors and seizing guns and the consequences that come with that.

My guess is the amnesty gets extended indefinitely until a conservative government comes in and undoes it or all the prohib owners die off.

13

u/Relevant_Diver_3228 Jun 09 '26

Because the mailmen did not want to come door to door to take them

21

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

Your logical comment has been flagged. You are now guilty of hate speech.

7

u/DougMacRay617 Jun 10 '26

Why were we allowed to keep them for the last 5

7

u/yummybunnybear Jun 10 '26

Because banning them sprinkles safety fairy dust on the guns

59

u/Metalock Jun 09 '26

Great news after National Range Day last weekend!

I wonder how much further they'll keep kicking this can down the road.

24

u/Relevant_Diver_3228 Jun 09 '26

Got to shoot a pistol for the first time at my local one it was only a .22 lr but it was so much fun lol it was a rugger revolver and a rugger mk iv

28

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

Rugger? Gary is that you?

17

u/Metalock Jun 09 '26

I go hunting with my dad's .22 gauge all the time!

7

u/Relevant_Diver_3228 Jun 10 '26

I bet he can say ruger they just spelled it wrong on his script 

7

u/ChooseExactUsername Jun 10 '26

My local range had about 275 to 300 people participate. Many said they should get a PAL because they enjoyed themselves.

I handed loaded 20g and 12g shotguns to people who didn't know the target would be moving when they said "pull". I had people who've never shot trap make multiple hits, most missed but they were all smiling. (Also had some "ringers" who after the "how-to-stand-and-hold-the-unloaded-shotgun" demo were obviously experienced.)

We had several sign ups for new members.

6

u/DougMacRay617 Jun 10 '26

As far as they have to until the population is disarmed

6

u/dsac Jun 10 '26

I think they want it to fail. Cancelling the program means they lose the bloc that wants them banned, which is a LOT of voters. If the court strikes it down, they can say "well, we tried, tune in next week vote for us next election to see if we can do it then!"

2

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 10 '26

All the way down the road until the road ends and they kick it off a cliff

48

u/NecessaryRisk2622 Jun 09 '26

I’m thinking there’s something about this appeal that’s got the government stumped, eh?

62

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 09 '26

The SCC hasn’t ruled very favourably for the LPC in the last few years. Given their current track record with cutting environmental policy as well and the more recent ruling of government overreach with the truckers, it’s nice to see we still have some systems in place to check the government.

Regardless of political alignment, there should be limitations and scrutiny with how the government operates.

12

u/DougMacRay617 Jun 09 '26

Doesn't really matter which way they rule tbh. With the majority gov they will just ban them properly if the oic is deemed unjustified

24

u/Last_Temperature_599 Jun 10 '26

Imagine how a SECOND buy back would be perceived lol.

30

u/DougMacRay617 Jun 10 '26

They ran this country into the ground for 10 years and won again by convincing everyone to be scared of an orange man... how it's perceived will be irrelevant

10

u/Last_Temperature_599 Jun 10 '26

I don't disagree with your assessment. Unfortunately

7

u/0672216 Jun 10 '26

That’s assuming they have the willpower to continue lol

14

u/DougMacRay617 Jun 10 '26

Why wouldnt they? Their goal is to disarm the population at any cost. Naive to think otherwise

10

u/Late_Winner6859 Jun 10 '26

I mean, they are doing it on our dime, so not like they care

3

u/Helpful-Sock-4988 Jun 12 '26

are the not running out of our dime?

4

u/gamercast1337 Jun 10 '26

They literally need the nation disarmed by 2030 so like.... if anything its getting them more riled up to go further and harder.

2

u/Motor_Historian2634 Jun 15 '26

^ this, the UN has a plan in place to have all first world countries disarmed of their small arms by 2030. It goes deeper than the canadian government, dont get me wrong they are complicit, but they are just proxies.

44

u/R4ID on Jun 09 '26

Great, I wasnt gonna give them up in October anyways.

49

u/DougMacRay617 Jun 09 '26

It was so important and Such a risk to public safety they had to use an OIC to do it but we can hang onto them for 3, 4, oh wait 6 years.

15

u/EatAss-FartFast Jun 10 '26

And crime hasn’t been reduced lol. The data is right in front of us and they’re still claiming it was all about public safety. Have these people been living under a rock for 6 years?

19

u/Lumindan Jun 10 '26

Canadians don't engage with policy or data.

They want to be told in short chunks how the country is going and feel smug about it.

"Elbows up"

"Canada strong"

Carney claims he's a fiscal expert (and built his campaign around it in fact) and yet here we are, housing goals? Not hit. Budget? Bleeding out.

I'm judging him by the price of groceries (as he said to) and shit ain't sweet.

Unfortunately most Canadians have gold fish memory and thinking we're better than Americans is more important that getting our youth employed or making sure we aren't straining all our public systems beyond their limits.

But hey, we're sure showing trump who's who!

34

u/boozefiend3000 Jun 10 '26

If you declared a rifle and are having second thoughts you can withdraw from the program. Call 1-833-759-4551 and tell them you’d like to withdraw 

14

u/greasygreenbastard Jun 10 '26

Doing the Lord's work

7

u/rastamasta45 Jun 10 '26

At this point there is an ever growing shot that grandfathering will happen, for those that declared you need to ask yourself “do I need the possible money that bad to lose something I may never ever be able to purchase again?”

I think there’s only one right answer

18

u/Lumindan Jun 10 '26

Grandfathering is a trap. It will still lead to the death of firearms in Canada

It's confiscation with more steps. We don't need "well I got mine" in Canada. We need sensible ownership laws.

Look how badly handgun related stuff is struggling. 3gun / multi gun is basically dead in the water

10

u/rastamasta45 Jun 10 '26

You’re right, I agree however there’s no world in which an LPC government would ever in this world let guns return, just ever. Grandfathering is the only option under the most hostile government in recent memory.

Then when a better government is in power we lobby for better laws and returning freedom.

The LPC would rather invoke the emergencies act on us then let us have our guns again fully. You better believe demented chipmunk and provolone are salivating at the thought of violent removal of “undesirable Canadians”

5

u/Lumindan Jun 10 '26

Grandfathering is the only option under the most hostile government in recent memory.

And there's no universe where it would be grandfathering with use. All that would do would be to close the book on things forever.

The limbo we're in, despite how shitty it is at least has a possible out if a conservative government comes into power.

The LPC would rather invoke the emergencies act on us then let us have our guns again fully. You better believe demented chipmunk and provolone are salivating at the thought of violent removal of “undesirable Canadians”

Put the blame where it belongs. All this shit is mandated by Carney and the upper brass.

4

u/thecoolernameistaken Jun 12 '26

Kinda wanna call and troll

4

u/Nilotaus Jun 15 '26

"Hello, yes. I would like to declare my collection of 40 Javelin anti-tank missiles..."

88

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

On the one hand, I'm not surprised they're holding off and kicking the can down the road.

On the other, fuck it I'll take what I can get. The longer this runs, the worse it gets, the more expensive it gets and that's a win (even if we're paying for it).

It's also excellent that now multiple provinces are joining in.

→ More replies (2)

20

u/Think_Lengthiness686 Jun 09 '26

Huzzah! This is very much anticipated, but I did expect they would extend it a bit longer.

22

u/Lotsavodka Jun 09 '26

Omg by extending 90 days how many more lives will be lost from legal black guns!

25

u/eldaniay Jun 09 '26

its why the military cant find soldiers to fill in their ranks. half of them are shot to death in basic training due to the amount of bloodlust that ar15s give the user

5

u/Late_Winner6859 Jun 10 '26

We all know that number is zero. Always has been

138

u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Jun 09 '26

HAHAHA, indefinite amnesty until 90 days after SCoC makes their ruling. So dangerous that we get to keep them for another year... Cucks who turned in their guns will probably be fuming if SCoC rules in our favour a year from now.

Can't spell Liberals without the L 😂🫵

49

u/itsyaboi6909 Jun 09 '26

Also can’t spell liberals without Lie and BS. I hope this is ruled in the favour of common sense.

→ More replies (13)

11

u/platinumchain Jun 10 '26

I hope everyone who registered still loses their guns.

Price to pay for being a compliant bootlicker.

19

u/Blood-Wolfe Jun 10 '26

"Assault-style" is not a legal or legitimate classification of firearm. I will NEVER recognize this or abide by it, they can go fuck themslves! Amnesty period or not, they are NOT getting my firearms now or ever!

16

u/blueline731 Jun 09 '26

Hahahahha. Finally some good news for us. If you’ve got the change take a second to donate a couple bucks to the CCFR.

17

u/Geralt-of-Rivai Jun 10 '26

Let be real, they won't be ready 90 days after a decision either

15

u/FreonJunkie96 Jun 09 '26

Better than a kick in the nuts

16

u/itsmeAG32 Jun 09 '26

Side note anything can happen with the way things are with this current government we could have another election .. who knows ..

30

u/boozefiend3000 Jun 09 '26

We could, the liberals would still win again though. Trump boogie man still exists to the average moron here

5

u/itsmeAG32 Jun 10 '26

Maybe who knows tbh lots of things can flip and change.

→ More replies (4)

14

u/Darth_Ribbious Jun 10 '26

This is good news. Every delay gives me hope that reasonable people will prevail here.

29

u/JTrudeausLeftNut Jun 09 '26

Also interesting tidbit:

All individuals and businesses who declared firearms under the ASFCP will receive compensation upon successful validation of their firearms.

98

u/SpectreBallistics Spectre Ballistics International (Verified) Jun 09 '26

$2 is compensation.

26

u/Think_Lengthiness686 Jun 09 '26

You mean $2 worth of coupon in Timmy?

16

u/some_guy2024 Jun 09 '26

More like a $2 deduction on your taxes 🤣

9

u/Agent_1812 https://youtu.be/mrAwb9ptu9U Jun 09 '26

Increased taxes to pay for that gift card

19

u/boozefiend3000 Jun 09 '26

Such slimy, weasel fucks lol

10

u/conanap Jun 09 '26

That’s actually interesting. If they had said this way earlier, I’d assume they’d have a much higher participation rate.

17

u/MustardTiger88 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 17 '26

They're still saying what was in the fine print from the beginning. Compensation doesn't mean you're getting the actual value. They could send you $2 and say you were compensated.

EDIT: Grammar

3

u/conanap Jun 09 '26

That’s fair, was also thinking that. Although the programme never promised fair compensation to start with I guess lol

1

u/FightOrFreight 14d ago

They could send you $2 and say you were compensated.

I guess they could, but you would be able to challenge the adequacy of that compensation in court.

1

u/MustardTiger88 14d ago

You really have faith the court would side with you after everything we've seen from this gov't?

2

u/FightOrFreight 14d ago

If the government doesn't introduce legislation to explicitly override my common law and statutory rights to adequate compensation (which they haven't), then yes.

If the government does introduce legislation to override those rights (which they won't), I will be the first to join you in marching in the streets against it.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

They'll rug pull it.

They used weasel wording before.

13

u/Office_Responsible Jun 09 '26

So that’s bad news for the SCC case since once of main issues was non-compensation for all who declared. That is an important point. However I think the cost is going to balloon massively as a result which is positive for us. Especially with the current money issues the government is facing ie the national parks funding cut which has been getting attention recently

4

u/RetroRenew4l Jun 09 '26

How about for owners in Alberta and Saskatchewan? ASFCP still has no plan to collect firearms in either province. They still have not applied for AB government permits for private collection staff. Looks like anyone that wanted to participate there is fucked.

7

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

So that’s bad news for the SCC case since once of main issues was non-compensation for all who declared.

Yes and no, because there's documentation of the previous statements on the program before amnesty changed.

The government changing it up only shows how rocky this all is.

Will it be considered in court? I'm not legally minded enough to answer that.

Someone like Runkle could do better

6

u/RetroRenew4l Jun 09 '26

They still have to collect the guns from those that declared first. With the number of police departments not participating, that is easier said than done.

And if you're from Alberta or Saskatchewan and declared, good luck. They aren't even making an effort to collect guns in those provinces.

1

u/Motor_Historian2634 Jun 15 '26

They could offer me 5 million dollars for one gun and I still wouldn't do it

13

u/1baby2cats Jun 09 '26

As we expected it would get delayed. Sorry to all the panic people who registered their firearms in the program.

11

u/Newftube Jun 10 '26

Unrelated to the court process, but I was always reading the "144,000 firearms have been declared" as all individually owned firearms, separate from businesses.

The fact that only half of that number are individually owned firearms is even more pathetic than I thought.

9

u/RydNightwish Jun 10 '26

Most of those would likely also be anything that was registered. Owners like me (I didnt participate despite emails saying we know about your AR and Scorpion) were in a rock and hard place. Unlike anything that was NR, there isnt plausible deniability.

But then that number is also considerably less than the known restricteds that were banned I do believe.

50

u/IndiscreetTreat Jun 09 '26

I sincerely hope the clowns that registered feel some shame now. There was NO point of registering a single firearm. ESPECIALLY NR.

27

u/IAMURBUNKLE Jun 09 '26

They trembled at our paper tyrants. This government can’t even keep track of people on visas and TFWs that have paperwork trails a mile long - but they thought this govt was going door to door 😂😂 absolute clowns. 

14

u/Reasonable_Hall2346 Jun 09 '26

Those clowns cant see past their green tipped noses. Not like they will get what has been promised, and even so, sometimes it’s worth making a stand. I hope for the best with SCC but not expecting much.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 09 '26

In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:

[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.

Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.

Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.

11

u/airchinapilot Jun 09 '26

Pinned to highlights.

10

u/ManufacBorealis Manufactorum Borealis Jun 09 '26

Great news! No doubt helped by the general lack of cooperation across the board with this asinine policy making, so everyone has a reason to be a little proud today. Cautiously optimistic for the future, hopefully more good news to look forward to when we can take our rifles back out and enjoy our property again.

21

u/rastamasta45 Jun 09 '26

My personal theory, the confiscation is going very poorly
And they’ve come to the realization they can’t even meet their own timeline. To save faces extension until otherwise…..this is very early, like way to early by public safety standards.

I expect a mass wave of withdrawals from those that did it, this is a win folks, a big win.

I’m happy

18

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[deleted]

12

u/rastamasta45 Jun 09 '26

Me too, somethings not right, think about it, leaving it last minute would lead to thousands submitted to police for no compensation. Yet they decide now 4 months away….i think confiscation is collapsing 👀

19

u/Pure-Order2414 Jun 09 '26

I'm sort of on that page. I also think liberals even know this is turned into a complete gong show and might be using supreme Court as a way out. Win win for everyone if supreme Court knocks this down. Well everyone except PolySeSouvient.

13

u/HappyCan7250 Jun 10 '26

I wonder how many people withdrew from the original 67,000~ declared. I've read of several guys doing it, and most gun owners probably wouldn't get online and say they withdraw to the whole internet. 

Granted, I don't think it's a ton, but if even 1,000 did, that's a huge fuck you to the LPC.

7

u/gspotcowboy Jun 10 '26

I was thinking along the same lines last night. It's the "REMEMBER CITIZENS, THE PROGRAM IS STILL GOING FORWARD" part.

I think they're hoping that more people wait to do something with the prohibs because it buys the dumpster fire program time. I'm extra convinced after reading the Poly press release where they claim that Gary (or the government) did this extension voluntarily.

8

u/4r4nd0mninj4 Jun 09 '26

Is it safe to say the government probably won't run another round of bans in the meantime? 🥺

16

u/HappyCan7250 Jun 10 '26

I think so. Mk15 and Carmel are at least safe until after the SCC case I think. 

Even if the bans were reversed and we got the pre 2024 selection back, I think id still be happy with a Mk15/Carmel. They're genuinely good guns, with or without the OICs.

2

u/Eisgeschoss Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Good as they may be, they're still way too expensive for what they are; ~$2400 (plus tax) is insane for an AR-substitute and most people don't have that kind of money for such a thing, especially with the cost of living already being inflated to hell and people's wallets being perpetually bled-dry from simply trying to stay afloat.

If they come down in price over time (to around $1500 or so) so that the average person can actually afford them with an acceptable 🚫risk🚫 factor, then I can definitely see them becoming super popular here, but until then they're basically rich man's toys.

6

u/Sharp_Phrase_9066 Jun 09 '26

what is the possibility of the appeal to be successful?

13

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/PantherD1943 Jun 10 '26

I mean, to be frank the purpose of OICs to effect regulatory change is for expediency in policy making. Every government does it and loves doing it. The Court is highly unlikely to kibosh this power as its repeatedly upheld in numerous other legislative contexts (environmental, transportation, tax etc.).

The Crown's argument is basically "the legislature chose to empower the Governor in Council with the ability to prohibit and that's what happened". Their ability to prohibit via OIC is unfortunately legal according to the statute and very little constitutional arguments can be made against that delegated authority in the Firearms Act. They might clarify the limits on the GICs authority to prohibit, which could possibly lead to an overturn. But I doubt it. 

Nonetheless, the Court clearly wants to hear something. But there is zero to little chance of the ban getting struck down. Unfair does not mean illegal or unconstitutional. And I say this with all the hope in the world that the bans are you overturned. Unfortunately, based on my knowledge of constitutional and administrative law in Canada, I don't see that happening. 

3

u/Sharp_Phrase_9066 Jun 10 '26

this is new to me, thank you good sir for the explaination.

18

u/AlbertaFree16 Jun 09 '26

The Feds want this challenge to win and have the program cancelled, it takes the embarrassment of them backing out on their own,

That’s the only reason they wouldn’t have used the notwithstanding clause….

Why else wouldn’t they have?

They want the supreme court to swing the hammer

13

u/airchinapilot Jun 09 '26

That's my biggest hope

9

u/boozefiend3000 Jun 09 '26

I dunno, why go through with the confiscation right now then? 

12

u/rastamasta45 Jun 09 '26

I think those theories are hopium, but the reason the confiscation is happening is because the money has been paid, hands have been greased. Also the more the program continues the more money can disappear in the process and then when it’s all cancelled, “oops I don’t know the money was just used for the good citizens that complied”

2

u/Upbeat_Plane6490 Jun 19 '26

OIC is an action of the crown, not legislative.

Since no law was passed, there’s no place to use notwithstanding.

If the king wants my guns, he will have to pay me fairly for them.

5

u/Vana_Tomas Jun 09 '26

To what date extension?

21

u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Jun 09 '26

90 days after SCoC makes their decision. So indefinite for now.

5

u/Vana_Tomas Jun 09 '26

yeah I saw 90 days, but I assume next year for sure, nice

5

u/Icy-Sniper64 Jun 09 '26

That’s a good news !!

5

u/LumberjackCDN Gold'n Loan Outfitters & Pawn Jun 09 '26

Great news!

4

u/Crossbow179 Jun 09 '26

So when is the new amnesty deadline

15

u/xero9 on Jun 09 '26

Indefinitely for now. Not until 90 days after the ruling.

3

u/TKB-059 bc Jun 09 '26

 ASFCP participating eunuchs btfo. I feel unbelievably smug.

7

u/DryF1re Jun 09 '26

just means the feds are too pussy to make the call for Canada and want to pressure the courts to make the decision

4

u/RydNightwish Jun 10 '26

After being lost in the english country side this morning, finally some good news!

At least my guns, better or worse, are next years problem now.

2

u/Nero29gt Jun 10 '26

Amazing!

5

u/Mrdingus6969 Jun 09 '26

Sounds to me like the court has already has their mind made up

3

u/gamercast1337 Jun 10 '26

In our favor or theirs?

5

u/dgod40 Jun 10 '26

If you can get the makasi or Carmel, do it. I guarantee there will be no more bans.

9

u/yummybunnybear Jun 10 '26

I'm hoping that to be the case. Canada has always had these weird situations where some models escape the main bans, and those models end up becoming unicorns. Bill C21 closed off newly designed and manufactured models, so there aren't that many floating around out there. Makasi and Carmel could be the tail end of the survivors.

1

u/Nilotaus Jun 15 '26

There's at least one more semi-auto that can slip through, but I'm holding my cards close to my chest for the next year or so.

It's/they are not on the FRT so don't waste your time looking there, but all that's technically needed is a company willing to export to this country & deal with the all the regulatory bullshit involved.

Of course it highly depends on how the firearms analytics lab feels on the day assigning FRT reference numbers in addition to how the firearm(s) are presented, but it's sill a possibility despite having majority internal parts compatibility with another prohibited firearm.

9

u/RydNightwish Jun 10 '26

Until the libs are out of power any and all bans, not just guns, are on the table.

Ill save my money. But I do hope the Makasi and Carmel work well for people who do get them before a new govt.

4

u/Nilotaus Jun 11 '26

Here's something to consider: Whether or not something could be banned isn't the only point of having it. Just having something like one of those rifles for example is a value in of itself, it's like a form of preparedness even if you don't have the luxury of being able to take it out of the safe & shoot it with minimal risk if it does become reclassified as prohibited. being non-restricted therefore effectively unregistered makes it all the better.

Obviously prioritize other things if dropping +$2k on a gun is a hard pill to swallow, but you get the idea.

2

u/Helpful-Sock-4988 Jun 12 '26

poly was pushing to ban bolt actions, sooo.

1

u/dgod40 Jun 12 '26

And it didn't happen. The government has other things to deal with right now otherwise we would have already seen OIC4 taking away all semi autos. There is a shift right now that can be felt in terms of general perception of the bans.

4

u/Fuck_you_all22 Jun 13 '26

This is challenging OICs. Even if scc finds oic bans unconstitutional, liberals can turn around and legistlate the ban. Since liberals have the majority, nothing can stop them. Just trying to have a reality check. 

21

u/rastamasta45 Jun 13 '26

Comments like this are not only useless and defeatist, but also not rooted in reality. Even if they legislate, what changes? They still have no enforcement, no budget and every province against it.

Alberta separatism is very real and if they win the sec only for Ottawa to say “with our stolen majority we rewrote the laws to really ensure you go to prison”. This will super charge the separatism movement because Ottawa is showing how hostile they are.

People are already non compliant, police already rejected it and there is 2 million plus rifles now underground.

Legislation is not only useless but just not feasible. They’ve lost the momentum on this.

1

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears 18d ago

SCC also has much more authority. They could even mandate that the government first amend existing legislation that more accurately defines “variant”. That alone could unban more models that were previously prohibited.

If the SCC ruled unfavourably otherwise, that’d just mean we have more guns in the “SKS situation”, where it’s a wonder how it’s legal, but it just is. Would still be a win in the short term until things change.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Fuck_you_all22 Jun 13 '26

Nothing we can do, until there is a change in government. I just hope that time comes soon enough.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26 edited 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/prosper_0 Jun 09 '26

the amnesty means that you're still filthy criminals, just that they'll graciously defer prosecuting for now so that you can hopefully amend your evil ways.

The october date has been pushed back, but you still can't use your dangerous illegal items. You just won't get charged until after the new date.

7

u/superspeedbump8 Jun 09 '26

Amnesty was extended till after court decision. For those who participated in the confiscation remains unchanged October 2026.

"The new expiry date for the Amnesty Orders does not impact the ASFCP, which is expected to be completed by October 2026."

3

u/iatekane Jun 09 '26

Yes it’s means that date (which is the end of the current amnesty period) is again extended

1

u/Lumindan Jun 09 '26

It's all on pause until the ruling now afaik

2

u/Severe_Assumption_87 Jun 10 '26

So what will happen to my Carmel?

7

u/Lumindan Jun 10 '26

Well, I'm going out on a limb and guessing we won't see another oic during the scc ruling period.

So you're safe for at least that period.

6

u/Unknownuser010203 Jun 11 '26

Buy what you can and enjoy it while you can. We have a difficult future ahead of us no matter which way this country goes

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 11 '26

In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:

[4] Not Relevant/Low Quality Content This subreddit is for the discussion of Canadian firearms ownership, shooting sports, safety of firearms, Gun Clubs, Firearms groups, advocacy, and the Canadian political effects of online communities/groups.

Posts, commenting, articles, and discussions are to be specific to Canada and Canadian laws. Posts not specific to Canada but may reasonably have a link to Canadian gun culture or laws, which would foster thoughtful and productive discussions, may be approved at moderator discretion.

Off-topic, non-relevance to the context of a submission, exaggerated/extremist commenting may be removed at moderator discretion.

Low quality, AI generated content, spammed content may be removed at moderator discretion.

If there is a major event/change in another country that you think would be worthy of discussion here, please contact the moderators first to review for content & suitability for the subreddit.

Generic news articles about crime, containing the word "gun, "weapon", etc., and not necessarily relatable to the context of this subreddit, may be removed. This isn't a gun crime subreddit.

Memes that are copied/pasted from other subs, are reposts, or are not relevant to Canadian firearms ownership may be removed at the moderator's discretion.

Major off topic tangents can result in content removal and/or being banned.

1

u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 11 '26

In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:

[4] Not Relevant/Low Quality Content This subreddit is for the discussion of Canadian firearms ownership, shooting sports, safety of firearms, Gun Clubs, Firearms groups, advocacy, and the Canadian political effects of online communities/groups.

Posts, commenting, articles, and discussions are to be specific to Canada and Canadian laws. Posts not specific to Canada but may reasonably have a link to Canadian gun culture or laws, which would foster thoughtful and productive discussions, may be approved at moderator discretion.

Off-topic, non-relevance to the context of a submission, exaggerated/extremist commenting may be removed at moderator discretion.

Low quality, AI generated content, spammed content may be removed at moderator discretion.

If there is a major event/change in another country that you think would be worthy of discussion here, please contact the moderators first to review for content & suitability for the subreddit.

Generic news articles about crime, containing the word "gun, "weapon", etc., and not necessarily relatable to the context of this subreddit, may be removed. This isn't a gun crime subreddit.

Memes that are copied/pasted from other subs, are reposts, or are not relevant to Canadian firearms ownership may be removed at the moderator's discretion.

Major off topic tangents can result in content removal and/or being banned.