Amnesty period extended due to the Supreme Court of Canada process

[u/SpectreBallistics]

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

[u/CalibreMag]

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

[u/Goliad1990 → u/CalibreMag]

I frankly wouldn't be surprised if they were interested in taking the case purely to set precedent.

The line in question says that the GiC "may not" prescribe something as prohibited if it's reasonable for hunting or sport "in their opinion". So first, we have to read "may not" as "must not", which is an extremely tortured reading of the clause. Then we have to prove that the GiC believes these are reasonable hunting firearms, but that they prescribed in bad faith anyway.

Somehow I doubt the SCC looked at this case and figured we had a good shot.

[u/CalibreMag → u/Goliad1990]

Simply put, 117.15 (2) doesn't make any sense as written. It may as well say "the GiC shouldn't prohibit a thing if they think the thing shouldn't be prohibited."

Which is why I think it will be a significant portion of what the SCC wants to make a determination on. IANL, but my understanding of the SCC is that their primary role is not necessarily to determine who is right and who is wrong, but rather to hear cases where the law itself is in question, with the verdict being almost a secondary effect to their role in defining unclear statutes.

If that's the case, they will undoubtedly go back to the evidence provided in '95, to infer the clause's intent, which was provided by Allan Rock as a preventative measure to ensure people couldn't import a new gun and create a bespoke shooting competition for it to justify its use as a sporting arm. Committee, on the strongly worded advice of legislative counsel, rejected that premise and proposed an amendment that would have removed the "in the opinion of" portion and reverted to the former "if reasonably appropriate for" language in the pre-existing legislation - an amendment the House then rejected. But the amendment was adopted largely because the subjective wording we have been saddled with prevented judicial oversight, which is something I can't see the SCC looking favourably upon, especially given the 2020/2024/2025 OICs seem to fly in the face of the clause's intent when introduced.

So it's not as clear as simply saying "the government can ban guns because the legislation says X," because what it says, it's intent, and how it's been used more recently are not in alignment.

[u/Dill_Pickle_Tears → u/CalibreMag]

It’s good to see some thorough answers on this. Have you published any new articles on the topic??? I need my reading fix

[u/CalibreMag → u/Dill_Pickle_Tears]

Working on it (literally as we speak).