r/canadaguns • u/airchinapilot • Jun 20 '26
News / Politics / Activism CANADIAN COALITION FOR FIREARM RIGHTS, RODNEY GILTACA, RYAN STEACY, MACCABEE DEFENSE INC. and WOLVERINE SUPPLIES LTD. v Canada
https://www.scc-csc.ca/pdf/case-documents/41859/FM010_Appellant_Canadian-Coalition-for-Firearm-Rights.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawSjj-BleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeANXl0iXLYQJAzWAacwJ3jlAPA2JwySXYmO2kdN61vIzfl36nYz2DnLqmuZU_aem_KMNtV2EKNmsPofG7UrsqMAThis is the written argument to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada by the CCFR and associated parties v Canada. Happy reading. (Warning: pdf)
145
70
64
u/rastamasta45 Jun 20 '26
I’m so tired of hearing “they’ll just ban anyway with majority” this is besides the point. The reality is this program is a walking corpse, barely able to round up the troops, enforcement is non-existent.
They can ban everything if we win, then they’re in the same damn place as they are now. Who’s doing the collecting, who’s doing the prosecuting, and who’s willing to see a couple ruby ridge throughout Canada.
The entire police in this country already said fuck off, a bill won’t change that.
19
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
Yup. It also just hurts the cause. The users here arent stupid, we already know this is possible so it’s a moot point.
Hope keeps the morale up and the black pilled rhetoric only plays into the hands of the policy makers
18
u/rastamasta45 Jun 20 '26
Bingo, it’s a defeatist mentality. Not to mention a main grievance of the separatist movement is the gun ban, for carney to say “we lost the case, now I’m moving forward with the same ban” will only super charge the separatists.
3
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
I dunno, I kinda think it’s better to temper expectations. We could win in court and the government says screw it and leaves us alone. Would be great. We could also win in court, people celebrate and they come back and fuck us over. Would rather have people knowing that then to have them become even more bitter than they already are lol
3
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
I mean sure, but I wouldn’t say that this type of rhetoric is “tempering expectations”.
I think we all know the outcome could very well be disappointing, so the “these will just get banned anyways don’t get excited” doesn’t really add to the discussion
15
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
They’ll ban and just grandfather. It’s still a win for them. No more money to waste and everything is still banned. Like I said earlier, the only reason the buyback exists is because of Trudeaus vanity.
11
Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
There was never a grandfather with use clause. The original OIC banned them from being bought, transferred or used. Originally it was safe queen grandfathering with an optional buyback
7
u/SlowDebate3165 Jun 21 '26
No. Pressure from Carney.
He doesn't need provost anymore. Stop pretending this isn't something he wants. He literally refused to end it after Gary told him to behind closed doors.
Does nobody remember the goddamn leaked audio????
2
4
u/Top_Importance6216 Jun 21 '26
wait what you dont enjoy the endlessly tiresome doomer slop whine fest?
4
u/swpz01 Jun 21 '26
It would be unlikely for their "majority" to be used in this manner anyways. Plenty of liberal MPs live in firearm communities and their jobs would be on the line. Trudeau's GIC shielded them from direct electoral scrutiny which would be unavoidable if their name came up on a vote.
They can't collect anyways, the logistics would be impossible.
55
u/starw24-ps4 Jun 20 '26
Looks like a solid argument. Would be exciting to see what happens if they did win this case. The entire foundation of the buyback would be thrown out
61
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
If we win the liberals will just ban everything via parliament with their majority. But I assume they’d go the grandfathering route. The buyback only existed because Trudeau was jealous of the praise jacinda ardern got over the New Zealand one
31
Jun 20 '26
[deleted]
35
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
During the 2019 campaign he announced they’d ban assault rifles right after the blackface shit came out, had to change the channel. Bans didn’t start until after portapique, but every previous government ban came with grandfathering. The day the first OIC was announced trudeaus itinerary had him talking with ardern before the announcement lol just pathetic. “Ya, I’m doing a buyback too”
6
u/Geralt-of-Rivai Jun 20 '26
This would make sense for them and would eliminate the cost debate because it will cost the government nothing to just grandfather. Treat prohibited long guns like they did with handguns, you can keep them and use them but no further sales are permitted, keep them until you die and eventually they all go away
12
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
If grandfathering happens there will no use. Be the same situation as the older guys with full autos and FALs
18
u/midity Jun 20 '26
Everyone saying that the argument are strong... I am confused. Specifically CCC 117.15
In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
"if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council" ....ok well all they need to say is "my opinion is it's unreasonable". It doesn't say "having presented proof that it is unreasonable for use in Canada for Hunting or Sporting purposes".
117.15, the barrier to pass is they have the opinion ( a personal idea/belief about it) it's unreasonable. How is it even possible to "beat" that language?
32
u/EnglishmanInMH Jun 20 '26
Because they allowed some citizens to continue using the banned guns for hunting they are admitting by default that these guns are reasonable for that purpose. So the GIC has considered opinion that they are both reasonable for hunting and not reasonable for hunting at the same time. So the GIC opinion is conflicting/hypocritical and disproved itself.
25
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
Same thing with AR’s. They were supposed to be prohibited in the 90s but became restricted because the DCRA lobbied they were used for their competitions. So how does the same party allow ARs to be legal as a sporting rifle and then ban them as non-suitable for sporting use?
10
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
Ya I’d only be partly surprised if it turns out ARs specifically are repealed from the bans and go back to restricted again based on this
10
u/The-Sound_of-Silence Jun 21 '26
It's funny, as this one in particular was helping soldiers get better at marksmanship, as range time at the unit level always seem to be a clusterfuck. Afaik, Swiss soldiers were given their service weapon to take home and practice with
8
7
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
I believe calibremag touched on this in another thread and there’s some precedent setting cases and stipulations (I can’t exactly remember) that clarifies this. There’s more language which the courts may anchor their judgement to.
14
u/WeCanDoBettrr Jun 20 '26
Any idea WHEN this case will be heard? The SCC calendar doesn’t list any hearings so I assume they’ve already called it quits for the year (?)
25
u/boozefiend3000 Jun 20 '26
Rod thinks somewhere between January and April. The decision can be months after
3
u/WeCanDoBettrr Jun 20 '26
Ah. Thanks. That makes sense. Hopefully good news in the next year ahead.
3
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
Likely heard between Jan and April and then a decision could be this time next year
13
u/Bitter_Lettuce2970 Jun 21 '26
Even if the liberals do just ban everything now, losing at the SCC is going to be a major black eye for them.
If the SCC in our favour, they can’t talk shit about the decision without calling into question the Supreme Court’s judgement. That would be an even worse look for them.
11
u/SlowDebate3165 Jun 21 '26
They don't care lol.
They have said things 10x worse openly and people still vote for them.
They know their audience (morons).
48
u/carlosmysantana Jun 20 '26
Damn the CCFR is actually doing more than just paying lip service to this issue. I might actually go give them a donation for this.
25
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
The CCFR had some beef with the CSSAs announcement of the amnesty extension and it seems like the some of the other orgs are not as well run
20
16
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jun 20 '26
Yup. As much as the AI slop marketing and associations with rebel news hurts my views of them, I’m a big fan of (most of) their podcast and attitudes toward fighting for better policy.
In very Canadian fashion, they really seem like a decent bunch who are just trying to do right by their supporters and the community.
5
u/CallousDisregard13 Jun 20 '26
Rod and Tracy are probably the best possible spokespeople for Canadian firearms owners. They have very moderate views on firearms, they aren't asking for full autos or anything. They always advocate for reasonable gun control and public safety measures.
There could be people alot more radical than Rod and Tracy speaking for the rest of us, which would only hurt our cause.
7
u/buji8829 IBl Precision Jun 21 '26
You know its funny I work with Ryan Steacy everyday, and I never really stopped and went this guy has got our back, same with everyone on that list. Hits different when you know someone personally
6
u/airchinapilot Jun 21 '26
He is a treasure for our community. I'm surprised I haven't actually met him yet but would give him a big handshake when that happens
7
u/International_Mud367 Jun 21 '26
Isn't Carney adding 2 new SCC members that are liberals? Don't you guys think this is cooked anyways if he does this?
7
u/Mythic01 Jun 21 '26
Will the CCFR bring up the fact that the "ASFCP" accepted registrations from Alberta and Saskatchewan, however, they're making no effort to provide collection units in these provinces?
The current "Public Safety" policy is to place blame on the Provincial governments of each province as the reason why all owners that declared in these provinces are getting shafted with no opportunity to participate, after having had their declaration accepted.
This is despite the fact that Public Safety is more than capable of applying for the provincial license for private collection staff (mobile collection unit) - something they're choosing to not even try and do, while placing blame elsewhere.
3
u/Longjumping_Rain_483 Jun 20 '26
I got a heart attack seeing Wolverine Supplies thinking something bad happened, I just sent something in for warranty 😅
1
-8
u/Neat_Imagination2503 Jun 20 '26
Honestly who gives a fuck. They have a majority they will just ban it the legal way now. We can thank the floor crossing bitches for that
18
u/Natural_Comparison21 Jun 20 '26
Sure but the question is when will they push through that legislation? My guess is after the court case which is why I am hoping the SCC takes their sweet time with this.
6
u/CallousDisregard13 Jun 20 '26
If we lose at the SC, the libs won't have any need to rush it through and will probably save that as a point for the next election.
If we win the SC challenge I can imagine they'll push that legislation through before the next election. In an effort to save face with Poly and the rest of the rabid anti-gunners
2
u/Natural_Comparison21 Jun 20 '26
I could see them trying to come up with something and ramming it down.
2
u/Suitable_Zone_6322 Jun 22 '26
Nah, this is and always has been primarily an election wedge issue for the liberals.
They'll hold it til the next election.
1
-14
u/daddyfatsacks22 Jun 20 '26
Thank goodness for the all-caps title. 🙄
19
Jun 20 '26
[deleted]
14
u/mew-pew-pew Jun 20 '26
It's also just how court cases are titled - the parties' names are always capitalized to distinguish them from the other words (eg conjunctions not part of a name).
-4
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 20 '26
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour This subreddit is intended for constructive discussions. Trolling, bad-faith participation, spam, or behaviour intended to provoke, derail, or inflame discussion is not permitted.
This includes, but is not limited to:
Posts or comments made solely to bait, antagonize, or misrepresent others. Repeated off-topic derailment. Posts or comments made solely to bait, antagonize, or misrepresent others • Repeated off-topic derailment • Low-effort inflammatory remarks or drive-by provocations • Repetitive posting, copy-pasted content, or flooding threads • Ban evasion • Publicly arguing moderator decisions within threads
• Users are expected to participate in good faith. Content or behaviour determined to be disruptive may be removed, and users may be temporarily or permanently banned at moderator discretion.
• Accounts flagged by Reddit’s spam filters will have their content automatically removed.
• Accounts less than 30 days old, that have negative karma, or have a history of posting rule breaking content, while also actively engaging in trolling, spam or disruptive behaviour, may without warning, be temporarily or permanently banned at moderator discretion. • Argumentative/fighting/mudslinging comment threads may be subjected to locking or outright removal, if deemed disruptive, at Moderator discretion. In egregious cases, at Moderator discretion, users can even be temporarily or permanently banned. • Please do not engage with the rule breaking content itself. Report the content and let the moderators handle it.
205
u/[deleted] Jun 20 '26
[deleted]