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_KMNtV2EKNmsPofG7UrsqMA

This 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)

284 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

17

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?

8

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.