r/canadaguns • u/rastamasta45 • Jul 13 '26

News / Politics / Activism Supreme Court Hearing Date Set!

Post image
651 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

180 comments sorted by

147

u/Cock_ball_dickin Jul 13 '26

I’m not gonna lie I’m incredibly nervous. How do you all think it will go?

333

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

Truthfully there is serious merit to the case, because the argument isn’t really about guns it’s about the governments ability to declare criminal law via OIC and the seizure of property.

Theoretically if the government wins, it sets a highly dangerous precedent in that any government, minority or majority can rule via OIC and criminalize and seize property. So in effect a government could say “your gas cars are now a threat to the environment, via oic they are banned and only 5% of you will get compensation”

They could OIC new speech laws and hate speech and then straight criminalize their opponents. So this isn’t a shoe in for the government.

On the flip side, the LPC might want to drop the battle, because the Supreme Court could neuter the power of OIC’s and I don’t think they want that either

133

u/aegisone Jul 13 '26

This is the talking point that we need be advertising and talking to friends and neighbours about. We lose people’s interest and sympathy when we make it about guns and our personal hobbies, but if we can show them how it widens to governments power to affect them, their hobbies and property we might get some support. Good example of the car and environment angle, very real and relatable.

57

u/GinnAdvent Jul 13 '26

I have always going from the angle of proper fund allocation. Such that the money for gun confiscation should have gone to border security, and community crime prevention instead of buying firearm from legal firearm owners who didn't pose a threat to the public safety.

This way, it's more relatable

12

u/zetagundam12 Jul 13 '26

"Take all the money wasted over the past few years on this garbage, give it to community outreach programs and you'd have a 10,000% greater effect on violent crime" Paraphrased how I've convinced gun fearing friends to care

1

u/Nova_Bear_95 Aug 10 '26

That's how i phrase it to people i know that are negative to ambivalent about guns. I even phrase it as "you hate guns? good you should be even more mad. Its doing literally nothing to stop actual gun violence or prevent illegal guns getting into the hands of criminals". Ive had great success re-framing the argument this way. I have a little but still some secondary success on mollifying people on their opinions of private gun ownership by separate the basic concept that a person willing to jump through a million hoops isn't the same meth head gunning up a 7-11.

12

u/TescoValueSoup Jul 13 '26

the time to get neighbors and friends on board was 2020. We're long past that now, the outcome is entirely out of our hands as individual firearm owners.

7

u/ADrunkMexican Jul 13 '26

not necessarily, i think the bc land case can help in our favor.

3

u/gspotcowboy Jul 15 '26

I bring up other toys like sports cars, motorcycles and ATVs.

If someone owned a WRX and tomorrow the government called it a race style automobile to outlaw it under the guise of public safety, should they have to surrender their property "to save lives"?

320 pedestrians were killed in Canada by motor vehicles in 2023, compared to 289 gun related homicides. Where is the pressure to outlaw sidewalks? Lol

28

u/scottsuplol Jul 13 '26

Also that fact that they have failed time and time again to produce the evidence requested behind the grounds for the “buy back” having any positive for the safety of Canadians and failed to show what experts assessed the program

15

u/CalibreMag Jul 13 '26

Unfortunately that has no bearing on the Supreme Court's decision.

They cannot take into account the efficacy of a law, only its legality.

11

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

Further proof that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't worth the paper it's written on.

39

u/Cock_ball_dickin Jul 13 '26

Agreed. There 100% is merit, but ahhh. I’m just scared man lol. Because either way, I know for 100% they’ll just shove a bill through parliament banning all kinds of shit.

Also you think the people who are like “supporting” the case (I don’t know how it works) that the CCFR have been posting about will shift things at all?

48

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

I do think it shifts because they aren’t “supporting” they’re in the case. While the CCFR started it I believe the provinces are going to end it. The attorney general of 3 provinces are now directly arguing they are against it.

This creates multiple constitutional battles that the federal government has to tread carefully. Private property is provincial full stop….firearms are property full stop.

So the Supreme Court has to weight “can the federal government overrule all private property and criminalize the citizens of these provinces via OIC alone” this is legitimately a serious question, if answered wrong…well the tac teams will be busy in this country….maybe even the military

30

u/Natural_Comparison21 Jul 13 '26

I think people are not seeing the serious ramifications of this case. This goes beyond guns. Yea the liberals would most likely make new legislation if the SCC rules against them. However it’s hella concerning if the CCFR does not win. As you said it means that any government with just the most amount of seats can OIC anything they want. I think even the courts realize or should realize that sets a dangerous precedence. On occasion I have hope for the courts. Sometimes they just make you go through a humiliation ritual that is the court system to prove you are right. The government dragged a man’s name through the mud and that’s how we got the Oakes Test. Mister Oakes being claimed as a drug trafficker for just having a certain amount of drugs to many. No other evidence required. It’s messed up but sometimes that the case. They must punish you before they let you have the bone.

20

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

Also I think calibre mag was also discussing how the gov went about determining the firearms were appropriate for sporting and hunting purposes. Most of the firearms banned were for legitimate purposes and they did not clearly define what made them inappropriate. The fact that the prohibitions have been in place based on extremely vague and inconsistent rationale doesn’t look good for the government either.

8

u/FrozenSeas Jul 13 '26

If they're going that route, I'd like to see it argued back to the pre-2020 original prohib list too (which I think would be within the possible scope of what the SC can do here?). The whole thing collapses if a challenge based on "suitable for sporting and hunting purposes" is considered valid...as long as it doesn't go the other way and end up as a total semiauto ban.

1

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

I’m not sure - there was something mentioned about bringing evidence that wasn’t previously submitted. Arguments largely surround the OIC’s and associated legislative context.

It certainly won’t lead to a semi-auto ban. Unless the gov is truly ban hungry I think even they want to be done with this whole farce

3

u/99spider Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

If the SC invalidated the OICs from 2020 onward, there would be no consistent reason for it to not automatically invalidate the OICs from the 90s as well

3

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 14 '26

Who knows! Would be crazy if it did. Apparently the AR-15 was flip flopped between restricted and non restricted between the 70s and 90s

5

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

I'd also say the fact if I remember right the government has claimed in every other level of court they would provide fair compensation to all affected owners and clearly haven't done that and there is amble evidence that they haven't even attempted to do so really doesn't help them.

6

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

Yeah I think this is part of why the granted leave to hear the appeal. The federal court supposedly dismissed the appeal with the excuse that fair compensation would be given - which is very misleading and I think they’re being downright dishonest

5

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 14 '26

I honestly don't know why that angle isn't talked about more like in Canada and a fair few nations we already have what is practically legal government theft expect they have to pay for the shit last I checked and often times prove they need to do this. Like to me it seems to be this biggest thing that is already proven in law that if you take something you got to pay for it.

2

u/Alive-Big-838 Jul 16 '26

I think this was on purpose honestly. it's almost like they set the dominoes to topple on purpose. but maybe not idk

4

u/PantherD1943 Jul 13 '26

Unfortunately, the issue of property and firearms is already settled at law. That is not going to change in this case. Reference re: The Firearms Act is the case that Parliament's jurisdiction over firearms very clear. 

2

u/Alive-Big-838 Jul 16 '26

Listen just in case you're feeling a little blackpilled (I get it, i had a tough work week too), they're not getting these guns back ever. they know this. Every single province is against it. They literally had to scramble to even make any attempt at looking like they didn't screw up preparing any form of collection. I think Trudeau had way more gumption to actually "Attempt" to do this buyback then Carney and he spent 6 years paying off Liberal buddies and not even one firearm was bought back.

We're just fighting a long fight here.

11

u/gnoolretaw Jul 13 '26

The majority of the current justices of supreme court were appointed by LPC though. I wouldnt be surprised if the court writes a concurring opinion with a limitation like "OIC is in general not ok but when applied to guns thats fine"

20

u/Eglitarian Jul 13 '26

Gun ownership was the casualty in this case, but you're completely correct. The supreme court has less interest in this case as it pertains to gun ownership and more as it pertains to keeping the power of OICs in check (which they should, as seen in the US all it takes is one despot with access to OICs/Executive Orders to wreak absolute havoc).

One can hope that as you pointed out: if they take their L quietly the LPC will drop the issue going forward. Call it betting long odds or pointless hope but I get the feeling the current leadership considers the gun debate more of a distraction from their main agendas of economy, bail reform, and rearmament of the CAF, and getting the OIC case either struck down by SC or reversed by LPC will be about as close to a win as we can expect at this point. A couple high-profile cases lately with supposedly prohibited firearms being used against the public and law enforcement by individuals who already had firearms prohibitions probably isn't going to help them but instead highlight the bigger issue that is a catch-and-release justice system.

Frankly, if Carney is as pragmatic as he tries to purports to be, this is his golden ticket to finding a way out of Trudeau's ridiculously expensive buyback program without having to lose face with the ministers in his party who supported it.

8

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

The fact they ruled against the LPC very recently is also a good thing. It sort of helps counter the defeatist arguments we see here about the judges walking in step with the government.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

What did they rule against them?

6

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

Correction: the federal courts ruled that the use of the emergencies act was not appropriate and considered an overreach. They also dismissed the governments appeal.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide if they’d grant leave. So it doesn’t really add much weight to this case, but it’s still promising that the government is being held accountable

3

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

"Correction: the federal courts ruled that the use of the emergencies act was not appropriate and considered an overreach." Um what exactly does that amount to? Like is the government going to have politicians arrested or what? Like what exactly happens when they find shit like this to be an overreach?

5

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

If the SCC hears the appeal and renders a decision: basically the most likely outcome is reform, it would not amount to any kind of criminal charge. Really it’s more that a ruling could set future legal and legislative precedent.

It’s similar to the potential outcomes of the CCFR case. The courts rule government overreach: they’re forced to amend the emergencies act to clearly define the parameters to which you can invoke the act in the future, or potentially there will be some mechanism or higher scrutiny that forces the government to better justify invoking the act. Maybe they’d also need to pay reparations or remedy damages.

Grain of salt really, but with the CCFR they won’t just unban all guns, but there’s a very real (though likelihood is up in the air) chance they could nullify the OICs with an amnesty period (ironic right?) and require an amendment to Bill C21. That effectively unbans all 2500 models of firearm hit by the OICs, but leaves them in stasis with the amnesty until the government decides what to do. Hopefully - IF ALL OF THIS EVEN HAPPENS - they’d just throw their arms up and say “we tried, we won’t ban anything else and will instead need to review the current legislation and classification process and we will decide if we can reform the system in the name of public safety”. If THAT happens, it could mean years before they ever table anything and it becomes a distant dream until election time. Though this is all speculation, but IMO it is definitely probable and could mean their gun control platform withers and dies like the long gun registry.

3

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 14 '26

Thanks for the response. You'd think that this shit would already be clearly defined and have high scrutiny but just like everything that's important in Canada it' seems they refuse to clarify what the fuck a thing is until after the fact. Cough Reasonable limits" Cough oakes test cough.

5

u/Ok-Bowler-203 Jul 13 '26

Well put. Everyone across the entire political spectrum should follow this - it could give any future party in power unprecedented powers.

5

u/Humble_Canuck Jul 13 '26

Absolutely awesome response. I wager you are a well read and educated individual. Thanks for educating those here.

3

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

Much appreciated for the kind words, educating everyone is our best tool against the LPC overreach

5

u/Vivie74 Jul 13 '26

One thing I would be curious to see is the OIC and Property Rights. Especially given we are looking at this ALTO disaster.. what if an idea was to be made that they could use an OIC to take land for the purpose of this project - damned be the protests.

Something to think about.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

Can't they already do that? But like they're forced to actually pay unlike now where they aren't even bothering to pay.

1

u/Zarphos Jul 14 '26

Whose land has been seized without payment?

2

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 14 '26

No I was talking about the guns and how the government is avoiding fair payment.

4

u/HatchingCougar Jul 13 '26

The LPC can’t drop the battle, as the appeal isn’t theirs

9

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

No they can drop the circumstances before the arguments are made “I.e grandfather, slight backtrack” anything because ultimately I don’t think they want to lose the immense power of the oic in its poorly written form

1

u/Eventual_disclaimer Jul 13 '26

I skimmed the appeal, the court agreed that the OIC is valid, and the Gov't did not overstep. I hope the argument has changed, or evolved for the supreme court challenge, otherwise we're boned.

1

u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Jul 14 '26

Agreed. The main question the SCC will have to answer is whether the Legislative branch has the authority to delegate what in effect is criminal law, to the Executive branch of the government. P.E.T added that delegation to law since the 1960's, but it likely wasn't legal this whole time.

-9

u/androstaxys Jul 13 '26

OP, you’re wrong.

Even if the government wins this case everything you described would and could be challenged again.

Your fear mongering into OIC being used to criminalized speech and political ideas/opponents.

These rights are protected under the charter and OIC does not have the authority to override those.

Provincial notwithstanding clauses can do much more harm to your rights and even then it can’t override democratic rights, mobility rights and language rights.

6

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

I have to disagree here, because that is precisely what the government used OIC’s for under the guise of public safety.

Small example, Trudeau banned plastic straws and bags via OIC citing toxins and public health concern, this was struck down by the Supreme Court as no evidence was provided it was a public health concern.

Remember when you state that we are protected by the charter, we’re only protected per se after the violation occurs. So the government in effect right now has demonstrated criminal law and property seizure via oic is allowed. As long as they can cite a public concern of safety, they justify it.

For example, we need your homes for the Alto Rail, linking our economy is of public concern due to trade threats from the US, therefore we don’t have to offer you fair compensation, via OIC it is a criminal offence to impede economic development and you must forfeit your home or face imprisonment.

Sounds outlandish right….but the government is literately doing that right now, with people’s guns in the literal hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Businesses lost millions and went bankrupt, all via OIC and threat of imprisonment. Don’t they wont get excited and use it for more when given the chance

-2

u/androstaxys Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Right. What you’re saying is that if they win it gives free access.

I’m saying it doesn’t.

Your reply demonstrates my point. Feds attempt to abuse, court shuts it down. Ie your straw example.

Problem solved, court working as intended.

So no, if they win this it doesn’t suddenly give the federal government a blank cheque to step on all of your freedoms. If they abuse OIC authority, courts will shut it down.

I agree it would be nice if the federal government didn’t make attempts like this… but that’s not what’s being discussed.

Also you’re moving goal posts a little. You said SPECIFICALLY using OIC to criminalize political opponents.

And given how OIC works thats not possible, which means you don’t understand how these things work or you made a bold faced lie intended to inflame readers.

The governor general is not legally able to sign anything that criminalizes political opponents.

3

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

The charter isn't worth the paper it's written on.

31

u/Spider-King-270 Jul 13 '26

All firearms will be banned, all RPAL/PAL holders must report for government reeducation immediately! / s

15

u/Natural_Comparison21 Jul 13 '26

Average Canada guns doomer poster:

Like you were spot on in that comment.

4

u/OniDelta al Jul 13 '26

Actually, they are already all banned. The PAL/RPAL exempts us from that. This alone is basically why our gun control system works as well as it does. Anything on top of this is extreme.

3

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

Nah the only gun control that would actually work is disarming nations and reorganizing them to behave like Switzerland. After all some of the biggest mass killers are the governments. They just claim it's fine when they're not killing us.

0

u/jachojanjandyjavage Jul 14 '26

With the way MSM is and the bills that got rammed through I wouldn't be surprised if we get this in the near future.

27

u/Cager_CA Jul 13 '26

Two ways.

Either the government wins and the OICs stay or the CCFR wins and the Liberals use their majority to push through bans anyway and mop up the SKS with Indig carveouts.

27

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

If I’m wrong I’ll be the first to eat crow, but I don’t think a bill will save them, because they already know compliance is abysmal, they essentially stress tested it and it failed…with threat of prison.

A bill could save them from this court case sure, but they’re in the same exact pickle as before the bill. How do you get the guns? Who will enforce, are you ready for the potential repercussion of mass criminalization of 100,000 plus Canadians (who are all by definition armed)

Will you justify this bill in the face of Alberta separatism that already scream to high heavens that the LPC is now ruling without representation.

I just don’t think the LPC have the political will nor capital to just shove a bill to make this an even worse mess.

Or maybe they’re ready for Canada to collapse already. I don’t know I’m just a random guy on Reddit

13

u/Cager_CA Jul 13 '26

I'm just approaching this from the perspective that Carney's got so much popularity in this country he could potentially do anything at this point and he wouldn't see an approval dip. They have plenty of capital and good will with their voterbase who want guns gone, and it's not like most people here are voting for him to begin with so it's not lost votes if he acts.

I also can't see an outcome where people are allowed to take these evil weapons of war out of the safes to be used again, that's a pie in the face I don't think the Liberals could stomach.

3

u/FishAye5 Jul 13 '26

Carney has enough battles to our South to be fighting with elements of his own population, especially when some of them may sympathize with his aforementioned opponent.

2

u/CenturionV Jul 13 '26

They will definitely frame it as "Not letting the gun lobby win" and that the court ruling was a "procedural issue" I could see them just passing a law banning all the OIC firearms without confiscation. They stay prohibited for use and safe queens indefinitely and the only way to be rid of them is to destroy them (like they did with handguns). Poly won't like it, gun owners won't like it, but it won't cost the liberals a penny, and it will get the conservatives off their back on it mostly AND we still don't get to use them or take them out of the safe. They essentially shelve the entire thing for the future with that approach and make it some other future conservative/liberal government's problem.

7

u/gamercast1337 Jul 13 '26

You don't seem to understand carney has the pull and the political capital (somehow) to have the rcmp go door to door rounding up gun owners for being "dangerous " like how trump is using ICE for immigrants, and the voters literally wouldn't care, see the connection or actually cheer for it. Doesn't matter if the cops dont agree with it, what will they do? Mass refuse ? Haha, its their job, their job and livelihood comes first over a strangers. 

5

u/InitialAd4125 Jul 13 '26

"Haha, its their job, their job and livelihood comes first over a strangers."

Yeah and to have that you have to be alive. Going around collecting firearms from people isn't exactly a thing that screams safety. After all the post said yeah no last I checked. So has pretty much every department.

16

u/TescoValueSoup Jul 13 '26

Indigenous carveouts would send things right back to court with a new/different charter challenge

6

u/Cager_CA Jul 13 '26

for one rifle yes, not all.

2

u/Alive-Big-838 Jul 16 '26

I don't know if i fully agree with this since it sounds like they're upset about a lot more then the SKS... i'm a little confused by the buck stopped at the SKS though.

11

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

I’m quite hopeful. IMO, with the way carney was referring to the case, the merit of the case itself, along with all of the interveners, as well as the previous SCC ruling for the use of the emergencies act for the trucker situation, it’s likely the SCC is directly interested in this case for the purposes of exploring the legal precedent.

To what extent their ruling will be in our favour? That I can’t really predict, but I do strongly believe we’ll see some beneficial change.

It’s interesting IPSC Canada has recently applied to intervene. Would be nice to see them continue to push for handgun exemptions as well but that’s another legislative battle to be fought in the future.

1

u/benjy017 Jul 14 '26

How was Carney referring to the case? I have not seen that anywhere

3

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 14 '26

The press conference following the MTL shooting.

Many interpreted what he said as grim news, but really it seemed interesting or promising to me.

He was asked about banning the SKS and basically said:

“we’re looking at what we can do to reform things, but regarding the SKS we will listen to the RCMP and will also need to work within the law. As you know there is a Supreme Court case and we will await what is decided and move forward at that point”.

This is not verbatim and probably has more value to give the video a watch, but in my opinion this is political speak to basically say:

“no we wont be banning the sks if the RCMP does don’t deem it necessary” and “we will beed to comply with the law and will need to wait as this is being called into question”

9

u/guestpassonly Jul 13 '26

I'm skeptical. It's a majority liberal government so... they can do wtf they want

15

u/SpectreBallistics Spectre Ballistics International (Verified) Jul 13 '26

Nothing will change. The bans will remain in place.

3

u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Jul 13 '26

insofar as carney easily has the votes in parliment to pass any gun control he wants because even with a minority the NDP and bloc trip over themselves all the time to say how much they love gun control and want more of it.

its more it is struck down will carney decides he wants to spend the effort getting it through parliament or use the out to do something diffrent and much cheaper

34

u/boozefiend3000 Jul 13 '26

I don’t think we’ll win. Canada is a joke of a place 

21

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

Have faith

16

u/boozefiend3000 Jul 13 '26

It’s hard lol we’ll see I guess 

5

u/moonpie_888 Jul 13 '26

agreed honestly unfortunately

17

u/Bull-RunTheJewels Jul 13 '26

I have zero faith. Our country is a joke.

2

u/CenturionV Jul 13 '26

Unfortunately we could "win" by getting rid of the OIC only to lose by having them just do it through legislation. A conservative minority could get rid of the OIC in one day, but they will need a big majority, and the political will to change codified law (not assured considering how weak some conservatives are on firearms and property rights)

3

u/EnvironmentBright697 Jul 13 '26

Based Joeyy fan

2

u/Cock_ball_dickin Jul 13 '26

He’s my goat

2

u/Equivalent-Shoe-1652 Jul 13 '26

I think that if Carney is the smart leader that people think he is. He will take this off ramp. It doesn't make sense financially and legally to keep pursuing this buy back. That stats are against them, the property rights are against them and going forward will only alienate the liberal party further. Liberal voters might even start to question their policies if they start seeing family members and neighbors being raided in the night by police men. Smart play is to let the courts side with gun owners and call it democracy in action.

2

u/Cock_ball_dickin Jul 14 '26

That would be smart but imo they flat out want us disarmed. I think he will take the off ramp with the OICs but then force a bill through parliament banning all semi autos, then next year it’ll be pump and lever action “assault style rapid fire weapons”, then “bolt action sniper rifles”, and by then there’s gonna be some kind of war or national emergency that the NATO thugs drag us into where they can confiscate all weapons. I’m being intentionally pessimistic and ridiculous here.

In all seriousness I think he will just take the off ramp and maybe a bill will be put forwards but who knows. I really could see it going either way, but man, man do I hope this rules in our favour in the best ways possible

1

u/Tiny-Albatross518 3d ago

Well the press is saying its very unlikely they will accept the appeal.

A train of lower courts have tossed this appeal on its way up.

Its good they are seeing the case. It will really help put a firm lid on the gun lobby.

94

u/IndiscreetTreat Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Man, if the court upholds the governments decisions on all this, there is a whole Pandora’s box of precedent that this will set. Guns aside and all. Absolutely not good.

5

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

Conversely, if the court rules overreach this could open up a whole Pandora’s box of precedent the other way. Happened with the Valmet and ar-15 (sort of)

7

u/IndiscreetTreat Jul 13 '26

I doubt they would EVER give us MORE rights than we already don’t really have.

3

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 14 '26

Yeah good point - still, I think the door swings both ways given the power of the courts

4

u/thecoolernameistaken Jul 13 '26

Canadas been doing that a lot lately. At this point I don’t even care man fuck this

49

u/Emergency_Rooster511 Jul 13 '26

IPSC Canada has jumped on board with the CCFR as well in this fight.

We all know the current government couldn’t care less about this, as they’re doing nothing more than implementing vibe based policy to appease a small and loud group of people.

However, in a courtroom, where evidence should rightfully carry more weight than feelings, I see this as a significant move in the right direction.

With 5000+ active members competing in everything from local club matches all the way to World Shoot, this will reinforce that the firearms in question do in fact have legitimate sporting purposes, directly countering what had been a cornerstone of the justification for the bans.

Whether we come out on top of this or not remains to be seen, but in the meanwhile have fun, be safe, and go join your local club/IPSC section and get out and compete.

Don’t be intimidated to try it, I suck and I still have a great time.

16

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

I think worst case we see a slightly underwhelming win. Best case is we get what we’re hoping for

6

u/Emergency_Rooster511 Jul 13 '26

I sure hope so.
Realistically, this is the most opportune off ramp for the government to get away from the whole fiasco without ever having to admit it was terrible policy from the start.

5

u/benjy017 Jul 14 '26

THIS is the golden ticket in my opinion - they know it is unpopular, even with non gun owners, and its expensive - they can walk away and say they tried

2

u/Emergency_Rooster511 Jul 14 '26

100%
They’ll preserve political capital with their voter base, and get to pretend they were trying to do the right thing.

1

u/benjy017 Jul 14 '26

The portion of their base that supports confiscation is shrinking rapidly by the day

73

u/TescoValueSoup Jul 13 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/aa9VQ6gg5wCBy

28

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

I actually felt my heart sink a little

19

u/GinnAdvent Jul 13 '26

I was hopping it would be the start or mid 2027, but it's not really like we have a choice.

But the fight definitely stays on for us firearm owners regardless of the outcome.

The only thing I am afraid of is the erosion of Canadians rights under the guise of protection, and not only firearms are under threat of "keeping community safe" but among other things too.

While rampant issues like gang violence, extortion cases, and domestic/mental health issues are going unchecked in the community.

11

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

Kinda like that border security bill that also just so happens to allow the RCMP to open your mail without a warrant. Well meaning yet has huge potential for malice and abuse from current and future government

11

u/RydNightwish Jul 13 '26

Surely you jest. The agency that rounded up all the indigenous, blew up farms in the 70's and let the NS shooting go on unabated for a weekend?

No! I refuse to believe the mounties would open my sex toy packages from the US without a warrant.

7

u/Lumindan Jul 13 '26

The only thing I am afraid of is the erosion of Canadians rights under the guise of protection

C22 and all that social media stuff the liberals are ramming through the house are just the tip of the iceberg on that front. Ugh.

38

u/Medical_Bluejay_7506 Jul 13 '26

This will either save us or end us

19

u/Armed_Accountant Whoever wants to touch my guns has to touch me first. Jul 13 '26

Ain't saving shit. Government can just run legislation that the OIC tried to cover with their new found majority thanks to ahole crossers.

7

u/bosnanic Jul 13 '26

His majority relies on a lot of blue liberals, he has been able to balance both his blue and red liberals but trying to do another sweeping gun legislation will cause issues. C-21 was already a mess after the G-4 and G-46 amendments were announced causing a revolt in the NDP-Liberal coalition with many MPs telling Trudeau they would lose their riding if the amendments passed.

Carney risks another revolt with his cabinet full of blue liberals.

35

u/JerkyMan360 Jul 13 '26

Cautiously optimistic

33

u/Tiny-Ear9080 Jul 13 '26

2026??

22

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

Yes

20

u/Milkbagistani Jul 13 '26

That's just the date for the hearings. The rulings will follow at a later date - highly unlikely (although not impossible) that the court will make a ruling immediately after hearing arguments. And remember that there are something like four cases to be heard and ruled on as part of this process.

1

u/Same-Crazy3119 Jul 20 '26

Legal gun owners should be allowed to own whatever damn gun they want to . It doesn't mean they will all start shooting up shopping malls and such . It's terrible what the picture the liberal government has painted of legal owners in the eyes of all those that understand completely NOTHING about firearms or the laws regarding them .... very sad what this country has become 😢 

6

u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist Jul 13 '26

That was sooner than expected.

0

u/noobte Jul 13 '26

maybe they wanna quickly deny it so the government can get back to its usual tyranny

26

u/Fluffy_Dad Jul 13 '26

Another scenario would be that the court could overturn the OIC due to procedural errors, that way the government can save face an say they tried to ban guns and keep Canadians safe. Win/win situation, and no infringement on property rights

23

u/Cager_CA Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

The government has a majority. The OICs were done because it would've never survived the Trudeau era minority gov had it gone to a bill. This lawsuit would've had a lot more weight in a minority gov scenario.

10

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

Sure, but I think it’s very clear that gun control is only popular right now in a handful of places in Canada.

Many left leaning journalists and voters are sounding alarms re: some of the other recent political moves by the LPC. I think with the economy being what it is, they’ll just drop the whole thing (maybe).

The LPC has done less with a majority in the past and it’s politically expensive to continue down this route. Strengthening their majority also means they don’t rely on the specific Quebec ridings that want this most. Plus the LPC have proven they don’t really actually care as much about social progressiveness as much as in the Trudeau era, and with the austerity stance they’ve taken it’s the perfect time to wash their hands of this.

Could be pure cope but a lot of things have been aligning to indicate this is the path they’re taking.

3

u/Cager_CA Jul 13 '26

Do you think we'll be pulling OICs out of the safes in the next few years?.

3

u/LessGrand1988 Jul 14 '26

The issue is so much people in Canada whom are totally unaware of functionality overwhelmingly support "assault rifle bans" while much more cautious with "non-assault rifles" regardless of action. Maybe at the very minimum this case could help most people realize just how illogical banning firearms by looks is and give Quebec their own little exemptions on banning all firearms or whatever they want over there

2

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 14 '26

Would make more sense to allow provinces to dictate a secondary layer of how they go about enforcing the firearms act. Keep things more federally permissive and each province can be as strict or relaxed as they’d like.

Though this could create the heterogeneity seen in the states, which could create legitimate issues

28

u/SisyphusCoffeeBreak Jul 13 '26

I sure miss range days running my AR

11

u/boozefiend3000 Jul 13 '26

Yep. My AR was my favourite rifle 

9

u/IcySkyDream Jul 13 '26

I’m buying a bougie hand guard for my AR right now. YOLO!

4

u/SisyphusCoffeeBreak Jul 13 '26

shine on you crazy diamond

6

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 13 '26

I really feel like the AR is gonna be hard to kill. It was already in this position before and was specifically not banned due to calls for its use in sport.

It’ll get off the chopping block and will be back on the market as a restricted. Just a matter of time.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Jul 15 '26

Would be nice to use ARs for hunting like they do in the US. Hell you can already buy rifles that fire more powerful offerings in semi-auto, so what’s the difference.

Same with ATC’s. Would be cool if we could get additional licensing to then get ATCs for regular old hunting (for predator defence). Other thing is the government or regulating bodies could even profit off of it via courses and admin fees.

Theres a great deal of economic activity surrounding hunting and shooting that people don’t realize will wither and die. Family member of mine is a firearms owner who only cares for bolt actions and semi-supports the bans, but doesn’t realize that the hunters who buy one box of 20 cartridges every season don’t keep the lights on at their sporting goods store. It’s the AR guys and sport shooters who buy pallets of ammo or fun attachments and gear on the regular who keep everything afloat

18

u/Benefit_Waste Jul 13 '26

Bring it on ccfr, and everybody else that’s helping the front. No more oics!

17

u/Successful_Pick_200 Jul 13 '26

Go get em fellas

14

u/adrenalineJ92 Jul 13 '26

Fingers crossed 🤞

11

u/willysnax Jul 13 '26

I'm surprised it came up this quickly as well. Having said that, it would've been even better had it come up at the beginning of October before their due date or whatever they're calling it.

The Libs should really be hoping to lose this as it might give them a more graceful way out of the money pit mess they've got themselves into. Then they could back down and blame the courts.

Of course, they will still come up with some variation but at the very least, the OIC thing has got to go. I had been in the middle of getting my RPAL processed, where they supposedly lost my picture from the application 3 times before my provincial CFO sent it to their office directly. Within that same week, I had been arranging purchases of some target handguns, talking to an RCMP officer I knew who said nothing would happen for quite a while, then boom, the OIC went into effect days before my RPAL was finally processed and even my buddy was caught completely off guard. That was the end of my handgun hobby I was just getting into.

I'd never even heard of an OIC before that and now it seems quite coincidental that my license was held up just long enough for it to go into effect. Losing my application picture 3 times? I'm sure it happens all the time.

What's the point of even having a parliament and laws, bills, and so on if any minority government can simply jam an OIC through in 2 days without warning to even veteran RCMP officers who were left not knowing what the hell it even meant for them.

I don't know enough about what could result from this case but I really hope this OIC maneuver doesn't become a precedent setting tactic for any government to use for whatever personal property, legally acquired, they decide should no longer be possessed regardless of any consultation or public will. As others have mentioned, this could be a very scary precedent and when these anti-gun advocates start losing property that they care about without any say, maybe they'll finally get it through their heads that it's not just gun "nuts" making a fuss over their stuff.

8

u/saneboy Jul 13 '26

Wow. Wasn't expecting this to happen until 2027

27

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[deleted]

24

u/MoridinXP Jul 13 '26

I think we have a good chance, based on the dubious precedent it would set if they uphold these OICs. It would allow any future government to just arbitraly ban anything they want, without any kind of discourse and that is a slippery slope.

19

u/JacobA89 Jul 13 '26

Or is that what they want lol

10

u/RealTurbulentMoose Jul 13 '26

The courts rule in ways the government hates all the time.

I wouldn’t say this is dead in the water at all.

3

u/gamercast1337 Jul 13 '26

Not to be rude,  but dumbass, thats what they want lmao. To be able to arbitrarily ban anything. You think the courts and gov wouldn't be in bed with this? Especially in THIS Corrupt carney gov??

8

u/Itameborat Jul 13 '26

Don’t be a Debby downer

8

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

I legitimately think this negatively is just not helpful

4

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[deleted]

9

u/Office_Responsible Jul 13 '26

When a government entity moves that quick, I sure get suspicious. I really want this to workout for us and for the rights of all Canadians. Rationally I’m skeptical.

3

u/TescoValueSoup Jul 13 '26

This means there's a universe where a judgement is given on the 10th, and not reserved.
Resulting in the earliest possible amnesty date being February 8th 2027

5

u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Jul 13 '26

imagine the lawyers working on this. its a big deal in a lawyers career to arguing a case at the supreme court.

10

u/One-Hospital9253 Jul 13 '26

Owning firearms was fun while it lasted. I dont see much point in buying anything new anymore. A Makasi would have been cool. Just a reminder that this is the same governement that used the emergencies act unlawfully and faced zero repercussions. When the Government wins this case does anybody have an accurate timeline/prediction for what will happen to firearms ownership?

-8

u/RydNightwish Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Same outlook. Any win is temporary at most. The bill to ban all semis was defeated. So they just wait a few months and OIC'd it later. Best Im begging for is to not have the threat of politically motivated imprisonment hanging over my head anymore. If a win gives creates an opening to legally sell everything I have to other PAL holders, then thats gonna be my ultimate out. Its been 7 years. I dont have more years to dedicate or have half my salary in assets frozen when poly or the libs try this again. Im tapping out.

9

u/AsparagusUnhappy5395 Jul 13 '26

Don’t give them what they want man….

1

u/Bavarian_Raven Jul 13 '26

Heès just being realistic.

3

u/Infinite_Price_3550 Jul 13 '26

Fuck this is somehow sooner but also later then I wanted it to be.

3

u/kinghalifax902 Jul 14 '26

Lees hope one of the judges has some of the banned firearms

10

u/Mosquitoisland Jul 13 '26

Does most believe the supreme court judges are really impartial, independent of government influence? I don't believe it for one second. This country is a scam and corrupt from top to bottom and coast to coast to coast. Send the asteroid

11

u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26

They’ve ruled against the government about 45% of the time, so it’s not as bad as we’ll think

4

u/CeleryNo76 Jul 13 '26

Good thing I had no plans of quitting smoking anytime soon

7

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[deleted]

7

u/TopReach1866 Jul 13 '26

Kind of walking into a trap when you play their game in their courts

2

u/Hopeful_Relation_441 Jul 13 '26

justice marie hogue has some time in her schedule

2

u/just_ate_a_pinecone Jul 13 '26

Dumb question but is this now the deadline for the amnesty period? I didn’t sign up for the buyback but the amnesty was extended to this date? Or the outcome of the trial (I’m hoping we win obviously)

7

u/Infinite_Price_3550 Jul 13 '26

Amnesty ends 3 months after the ruling of the trial is handed down.

2

u/SurtseyHuginn Jul 14 '26

When do we create a polymarket bet lol

2

u/poorlostlamb Jul 14 '26

Let's say for arguments sake that the government loses, can't they just make it into law instead or am I misunderstanding something ?

2

u/Unknownuser010203 Jul 14 '26

Nothing to lose, everything to gain!

3

u/nulstate77 Jul 14 '26

The fact that the case is being heard so early has me worried - I thought for sure this would be a 2027 thing.

Now I think it’s politically motivated - which will not play out in our favour.

2

u/the2-2homerun Jul 13 '26

I can’t seem to find anything to read about this.

I’d like to see exactly what will be talked about. Anyone have any links?

1

u/EnglishmanInMH Jul 13 '26

Dude! Where have you been? 😉

Scroll down a bit on this page and you can download the Factum.

https://firearmrights.ca/ccfrs-supreme-court-factum/

1

u/the2-2homerun Jul 13 '26

Not on this page lol.

1

u/julienjj Jul 13 '26

So judgment in just a few years i assume.

1

u/Zarphos Jul 14 '26

Very concerning how little knowledge there is in this thread about our system of government, and what little there is seeming to be onoy in relation to this case.

1

u/Never_had_dream Jul 14 '26

Pistols will remain banned for purchase or transfer. A nothing burger. Carry on.

1

u/Office_Responsible Jul 15 '26

I seriously doubt we will ever get handguns back in meaningful amount of time, if ever.

3

u/Never_had_dream Jul 15 '26

This case isn’t even about handguns. Those were banned separately. This is about the restricted/nonrestricted guns that look too scary for liberals. The handguns are gone. Period.

1

u/Nova_Bear_95 Aug 10 '26

Oh good, that's the deadline until the Masaki and Carmel get banned, nice.

0

u/noobte Jul 13 '26

thats pretty early

3

u/Office_Responsible Jul 13 '26

Agreed. It’s actually got me more nervous that it won’t be fair and the outcome is already decided against us. Government entities don’t usually move that fast

-6

u/Neat_Imagination2503 Jul 13 '26

How do people not understand this does not matter. Even if we win now that they have a majority they will just ban it through legislation….

10

u/Infinite_Price_3550 Jul 13 '26

So we should just give up and turn all our guns in? Did you turn your guns in and collect your buy back money yet?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jul 13 '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.

5

u/boozefiend3000 Jul 13 '26

You still have to fight