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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
If the SC invalidated the OICs from 2020 onward, there would be no consistent reason for it to not that automatically invalidate the OICs from the 90s
People who have been charged for marijuana possession(not quantities large enough to suggest intent to distribute) have had their corresponding criminal convictions completely revoked & were released from prison back when it was decriminalized, so it would in a legal sense have to be that way due to precedent law because otherwise what the fuck are we even doing as a country.
Precedent law regarding this is also another reason why the liberals are fucking goddamn stupid shitheads with the firearms bans, because there is a very real possibility that criminally convicted offenders who earned their firearms offense charges could have their charges revoked & be released from prison early with how the LPC structured the entire boondoggle if the SCC rules in CCFR's favour and ends up reversing all the related OIC's. But honestly the liberals have made that bed & now they get to lie in it whether they like it or not.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
147
u/Cock_ball_dickin 12d ago
I’m not gonna lie I’m incredibly nervous. How do you all think it will go?