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
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.
49
u/rastamasta45 12d ago
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