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
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
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
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?