r/canadaguns • u/AutoModerator • Aug 03 '26

Recurring Canadaguns Politics and Debate Thread

Please post all your Gun Politics or Ban-related ideas, questions, initiatives, comments, suggestions, news articles, and recommendations in this thread. This thread recurs every 14 days.

First and foremost, this is a Canadian Gun subreddit, so keep it at least decently related to both of those things.

This thread is not for general politics, there are plenty other subs that are meant for that. Off-topic threads may be removed, especially if they are leading to personal attacks, flame wars, etc.

To prevent the main sub being flooded with dozens of similar threads, text posts complaining about/asking about/chatting about gun politics will be sent here.

We understand that politics is a touchy subject, and at times things can get heated. A reminder of the subreddit rules, when commenting, where subreddit users are expected to abide.

Keep this Canadian gun politics related and polite. Off-topic stuff, flame wars, negative generalizations against groups, personal attacks and gate-keeping will be removed. Please flag any comments to bring to the attention of mods otherwise exercise your upvoting and downvoting ability.

16 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

334 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/BuffaloVelcro Aug 16 '26

What are the odds the SCC, if they don’t strike down the bans, forces the government to fully compensate to the tune of billions?

5

u/FunkyFrunkle Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

Virtually zero.

The Supreme Court is bound by the constitution. Canadians do not have constitutionally protected property rights under the charter, thus this question is not within the purview of the Supreme Court.

Property rights were very intentionally omitted under the final draft of the charter in 1981. The Pierre Trudeau government, under consultation with the provinces, left out property rights because they didn’t want it getting in the way of developing natural resources or regulating land use.

The Canadian bill of rights has basic property rights, but it’s a regular statue, not part of the constitution which means the government can bypass it. “Notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights.” If parliament writes clear, unambiguous language into a statue stating that the property in question will be seized without compensation, they effectively bypass it.

The interesting thing here is parliament didn’t have a chance to work this out because the bans were done by OIC, which is the crux of the Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to essentially rewrite federal law and make the government spend money on the buyback. The CCFR is launching a class action lawsuit against the government on this very subject which will be decided by a lower court, not the Supreme Court.

The case being brought before the Supreme Court is focused around whether or not the bans are even legal, that is, if the government even had the authority to bypass parliament to ban vast swaths of property by executive decree. Three provinces have joined the case as intervenors to argue that these bans represent a “Trojan horse” for federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Aug 17 '26

The more I learn about Canada the more I realize that one of the main creators of this nation being an alcoholic makes a lot of sense.

2

u/I-LOVE-HENRY-RIFLES Aug 17 '26

Zero. There will be no win. Just delay of the inevitable. It’s like fighting the Tyranids from 40K. You can’t win in the end.