r/canadaguns • u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist • 28d ago
News / Politics / Activism Assuming the coming Supreme Court challenge rules in the governments favour, are we expecting OIC #4?
Worst case scenario, the Supreme Court ruling rules in favour of the government, deciding all previous bans were just.
What do we expect? Another OIC wrapping up the remaining semi-autos by model?
New legislation announced banning firearms by newly defined features?
72
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC 28d ago
If the the SCC somehow comes to the insane conclusion that the executive branch is effectively allowed to create criminal law because the legislator delegated that power in a federal law, then it's basically over in Canada for gun owners and really, any concept of property ownership in Canada.
19
u/dandyarcane 28d ago
Yeah - the OIC is also about broader executive authority, and I think that might be why they chose to hear it. I’m hoping watching rule by executive decree south of the border has sufficiently soured them on it.
10
u/WeightedDips95 27d ago
Don’t kid yourself. They’re completely incapable of logical consistency.
“It’s good when we do it but bad when they do it!”
27
u/QuarterFantastic6134 28d ago
Ugh going back to the dark WW2 King Liberal days where private property can be made illegal by a minority group to own.
You of Jap heritage? OK it’s illegal now for you to own any personal property. You get $0 compensation. Cool. Now GTFO to a concentration camp or outside Canada entirely.
Except modern version will be whatever minorities with particular property the LPC dislikes. You really need a gas guzzling truck that big when you’re not a construction/tradesperson or car that fast when you’re not a F1 racer? Great it’s illegal now for you to own those as a regular citizen we’ll pay you tree fiddy. $3.50 on a $50K+ vehicle but we only have buyback budget for 1000.
7
u/mwmwmwmwmmdw 27d ago
the SCC somehow comes to the insane conclusion
in the charter era that seems to be the only kinds of conclusions they come to. your average canadian doesnt know the extent the supreme court has been the unofficial 3rd legislative arm of the federal government the past 35 years.
24
37
u/AnvilsHammer 28d ago
It depends on how much political capital they want to keep in those 3 Montreal ridings and Poly.
Even if the SC overturns, chances are they will still have a majority. Carney could just throw up his hands and say this was a Trudeau thing and I don't care, and just only revive it at election time. Or he could just push through a new firearms act and we could be looking at a worse version California gun laws.
Unless someone is a LPC insider, which I highly doubt, no one here will really know the right answer.
29
u/Scooba_Mark 28d ago
They have had many opportunities to abandon this joke if a program a d haven't. Sadly, I don't think they will now.
4
u/AnvilsHammer 28d ago
They had the means, but 0 motive. Carney loses nothing with his base, and the majority of urban voters if he scraped the program. Chances are people not voting for Carney arent single issue voters. So even if he removed that one issue, he would gain nothing, but possibly lose votes, if he scraps it before the SC rules.
At least that way he can get his sound bite of "at least I tried, blame the courts"
2
u/TyrannasaurusRecht 27d ago
This is my thought. Hes going to indicate to the scc quietly in the background that he wants to be free of this braindead albatross of an own goal that Trudeau set up with poly lunatics.
Then he can say your quoted line and be done with it because its asinine and Canadians are speaking by action (easier still: inaction) regarding the whole expensive debacle.
The less cost on the books that he personally "owns" for this fiasco, the better it plays for him.
3
u/WeightedDips95 27d ago
And how does the fact that his government made more moves to collect the guns than Trudeau ever did fit into your fantasy about mr pragmatic numbers man?
2
u/outline8668 26d ago
And to add to this he went out his way to bring Provost into the fold. They didn't do that just for funzies
1
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears 27d ago
An SCC loss would be the most ideal off ramp for them, anything else would leave too much room for criticism.
I understand they’ve had what appears to be many off ramps, but I fail to see how people don’t think this would be their one golden opportunity.
This isn’t some kind of “carney is different and doesn’t want to ban guns” cope, IMO, and this certainly isn’t planned or deliberate on their part.
That said, when you consider the cost-benefit when playing the game of politics, it’s a desirable move to make.
1
u/outline8668 26d ago
You think they recruited Provost and trot her out for every gun related press conference because they have any intention of abandoning this program? Come on.
16
u/Eazy-Eid 28d ago
There's no indication that Carney is any less radical on this issue than Trudeau was. He put Poly in his cabinet ffs
-3
u/AnvilsHammer 28d ago
and theres no indication that he is as radical either.
Carney is a crony capitalist banker, who doesnt care about culture wars. Trudeaus was 100% ideological driven. Carney put poly in his cabinet because montreal is important to keep for a majority. If he really did care, the SKS would have been OIC'd instantly after Montreal. In the last 10 years, theres been 5 incidents where an SKS was used for a mass shooting/cop killing. Trudeau would not have that tragedy go to waste, even if the OICs where before the supreme court.
4
u/mwmwmwmwmmdw 27d ago
i think trudeau and carney dont care on a personal level. on a surface level they might think guns are icky.
however their advisors tell them the political calculus on the issue and inturn they take a very anti-gun stances because they think that is the best to stay in power.
3
u/TyrannasaurusRecht 27d ago
Its also fairly important to ban guns before an election to impress liberal voters. To ban everything too early is the political equivalent of premature ejaculation. This is especially true as there are fewer non sustenance rifle options left to ban while play acting being hard on crime while not doing anything meaningful.
They ban Canadian properties and way of life to win elections not because they have "feelings."
3
u/Intelligent_Box_4883 27d ago
He is absolutely a radical. He was head of the world economic forum, has a net zero carbon manifesto, recommended that people who donated to the trucker movement have their bank accounts frozen, supports disarming the population, worked for the totalitarian British government (surprise surprise, he’s passing laws that are making us more like them), acts like he’s better than the average person, lies straight to our faces and even his kid is trans. How on earth can you say he’s not radical?
3
u/WeightedDips95 27d ago
Cause he was duped and voted for him and is now trying to rationalize it.
Or he’s gaslighting
9
u/Red_Shrinp556 28d ago
Tbf Canadas laws currently make Californias look like Texas.
4
u/AnvilsHammer 28d ago
we still have pistol grips, detachable magazines and threaded barrels on our semi rifles. California doesn't.
-1
u/Red_Shrinp556 28d ago
Threaded barrels and detachable mags are fine, so long as there’s no pistol grip or flash hider. Standard capacity magazines are common and legal so long as you bought them at the right time, and we can also buy new pistols and CCW.
1
u/VanillaHighlights 27d ago
Are you talking about California laws?
Flash Hiders and compensators are LEGAL in Canada.
0
u/Red_Shrinp556 27d ago
Yes, they’re legal in California too. Compensators and muzzle brakes on semi-auto centerfire rifles with detachable mags are legal, as long as there’s no pistol grip, collapsing stock, or flash hider. I never said they were illegal in Canada, just saying California still has it better.
4
u/SirKickBan 28d ago
I suspect Carney will do the lower-case-L liberal thing and start a committee to begin holding meetings on how to proceed with the inquest into the correct way to implement a legal reform regarding firearms.
ie. throw Poly a bone while not having to actually do anything.
45
u/NiagaraBTC 28d ago
If the Supreme Court holds that it's legitimate for the PMO to simply designate privately owned property as Prohibited and then confiscate it, then Canada as we know it is completely finished.
OIC #294: All gasoline powered vehicles are prohibited. Register to turn them in for $30,000 or go to jail.
OIC# 295: Houses with more than 4 bedrooms are prohibited. Register to sell them to the government for $750k or go to jail.
22
u/RepresentativeBuy850 28d ago
Scary thought but yup..
OIC # 314 all privately owned land must be turned over to the government for 500$ a hectare
11
u/beastslayer2563 28d ago
When you put it like that it sounds so fucking ridiculous, how is this even a debate?
20
u/Cager_CA 28d ago
Because it’s not ridiculous to the average Canadian. To them, firearms are an American thing so getting them off the streets even if it infringes on people’s personal property rights is totally worth it for SAFETY
Until it’s something they value, they’ll never care
4
6
u/Perfect_Diamond_1128 28d ago
canada's been finished a long time ago buddy
3
u/NiagaraBTC 27d ago
You and I understand that but some of the rest of these guys still have hope so I didn't want to crush it completely.
2
u/WeightedDips95 27d ago
I don’t see this going our way, so unironically I would love if a government started expropriating family homes being hoarded by boomers. It would actually do some good and they would finally get a taste of their own medicine.
If we’re going to be authoritarian it might as well be used for good.
Though I’m not delusional and I know this will never happen and it will only be used for the good of those in charge (and the boomers).
1
u/I-LOVE-HENRY-RIFLES 28d ago
Imagine what’ll happy with the OICs and private property when/if the NDP win. Yikes. That much power in the hands of the people I saw at the convention 😬
17
u/One_Salary_9068 28d ago
The court will rule in favor of gouv... No doubt about it . If you want to change the law vote for some one else 🤌🏼
6
u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist 28d ago
Yeah, we won’t be seeing anything improve without a switch in government.
8
u/Bull-RunTheJewels 28d ago
We aren’t going to get new government any time soon. Canada is already a shell of what it used to be. The Libs won’t vote Conservative until the crime rate is so bad that they are scared to leave their own home. And then it will be too late.
2
u/One_Salary_9068 28d ago
Lets start a new country 🤠
0
u/Bull-RunTheJewels 28d ago
The only chance we have is Alberta leaving Canada and there is no chance that is happening either. This country is doomed. Best you can do is figure out an exit strategy.
6
u/BearlyDraconic01 28d ago
I don't think so. The SCC is remarkably reasonable and regularly rules against the government
3
u/Intelligent_Box_4883 27d ago
Imagine believing you can vote your way out of a corrupt political system.
5
u/HotlineBirdman 28d ago
This is not necessarily true. Our Supreme Court is more independent than certain others.
7
u/uber_poutine 28d ago
I think a lot depends on how badly the LPC needs the urban Quebec vote, how thin their majority is, and how many other (read: real) problems urban québécois have. I don't think Carney cares a whole lot either way, I think he thinks he has bigger fish to fry.
Assuming it's politically necessary, if the SCC rules in favour, expect an OiC for all currently available detachable-magazine-fed semi-automatics, though possibly only limited to centre fire. Expect revolver-style long guns and the SKS to get an honourable mention, despite not entirely meeting the definition.
The big problem with the above is that unless they update classification guidelines to move that functional definition from non-restricted/restricted to prohibited, it's a game of named model whack-a-mole. If it's politically necessary, expect a change in overall guidelines, followed by a variety of cope guns to work around these changes (similar, but not identical to the button-release semi-autos that we saw in Australia).
If either comes to pass, expect to see mass non-compliance, possibly flagrant.
4
u/BearlyDraconic01 28d ago
The SCC is not like the SCOTUS. They do not really do things in a partisan way and regularly rule against the government. They are nowhere near as partisan as the US. I think we have a really good chance here.
10
u/22GageEnthusiast 28d ago
The Supreme Court could've just easily dismissed the CCFR's application if they fully favoured the government's position regarding firearms legislation/policy.
Just accepting the CCFR's application signals that something will be ruled against the government. While I doubt that it's going to look like a complete reversal to pre May 1st, 2020 gun laws.....I would think something would have to come in our favour.
8
u/Natural_Comparison21 28d ago
Yep. Otherwise what would be the point for the SCC to take the case? If the SCC denies to show it that means they agree and that would have solidified it already from my understanding. Asking Runkle would be the best bet though.
2
u/outline8668 26d ago
What better way to legitimize the government's position than by ruling in their favor?
1
u/22GageEnthusiast 26d ago
Yea I get that but why not just do that by dismissing the application right off the bat?
2
u/outline8668 26d ago
Because ruling in the governments favor means the issue will not be challenged again. It solidifies the government position as "right" and any dissent on the subject can be dismissed by pointing to the SCC verdict. Dismissing the application leaves room for doubt or ambiguity. Ruling in the government's favor does not.
1
5
u/Dependent_Account603 28d ago
It'd be hard to justify any further OICs as they gave you money to buy a replacement and they then ban that? Would also result in buyback round number two.
5
15
u/Top_Importance6216 28d ago edited 28d ago
You can either buy guns, or you might as well relinquish them all now and let your pal lapse. the government is gonna do what governments do; whatever they want. they will kill ownership outright, or by a thousand cuts, so fuck them either way.
this repetitive nihilistic pearl clutching is so tiresome, not to direct it personally at you OP <3 We all hope it goes our way.
3
u/rastamasta45 28d ago
Public safety Canada is looking at 90% layoffs once the buyback is done, this file is dead
5
u/Clover_Lawn_4440 27d ago
They've been banning guns slowly since the 30's with the introduction of handgun registration
7
u/Murray3-Dvideos 28d ago
My "copeful" prediction is that he will respect that ruling. Use it as the prefect justification to scrap the buyback and controversial bans on owners current property. He can toute to the Poly psychos that he tried and did technically run the buyback. Destroying 1000s of those evil pick .22s and broken 180s. His government will then swiftly and Democratically (with the help of stolen floor crosser seats) pass a new Firearms Bill that essentially establishes what we currently have with Handguns in the country.
As a Conservative, obviously not the outcome i want. But better then what he currently have.
5
u/Whispersfine 28d ago
I have some bad news, seems irrelevant for now but could be where our government is going to head to.
Australia is having their buy back and they are limiting the max number of guns you can own. If you are a causal gun owner you are only allow to own four, for sport shooting you can own up to 10? I might be wrong on the exact number. All I’m saying is, over the years Canada has been slowly trying to adopt Australian gun control strategy. This might be a new direction for them if the ruling favors them.
Although, good news is we can still hope for the best and I really don’t think most provinces have the stomach for buy back bullshit, ok maybe BC has but I don’t care.🤷
Like always my educated guess is liberal will sit on gun control agenda until they once again trailing in the polls, which ironically is what we kinda hope for but would be materially damaged from.
A very strange time for sure.
5
u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist 28d ago
Similar to many of the European systems where they have “slot limits”. You can own X amount of guns for hunting and X amount for sport shooting.
Ironically they still have much more freedom in what guns they can buy than we do.
3
u/Newftube 27d ago
The UK - the country that gets meme'd for not having guns - still has legal AR-15 pattern rifles, either in bolt action form for 5.56 or larger rounds, or semi automatic if its in .22LR. Some UK-built rifles are on the original 2020 OIC iirc.
Liberals and gun prohibitionists really don't like when you point out the above, or that Europe as a continent still has a shit load of legal ""assault style"" firearns.
1
u/Whispersfine 28d ago
If our government allow me to use suppressors, I think I can work out a solution with them. I have some novelty toy I can give up for sure. Sadly, not gonna happen.
1
u/Saxit 27d ago
r/EuropeGuns for examples, and a bunch of legal discussions in one of the highlighted posts.
2
2
u/Traditional-Pop-8748 27d ago edited 27d ago
So should I buy a Henry Homesteader? I already have one banned firearm my M&P FPC so I fn dont know what to do. Just want to go shot some targets....!!! With the 700 rounds of 9mm I still have but i can't use in my FPC...because someone doesn't like how it looks. 😕
2
2
u/nejnedau 26d ago
the govt banned lawn darts and fire crackers and no one could do anything about it, so its an uphill battle.. Every case I looked at Govt only has to say their actions are reasonable and you lose basically,, Courts defer to Govt actions.
2
u/rangedehinc 21d ago
What do you mean if?
Who appointed the judges?
Are you still at the "muh proper channels" cope? 🤣
1
u/Background-Way7794 25d ago
our government does all kinds of stuff. The internment of Japanese and other Canadians was huge,
And then, then, there was the 1930's Padlock Law. Get "accused" of doing something "communist"? bam, they lock you out of your property for a YEAR ( home or business...sometimes, both) . no trial or disclosed evidence needed...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padlock_Law
Our governments dont have a super track record
1
u/Particular_Signal198 1d ago
who do you think will win my money is on the gun rights groups the librals spent 2billion on like 32 k guns how will they do the rest plus the heavy weight general attorneys also in here it’s a close call that’s for sure
2
u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist 1d ago
Even if the court rules that banning via OIC was unjust I don’t expect we will see any change.
They will say what’s done is done, we won’t ban anything without legislation now in the future.
Which they can now do with a majority.
1
u/reddesert001 28d ago
All of them are JUST for show, bro. Have you ever seen a communist country that lets its people own a BB gun? Name one. End of story.
79
u/starw24-ps4 28d ago
Carney basically said last shooting they need to go through the “legal process” for banning, ie no more OICs until the SSC decides if it’s legit.
If it is legit, the next OIC will come soon after.
If it’s not legit, I expect they would begin the 18 month legislation like the handguns did.
We are now in a strange limbo state where only RCMP FRT swaps are possible fast bans - see my poor N4S that was lost in a boating accident.