r/canadaguns • u/Mysterious_Sleep7443 • 24d ago
News / Politics / Activism The Gun Ban Court is HERE and WE ARE IN!
https://nfa.ca/the-gun-ban-court-is-here-and-we-are-in/
We’re In!
Canada’s National Firearms Association (NFA) is joining the Supreme Court Challenge brought by the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR) against the Liberal government’s Orders in Council (OIC) banning hundreds of thousands of firearms.
NFA will participate in the case as an Intervenor.
At first, we weren’t sure whether the Court would accept us.
To participate as an Intervenor in a Supreme Court case, an organization must bring an argument that is different and distinct from that of the principal litigant.
But NFA believes that we have found the right argument.
With the help of civil rights lawyer Jason Gratl of Vancouver, B.C., we believe we’ve got a strong case to present to the Court.
Jason has a lot of experience with cases like this. He has argued before the Supreme Court and served as head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Union. He is the right guy for the job.
The question is this;
Are laws in Canada made through legislation and Parliament, or are they done by Order in Council?
Did the Liberals overstep their Authority by using the Orders in Council to target so many Canadians and so much lawfully owned property?
In case you are not familiar with what an Order in Council (OIC) is, it is a means by which the Prime Minister, using the powers of the Governor General—that is, the Government of Canada—can pass emergency orders as de facto law without having to introduce controversial legislation and get it passed by Parliament.
In other words, they used a tragedy and a political gimmick to push their agenda—without having to answer to anyone.
Apparently, the Liberals considered confiscating hundreds of thousands of legally owned firearms from law-abiding Canadians an emergency on the scale of a ‘Declaration of War’.
Which it was.
A Declaration of War on the Rights, Freedoms, and Property of Canadians
And this has happened with firearms in the past.
In the early 1990’s, governments prohibited scores of firearms through OIC.
However, shortly afterward, they prohibited those same firearms through legislation passed by Parliament instead.
Back then, maybe they weren’t so sure those OIC’s would pass legal scrutiny.
Are the Liberal OIC’s actually lawful?
Well, we’re going to find out. The Supreme Court Case will be heard in November 2026, and a decision will be rendered shortly after.
57
u/Hmfic_48 24d ago
Would someone mind ELI5 whats stopping the government from just going enacting legislation to ban the OIC'd firearms should they lose in court?
87
u/Dartmouth-Hermit 24d ago
Only the optics. There is no practical impediment.
14
3
23d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Dartmouth-Hermit 23d ago
They cared a bit when they were in a minority government, but now I suspect it will be some time before they start caring again (6 months before election campaigns).
33
u/chillyrabbit 24d ago
Nothing, but legislation takes time and requires parties to pass a Bill. It also throws it into the spotlight for a long period of time, and Canadians in general are apathetic about gun legislation.
C-21 took about 1 year in the HoC and then 6 months in the Senate to pass. It even had a huge outcry when the guns banned by OiC recently were amended into C-21 during the process.
It might not play out the same way with a large outcry, as during C-21 but it is definitely a monkey in the works that its not as simple as "bing bong, bill passed guns banned"
26
7
u/Milkbagistani 24d ago
Legislation also requires a budget and funds allocation.
Other than convenience and laziness the attraction of OIC's is that they do not require the government to assign a dollar value to the legislation or program. How supportive would the other parties be if they know that the cost of expropriating firearms was going to be in the billions.
3
37
u/Sad-Stop-2401 24d ago
Because, people can force their MPs to answer why are they voting to take their property. And it brings discussion on the issue in public. It gives opposition a chance to question why looks are determining which firearm is "assault weapon" and why past legislations that banned FA firearms as assault weapons are not enough.
26
u/RealTurbulentMoose 24d ago
Yeah, the current OIC regime lets politicians pass the buck and blame policy mandarins or the RCMP instead of taking accountability for what they’re doing.
They’re doing it indirectly now; it’s harder to take stuff from voters when the voters will tell them how it’ll cost them votes.
13
u/Sad-Stop-2401 24d ago
More importantly they can do it at will and without due process that takes time and effort. Legislation delays things and debate takes time in parliament. Especially when it is controversial. And a government can bring only these many bills. OIC can be done by the stroke of a pen and as many times as one wants.
Lastly it is a matter of principle. 22LR GSGs are NOT bloody war emergency to be banned using emergency powers like OIC.
9
u/Vahuo89 24d ago
It already looked bad to unilaterally ban something from the people's ownership.
The OIC was basically a workaround for a gun ban the liberal government had been trying to do for decades and the latest tragedy was a perfect reason to finally enact it.
But the way it was done was really, really bad.
And could be applied to ANYTHING else. Which should scare every canadian. It is NOT just a firearm issue.
27
29
u/KalashnikovParty 24d ago
i’m choosing to be a optimist for once. We would be so fucking back if this works
12
u/boozefiend3000 24d ago edited 24d ago
We don’t really know what’ll happen if we win. The liberals could either leave us alone, totally ban through parliament or do the same thing with handguns and ban futures sales and transfers and allow use. Time will tell
4
u/Lumindan 24d ago
I'll rain on the parade.
They have a majority. They can easily just ram a bill through the house.
Not to mention that Supreme court can also give the government time to change the program or even give them a grace period.
There's too much in the air imo but with this government and country? Keep your hopes low to avoid disappointment.
Go out and shoot, get more people involved and remember, when it doubt, there's always mass non-compliance.
-1
7
u/Benefit_Waste 24d ago
What does this mean for the handgun ban? Will the handgun ban be overturned if the CCFR wins? I would love to se that happen.
17
u/boozefiend3000 24d ago
No. That was voted on and passed through parliament. Only way that gets reversed is through legislation
8
u/Relevant_Diver_3228 24d ago
Hey they got my picture on there. I wonder how they got the proportions of my cheeks correct
18
u/Mysterious_Sleep7443 24d ago
This Court case is for all the marbles
Just remember if its time to bury your guns its time to dig them up!
-13
u/pr0cyn1c 24d ago
dig them up and do what?
13
u/arm_flailing 24d ago
Deactivate them or turn them in, of course.
-15
u/pr0cyn1c 24d ago
good,
beacuse i doubt most of you are stupid enough for a planned armed rebellion.
would be better to just keep them locked away for a time when laws change, or cease to matter.16
u/hunterofsteelhead 24d ago
The laws wont change for the better , if you look at the examples over the decades they just get more and more oppressive. They banned nunchucks and ninja stars because they thought canadians would watch Bruce Lee movies and turn into assassins
5
u/Lumindan 24d ago
They banned nunchucks and ninja stars because they thought canadians would watch Bruce Lee movies and turn into assassins
Well you know, that and the blatant amounts of racism the government was cool with. It played well to their base at the time
-9
u/pr0cyn1c 24d ago edited 24d ago
cool. dont care.
point is dont be an armchair warrior with fantasies of some sort of armed conflict with the law:
- pretty sure most of you chuckle fucks would end up like swiss cheese
- talking this sort of shit just justifies the Lib's bullshit
Edit: based on the downvotes i look forward to Canada's IQ increasing once the LARP idiots get shot up by law enforcement. Would suggest you instead go join the reserves and stop play acting war.
4
u/escv_69420 24d ago
hold them high and proud, in your canoe, right before you tragically fall into the water, where the stress of near drowning made you forget where you were and which firearm you were holding.
14
u/I-LOVE-HENRY-RIFLES 24d ago
Still gonna lose. No way the banned guns come back. Maybe in 2050 when a conservative candidate finally wins. By then most of us will have moved on to the next life or will be very old and the issue itself will be forgotten.
7
u/Bone_Donor 24d ago
Yeah I agree this is "apes to the moon" energy. Supreme court is bought and paid for, the government will do what the government does and fuck the people.
3
u/Hopeful_Relation_441 24d ago
we will be using plasma cannons by then and only if the thought police allow you to
7
5
u/Pro7o7ype 24d ago
Stand with the NFA as they've stood with the CCFR through the whole fight.
Interpret that as required
2
-11
u/Neat_Imagination2503 24d ago
Who cares. They have a majority now. If we win they just ban them the legal way through parliament
35
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC 24d ago edited 24d ago
Yeah but the legislative process is super slow. It took them 18 months to pass c21 and it took them nearly 15 months to pass bill c71 (C-71 was when they had a legit majority government).
The point is, yes they can still ban through legislation since the Supreme Court has ruled that is within their legal authority. However, instead of being able to ban my Benelli M4 tomorrow out of nowhere and no notice/debate: Being done through legislation, I will have at least over a year to continue using my M4 while affording me the opportunity to challenge it through my MP or myself.
During the legislation process, with a enough pushback plus it taking so long, the Liberals may just say "what the fuck's the point?" like they did with G4 and G46 amendments in C-21, which had it passed, would have basically banned all semi-auto centre-fire rifles and shotguns in Canada.
Even if that's the only W we get, that is still a super significant W.
8
u/grathontolarsdatarod 24d ago
Well.... And there would need to be the serious consideration for actual compensation if they were to do it through legislation.
Not something haphazard.
You can't just take people's stuff.
16
u/zporb 24d ago
Let me guess, you have given up all your prohibs to the pony police because your boyfriends wife said so.
Take your negativity elsewhere
-3
u/Neat_Imagination2503 24d ago
Dipshit, understanding the situation we’re in and not burying my head in the sand is not negative, it’s the reality of where we’re at. Now take your cuck self away
-2
u/pr0cyn1c 24d ago
half these chuckle fucks are weekend warriors at best. Dont pay attention to the shit-wads downvoting ya.
-23
u/Spirited_Comedian225 24d ago
Do you really think little pp will change a thing if he ever got in power.
17
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC 24d ago
Generally speaking, yes, that's a fair consideration that Pierre could be all talk and no action and we have no other evidence, other than his past voting record on similar issues, to go off of in assessing whether he will actually do something for us.
However, I will note I rather gamble with a "maybe politician" (Pierre) versus a politician who openly said "Yes I'm going to continue these a-scientific, zero-evidence based, expensive assault-style attacks against gun owners and steal your property." (Carney).
10
u/boozefiend3000 24d ago
Well, considering the last conservative government abolished the gun registry, simplified ATTs and reversed an RCMP decision that prohibited some rifles I’d say ya, poilievre would change things in our favour
-7
u/Aspenkarius 24d ago
The cons only care about gun owners on an election year. And if they think they will get enough votes without changing any laws they will ignore us all anyway.
13
u/boozefiend3000 24d ago
How’s that explain all those changes the last conservative government did? None of those happened in an election year
-2
u/Aspenkarius 24d ago
They started the bill the year of an election a few months after winning. It was the only time in 20 years that they have helped gun owners when an election wasn’t on the line.
6
u/GoGetInvolved 24d ago
They also tried to repeal it multiple times when they only had a minority. They weren't waiting for an election to do it.
1
u/boozefiend3000 24d ago
And the reversal of prohibs?
0
u/Aspenkarius 24d ago
The one that happened less than 3 months before an election? An election they lost badly? If that wasn’t an obvious attempt at buying votes from sheep I don’t know what is. Especially when most of the cz858 rifles met the requirements to be prohibited before they even made it to Canada. They were full auto rifles converted to semi auto. My brother had one, it was pretty obvious.
3
0
u/Aspenkarius 24d ago
Anything newer than 20 years ago you can name? Even the UCP in Alberta who have been making huge gun promises are focusing on bypassing the constitution with “not withstanding” which is worse than an OIC in my books as it BYPASSES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Have largely ignored us because they know they don’t need to actually do more than talk to get re elected. Most of Alberta would vote for water while drowning because it’s blue.
2
u/boozefiend3000 24d ago
Where do you get 20 years? 2014 was 12 years ago. And what can I name after that when the conservatives haven’t even been in power to do anything?
2
u/Aspenkarius 24d ago
Again 2014 was an amnesty. 2015 AN ELECTION YEAR was when they de-prohibited them.
They havnt done a damned thing for us even on a provincial level in 20 years unless it was vote buying time.
And again the vz/cz 858 should have been prohibited before it entered the country as it was a converted full auto which means they actually legalized a prohibited firearm just to buy votes. And you guys think non conservatives are sheep.
2
1
u/Frreed 24d ago
Nope, he won't. Like all politicians he'll say literally anything to get votes and get a following, but when it's time to follow through it won't happen or there will be an excuse why they can't because "liberals"
He's been paid by tax payers since 2004 and accomplished nothing of value.
-1
-1
u/_axeman_ 24d ago
Sour grapes, eh
-5
u/Spirited_Comedian225 24d ago
I’m not a one issue voter.
2
1
u/El_Zimbabwe 9d ago
Most gun owners are conservatives on other topics than firearms anyways. So, a politician going on our side for guns is simply bonus. Funnily enough Pierre is not even that right wing, he's super mild.
75
u/salochin92 24d ago edited 24d ago
Slightly misleading to title this as "The Gun Ban Court is HERE and WE ARE IN!"
...