A problem to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 2020 ban on some 1,500 fashions of firearms deemed “assault-style weapons” by the Canadian authorities has failed, a truth that ought to make all People respect our Second Modification greater than ever.
On April 15, a three-judge panel of Canada’s Federal Courtroom of Appeals, within the case Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada, unanimously upheld the punitive regulation, leaving Canadians to proceed coping with the restrictions regardless of having a brand new prime minister.
At challenge is the Might 1, 2020, Order in Council SOR/2020-96, which instantly categorised 1,500 fashions of firearms (and modified variations and unnamed variants), beforehand listed as “non-restricted” or “restricted,” as unlawful “prohibited” firearms underneath the federal Prison Code. In creating the ban, Trudeau bypassed the legislative course of, and the order was not pre-published or topic to public enter or feedback.
The case, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Lawyer Common), 2025 FCA 82, arose out of consolidated judicial evaluation purposes introduced by firearm homeowners, firearm companies, and gun rights advocates, headed by the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR), difficult the Trudeau order. That court docket discovered that the order didn’t violate Canada’s Invoice of Rights.
Appellants within the case challenged the case on plenty of grounds. First was the assertion that the Governor in Council’s capability to categorise firearms as non-restricted, restricted and prohibited was restricted by the Prison Code. Moreover, appellants challenged what they described as the chief’s illegal sub-delegation of authority to categorise firearms as “prohibited” to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Lastly, they argued that the reclassification of firearms violated the 1960 Invoice of Rights and Canada’s Constitution of Rights and Freedoms.
Within the appeals court docket opinion, Chief Justice Yves de Montigny wrote: “There isn’t a corresponding proper, constitutional or in any other case, to possession of a selected firearm. Neither is there any de facto expropriation, since there isn’t any proof that Canada has acquired any asset or benefit because of the Rules. In consequence, the Federal Courtroom didn’t err in concluding that the Rules don’t infringe the Invoice of Rights.”
The court docket additionally famous that “from the only perspective of a smart hunter or sportsman, it is mindless to ban firearms which can be nicely suited and even particularly designed for searching or sport functions.” However the “inherent hazard that some firearms pose to public security due to their lethality and their capability to injure or kill a lot of folks in a brief time period, the truth that they’ve been utilized in mass shootings in Canada and overseas, the truth that they’re disproportionate for civilian use, and the rising demand for measures to deal with gun violence are all legitimate issues in figuring out whether or not their use is cheap for searching and sporting functions.”
The CCRF, which had taken the lead within the lawsuit to invalidate the regulation, expressed disappointment with the appeals court docket’s ruling.
“Right now we acquired the choice out of the Federal Courtroom of Attraction on our lengthy battle in opposition to the gun ban,” the group mentioned in a launched assertion. “It’s dangerous information for Canadians for a number of causes. It’s the opinion of the judges that the “protections” within the Prison Code to stop the Governor in Counsel (GIC) from banning weapons which can be legit for searching and sporting use are irrelevant. Part 56 of the choice illustrates that the safety provision is topic to the whim of the GIC, who can change their thoughts at any time.”
The group additionally mentioned it could be fastidiously reviewing the choice to find out its subsequent steps within the battle.
“The choice is obvious, the courts is not going to constrain the federal government’s overreach on this challenge,” CCRF concluded. “This has unfavorable implications on many elements of the authorized and legislative system in Canada.”
