Canada assault-style firearms ban Supreme Court hearing, Digi Mart USA News (Canada): The federal government will defend its 2020 ban on assault-style firearms at the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday, facing an array of challengers who argue Ottawa exceeded its legal authority. The case, to be heard Monday and Tuesday, is the biggest hearing at the top court this fall.
The case centres on legal questions about the reasonable extent of Ottawa’s power to ban weapons such as the AR-15, the Beretta Cx4 Storm and other firearms. Challengers note that some of the guns are used for sport shooting or hunting.
The federal Liberals enacted the ban under former prime minister Justin Trudeau, who said at the time that “assault-style firearms designed for military use have no place in Canada.”
Ottawa invoked its regulatory powers rather than legislation to ban more than 1,500 types of firearms in 2020. It increased the list of banned guns to more than 2,500 in late 2024 and early 2025.
The lower courts have twice ruled in Ottawa’s favour, and the Supreme Court agreed in March to hear the appeals.
A continuing amnesty period for possession of the prohibited weapons is in effect until 90 days after a Supreme Court judgment. Businesses and individuals can dispose of their guns or permanently deactivate them, and Ottawa is also buying them back.
As of mid-2026, the federal government had paid businesses $96 million for about 74,000 guns, an average of $1,300 per weapon.
The firearms case involves four challengers and, unusually, several self-represented litigants who will argue before the nine Supreme Court judges without a lawyer. Five other gun groups, as well as the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, also oppose the ban.
Appellant Christine Generoux, of Ottawa, is set to argue her case herself on Monday morning. In her legal filing she said there was no justification to deem the guns unreasonable for recreational use, and she described the sentimental, life-sustaining and cultural nature of guns.
“Sport shooting is destroyed and hunting disrupted,” Ms. Generoux stated, adding that the issue “strikes at the heart of Parliamentary democracy and Canadian identity.”
The Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, an appellant with legal counsel, argued the case goes beyond the individual rights of gun owners. The group said Ottawa’s regulations were too vague to be within its powers, describing this as legality succumbing to “ambiguous administrative will.” It also stated that mass shootings are rare in Canada, that claims of firearm use in homicides are exaggerated, and that most high-profile shootings involve illegal guns.
The federal government’s response began by listing deadly mass shootings in Canada and abroad in which assailants used assault-style firearms, including the 2020 attack in Portapique, N.S., the 1989 shooting at Montreal’s L’École Polytechnique and the 2017 shooting at the Islamic Culture Centre in Quebec City. Ottawa’s response then addressed the core legal question: whether cabinet could use regulations under the Criminal Code to achieve public-safety objectives rather than acting through Parliament.
The minority Liberal government tried and failed to codify the banned firearms in law in 2023.
The federal government argues that Parliament has long empowered cabinet with broad discretionary authority to prohibit firearms in the interest of public safety, and that this power “was reasonable and justified by the serious public safety concerns these firearms pose.” The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, an intervener, is the only explicit backer of Ottawa’s position.
The three intervening provincial governments are all conservative-led and are opposing the federal Liberals at the Supreme Court, as they did earlier this year in the case on Quebec secularism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Alberta and Saskatchewan said Ottawa overstepped its powers, while Ontario stated: “The regulations are unconstitutional.” Alberta’s filing said Ottawa criminalized firearms ownership for more than 100,000 Canadians licensed to own such guns “without any evidence that these firearms users pose a threat to public safety.” The province also argued that hunting and shooting sports are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
