Legal battle over federal firearms ban heads to Supreme Court of Canada

OTTAWA — The country’s top court is set to hear legal arguments this week about the validity of a federal ban on hundreds of types of firearms the government says are fit only for the battlefield.

The hearings, slated for Monday and Tuesday at the Supreme Court of Canada, will give opponents of the ban another chance to make their case after losing in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.

In May 2020, the government prohibited the use, sale and importation of 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14. The move was applauded by gun control advocates as a first step toward removing these firearms from circulation.

In October 2023, a Federal Court judge dismissed a request to strike down the ban as unlawful and beyond the scope of the powers delegated to the Governor in Council — effectively the federal cabinet.

A not-for-profit advocacy organization, firearm owners, businesses, hunters and recreational and sport shooters appealed the ruling.

In April 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected that appeal, saying the Federal Court delivered “thorough and persuasive” reasons.

The list of guns banned by the Liberal government has grown to more than 2,500 varieties of what it calls assault-style firearms.

Before the Supreme Court agreed to examine the matter, the government said the prohibited firearms would have to be disposed of or deactivated by the end of an amnesty period on Oct. 30 of this year.

That amnesty has been extended until 90 days after the Supreme Court delivers its decision, which is expected no later than next year.

A key question before the Federal Court of Appeal was whether the Governor in Council adhered to a provision of the law forbidding it from using regulations to outlaw a firearm if it deems the gun “reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.”

Writing on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, Court of Appeal Chief Justice Yves de Montigny said he was not persuaded that the government erred in considering public safety when assessing whether the prohibited firearms were reasonable for use in Canada for such purposes.

“It may well be that, from the sole perspective of a sensible hunter or sportsman, it makes no sense to ban firearms that are well suited or even specifically designed for hunting or sport purposes,” he wrote.

The federal cabinet is the most senior policy-making body in government and, because of its role at the apex of the executive branch, is best situated to develop government policy and assess the public interest, de Montigny added.

“Surely, the inherent danger that some firearms pose to public safety because of their lethality and their ability to injure or kill a large number of people in a short period of time, the fact that they have been used in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, the fact that they are disproportionate for civilian use, and the increasing demand for measures to address gun violence are all valid considerations in determining whether their use is reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes,” he wrote.

In a written submission to the Supreme Court, federal lawyers say the Governor in Council’s exercise of its broad discretion was reasonable and justified by the serious public safety concerns these firearms present.

The submission points to a regulatory impact analysis statement that supports the Governor in Council’s opinion. That statement said that while some hunters and sport shooters lawfully used some of these firearms in the past, these guns can increase the severity of mass shootings and have been used in such shootings in Canada and in other countries.

The firearms prohibited in 2020 were owned by a small minority of Canadian firearms owners, estimated at between three and five per cent of the total, the federal submission adds.

“Thousands of alternative firearms remain legally available for hunting and sporting use,” it says. “The GIC’s opinion, balancing public interest policy considerations, was reasonable.”

A group of appellants that includes the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights says neither the Federal Court nor the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether the newly prohibited items were actually used for hunting or sport shooting.

“While recognizing that the misuse of firearms threatens public safety, Parliament chose to preserve hunting and sport shooting as legitimate, lawful, and socially accepted activities and uses of firearms,” they say in their submission to the Supreme Court.

For the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who lawfully owned and used the firearms prohibited by the 2020 regulations, this appeal is not an abstract debate about administrative law, the appellants add.

“It concerns the profound disruption of the lives of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians. Hunters, sport shooters, collectors and small businesses, individuals who complied with every requirement imposed by Parliament, found themselves overnight in possession of prohibited property, deprived of its lawful use and exposed to the prospect of criminal liability,” the submission says.

“They are not extremists; they are farmers, veterans, competitive athletes, Indigenous harvesters and neighbours in communities across Canada.”

Whether the Governor in Council acted within the limits Parliament imposed is not merely a question of statutory interpretation, the submission says.

“It determines whether the sweeping consequences imposed upon these Canadians were authorized by law.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 9, 2026.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press