The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing a challenge to the federal ban on several categories of firearms on Monday and Tuesday, a case that will determine whether the cabinet acted within the powers Parliament gave it when it restricted the use, sale and importation of certain guns. Opponents of the ban lost at the Federal Court and at the Federal Court of Appeal, and the country's highest court is now being asked to decide the matter.
The challengers include an advocacy group, gun owners, businesses, hunters and sport shooters. The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights is among the appellants. Their central argument is that the lower courts never examined how the banned firearms are actually used in hunting and sport shooting, activities they say are lawful and protected.
The ban was introduced by a May 2020 order in council that barred the use, sale and importation of about 1,500 models, including the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. The list has since grown to more than 2,500 models described as assault-style firearms. Gun control advocates welcomed the measure at the time as a first step toward tighter restrictions on weapons they say are designed for combat or mass killing.
The legal history of the case has been consistent so far. In October 2023, a Federal Court judge dismissed a bid to strike the ban down. In April 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the appeal, in a panel led by Chief Justice Yves de Montigny. Both courts accepted that the government's decision fell within its authority, and the Supreme Court is now being asked to revisit that conclusion.
At the heart of the dispute is a question of statutory interpretation. The law bars the government from banning firearms deemed reasonable for hunting or sport, and the challengers contend that the ban conflicts with that protection. The Court of Appeal held that public safety considerations were a valid basis for the cabinet's decision, a finding the appellants are contesting before the Supreme Court.
Federal lawyers argue that cabinet's discretion was reasonable and justified. They point to regulatory analysis suggesting that some of the banned guns increase the severity of mass shootings. They also say owners of the banned firearms make up roughly 3 to 5 per cent of firearm owners in Canada, and that thousands of other legal firearms remain available to hunters and sport shooters.
The appellants describe the people affected by the ban in very different terms. They say the owners include farmers, veterans, athletes and Indigenous harvesters who rely on these firearms for their livelihoods and traditions. Their position is that the courts should have weighed evidence of that actual use before accepting the government's rationale.
For owners, the practical stakes are tied to a deadline. The federal government has extended an amnesty allowing gun owners to dispose of or deactivate banned firearms without penalty. The new deadline is 90 days after the Supreme Court issues its ruling. The court is expected to deliver its decision no later than next year, and until then the outcome on the delegated-power question remains unresolved.
11
