MP says firearms ban targets ‘legal gun owners’ as Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — The Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal from the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR) against the federal government’s ban on certain firearms.

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government announced a ban of over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms on May 1st, 2020, following the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in April 2020. 

Since the ban was announced, the Federal Government has prohibited more than 2,500 firearms.

On January 17th, 2026, Gary Anandasangaree, minister of public safety, announced the opening of an assault-style firearms compensation program.

“Assault-style firearms do not belong in our communities,” Anandasangaree said in a press release at the time. “These types of firearms were designed as weapons of war. Prohibiting and removing them from our communities is an important part of our government’s commitment to tackling gun violence and keeping Canadians safe.”

The Supreme Court will hear the CCFR’s case after previous appeals were denied at both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. 

Member of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies, Bob Zimmer, told Energeticcity.ca the ban is affecting the wrong group of people. 

“It’s been wrongly targeting lawful Canadians,” Zimmer said. “Instead of targeting criminals in possession of illegal firearms.”

The CCFR claims the government’s use of an Order in Council (OIC) exceeds the scope of the governor in councils regulation-making power under the Criminal Code.

According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, an OIC is a regulation or law that receives explicit permission or rejection from the governor general of Canada. 

An OIC is drafted by the government’s cabinet before being ruled upon by the governor general. 

Before being implemented, an OIC is not required to be debated by parliament.

The Criminal Code s. 117.15(2) says: “In making regulations, the governor in council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the governor in council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.” 

Zimmer told Energeticcity.ca he believes that the government went against the Criminal Code in passing this regulation. 

“OIC were specifically meant not to reclassify firearms,“ Zimmer said. “It says it right in the regulations themselves, yet the government chose to do that.”

Simon Lafortune, spokesperson for the Ministry of Public Safety, defended the government’s position.

“Canadians expect their governments and police forces to work collaboratively to keep communities safe,” Lafortune said in a statement provided to Energeticcity.ca. “Several contribution agreements are in the works with provinces and municipalities to facilitate the process for law-abiding gun owners across Canada that wish to be properly compensated for their now-prohibited assault-style firearm.”

The CCFR says the “landmark” case is a “pivotal” moment for legal firearm owners affected by the ban and for Canada’s democracy.

The case is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada.