Supreme Court to hear challenge to federal assault-style firearms ban

Explainer

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments Monday and Tuesday on the legal validity of the federal government's ban on assault-style firearms. The hearings are the latest stage in a long-running legal battle, with opponents arguing Ottawa exceeded its authority by prohibiting the guns through regulation. The federal government contends the ban, which now covers more than 2,500 models, is a reasonable and justified measure for public safety. A decision from the top court is expected no later than next year.

What is the legal question at the heart of the case?

The central issue is whether the federal cabinet, known as the Governor in Council, adhered to the law when it used regulatory powers to ban the firearms. The Criminal Code forbids cabinet from outlawing a firearm by regulation if it deems the gun "reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes." The government argues its assessment of reasonableness properly includes public safety considerations. In its written submission, federal lawyers say the cabinet's exercise of its broad discretion "was reasonable and justified by the serious public safety concerns these firearms present." They cite a regulatory analysis stating these guns can increase the severity of mass shootings and have been used in such shootings in Canada and abroad.

READ MORE: Supreme Court to hear appeal on federal single-use plastics ban

READ MORE: Alberta court rules federal Impact Assessment Act still unconstitutional

Opponents argue the government overstepped. The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, an appellant, says neither the Federal Court nor the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether the 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," the group states in its submission. The appellants say the question is not merely one of statutory interpretation. "It determines whether the sweeping consequences imposed upon these Canadians were authorized by law," their submission says.

What has happened in the lower courts?

The government first prohibited the use, sale and importation of 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14, in May 2020. In October 2023, a Federal Court judge dismissed a legal challenge seeking to strike down the ban as unlawful. A coalition of firearm owners, businesses, hunters and sport shooters appealed that ruling. In April 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, saying the Federal Court delivered "thorough and persuasive" reasons. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Chief Justice Yves de Montigny said he was not persuaded the government erred by considering public safety. "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," de Montigny wrote. He added that the federal cabinet is best situated to assess the public interest. "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.

Who is challenging the ban at the Supreme Court?

The case involves four different groups of challengers and includes several self-represented litigants who will argue without a lawyer. Five other gun groups are also appellants, as are the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Alberta and Saskatchewan argue Ottawa overstepped its powers, while Ontario states plainly that "the regulations are unconstitutional." Alberta's legal filing says Ottawa "at the stroke of a pen" criminalized firearms ownership for more than 100,000 licensed Canadians "without any evidence that these firearms users pose a threat to public safety." The province also contends hunting and shooting sports fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

One appellant, Christine Generoux of Ottawa, will argue her own case. In her legal filing she said there was no justification to deem the guns unreasonable for recreational use. "Sport shooting is destroyed and hunting disrupted," Generoux stated. She argued the issue "strikes at the heart of Parliamentary democracy and Canadian identity." The federal government has few allies at the top court. The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control is the only intervener explicitly backing Ottawa's position, arguing the Criminal Code allows for the regulatory ban and that public safety is the overriding purpose.

What is the status of the ban and the government's buyback?

The list of prohibited firearms has grown to more than 2,500 varieties since the initial 2020 order. An amnesty period that was set to expire on Oct. 30 of this year has been extended. It will now remain in effect until 90 days after the Supreme Court delivers its decision. During the amnesty, businesses and individuals can dispose of their guns, permanently deactivate them, or participate in a federal buyback program. 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 federal submission notes the firearms prohibited in 2020 were owned by an estimated three to five per cent of Canadian firearms owners. "Thousands of alternative firearms remain legally available for hunting and sporting use," it says. For appellants, the case is deeply personal. Their submission states it "concerns the profound disruption of the lives of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians" who found themselves "overnight in possession of prohibited property, deprived of its lawful use and exposed to the prospect of criminal liability." They describe those affected as "farmers, veterans, competitive athletes, Indigenous harvesters and neighbours in communities across Canada." The Supreme Court's ruling will determine the ban's ultimate fate.

With files from The Canadian Press, CityNews and The Globe and Mail