Canada’s Supreme Court has reserved its decision after hearing a challenge to the federal government’s restrictions on firearms introduced in 2020. The case turns on whether ministers acted within powers given to them by Parliament when they prohibited the weapons by regulation.
The court heard four related appeals in Ottawa on 9 and 10 November. The challengers include licensed firearm owners, businesses, shooting interests and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. The Attorney General of Canada is defending the regulations.
No decision has been issued. The judges will consider the submissions before giving their ruling, leaving the restrictions and the terms of an existing amnesty important to owners in the meantime.
What the court is considering
In May 2020, the federal government prohibited the use, sale and importation of about 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14. The measure followed the mass killing in Nova Scotia that April. The government describes the prohibited weapons as assault-style firearms.
The list was expanded in later years and now covers more than 2,500 makes and models, according to the government. The appeals before the Supreme Court concern the 2020 regulations, rather than a separate decision on every subsequent addition to the list.
The restrictions were made by the Governor in Council, the formal name for the federal cabinet acting through the regulatory process. The legal dispute is not simply over whether the policy is popular. It concerns the limits of the authority that Parliament gave the cabinet to classify firearms.
Under the Criminal Code, the cabinet cannot prescribe an item as prohibited or restricted if, in its opinion, the item is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes. A central question is how that test should be interpreted and what factors ministers may consider when forming their opinion.
The appellants argue that firearms caught by the measure had been used lawfully for hunting and sport. They say the lower courts did not properly address those uses and that the cabinet went beyond its statutory authority.
Federal lawyers argue that the cabinet was entitled to weigh public safety when deciding whether the firearms were reasonable for those purposes. They say other firearms remain available to hunters and sport shooters, and that the prohibited types present serious public-safety risks.
Earlier decisions and other voices
The Federal Court dismissed the original applications for judicial review in October 2023. In April 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeals. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the four appeals in March 2026.
In the appeal court’s reasoning, public safety was a valid consideration when assessing whether use of the firearms was reasonable for hunting or sport. The Supreme Court is now being asked to review that approach. Agreeing to hear an appeal does not itself decide whether either side’s interpretation is correct.
The court’s hearing list also identified the attorneys general of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario as interveners. Shooting organisations, a gun-control group and a civil liberties association were among other interveners. An intervener is permitted to present a perspective to the court without being one of the main parties to the appeal.
Another question raised in the case is whether the regulation gives adequate clarity about weapons treated as variants of those named in it. The issue matters because classification can carry criminal consequences. The civil liberties association has argued that courts should closely scrutinise delegated rules with such consequences; the government disputes the challengers’ objections to the regulatory language.
What the amnesty means
The federal government extended the existing amnesty while the appeals proceed. It is intended to protect affected owners and businesses from criminal liability while they take steps to comply with the law, subject to the order’s conditions. It does not mean the prohibition as a whole has been suspended.
Under the amended order, the amnesty expires on the 90th day after the last of the four appeals ends by judgment, dismissal or discontinuance. There is therefore no fixed calendar expiry date from the hearing alone.
The government has operated a compensation programme for eligible owners and businesses. It has also identified options for affected owners who do not take part in the programme, including deactivation at their own expense, surrender to police without compensation, or lawful export. The government says extending the amnesty does not change the compensation programme.
The outcome of the appeals will determine whether the 2020 regulations survive the legal challenge. Until the court rules, arguments from either side remain positions put before the judges, not findings by the Supreme Court.
