OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada agreed on Thursday to hear a challenge of a Liberal government ban on firearms models and variants it considers fit for the battlefield, not for hunting and sport shooting.
The government banned the use, sale and importation of 1,500 firearms models and variants in May 2020. The move was generally applauded by gun control advocates as a first step toward removing from circulation firearms used in mass shootings.
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 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 challenge, saying the Federal Court delivered “thorough and persuasive” reasons.
The list of guns outlawed by the Liberal government has grown to more than 2,500 varieties of what it calls assault-style firearms.
Government officials say some 19,000 unique makes and models of non-restricted firearms remain available for hunting or sport shooting in Canada.
The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights said in a statement it was “thrilled” with the court’s decision to hear the appeal.
“This is a pivotal moment not only for the hundreds of thousands of licensed firearms owners affected by the ban, but for the rule of law and the proper limits of executive power in our democracy,” the statement said.
The group said its challenge is focused on questions about the government’s authority to make decisions through orders issued by the federal cabinet.
The coalition says such orders are “executive instruments meant for implementation and administration, not for enacting broad, permanent changes that affect thousands of law-abiding citizens and ban billions in private property.”
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told reporters Thursday the government looks forward to defending its position at the Supreme Court.
“Canada is a rule of law country. We are bound by the decisions of the court and we look forward to robustly defending the government’s position, which we’re very confident will be in our favour,” he said.
A spokesperson for Anandasangaree said the government is confident it properly exercised its authority when it issued the ban.
Simon Lafortune said in an emailed statement the government “is firmly committed to protecting communities from gun violence, including by removing assault-style firearms that are designed for the battlefield, not for hunting or sport shooting.”
Prohibited firearms and devices must be disposed of — or deactivated — by the end of an amnesty period on Oct. 30.
The government is implementing a buyback program that offers gun owners money for turning in or permanently deactivating firearms. Individuals have until the end of the month to declare interest.
Lafortune said since the launch of the program on Jan. 19, “more than 47,000 firearms have been declared across Canada, notwithstanding the 12,000 assault weapons that were already collected and destroyed through the first round of the business buyback program last year.”
A key question before the Federal Court of Appeal was whether the government 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 in 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 to 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.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 19, 2026.
— With files from Anja Karadeglija and Kathryn Mannie
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
