Firearm enthusiasts and Indigenous representatives are pressing the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn a federal ban on 1,500 models of firearms and their variants, arguing that Ottawa exceeded its legal authority when enacting the policy in May 2020.
Four separate legal challenges converged in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday as Canada’s highest court heard arguments regarding the controversial Cabinet policy, Courthouse News reported. The ban prohibited weapons such as the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 following a mass shooting in Nova Scotia that claimed 23 lives, including the gunman.
Representing herself at the apex court, Ottawa resident Christine Generoux leads the appellate campaign alongside hunters, sports shooters, and firearm advocates. The coalition argues that the sweeping directive criminalizes firearms historically used safely by sports amateurs and Olympic athletes, according to Courthouse News.
Generoux told the court that the government is utilizing gun owners as scapegoats for inadequate public policy. “Using our community as scapegoats to cover for their own poor public policy,” Generoux said, according to Courthouse News.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration enacted the prohibition via an Order in Council rather than through parliamentary ratification. Under the Criminal Code, the federal Cabinet holds the authority to restrict firearms if it determines they cannot reasonably be used for hunting or sports shooting.
Counsel for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Michael A. Loberg, argued during the hearings that the Cabinet overreached its mandate by targeting sporting arms. Lower instances of the judiciary, including the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, previously dismissed the challenges by accepting government arguments centered on public safety.
During Monday’s proceedings, Supreme Court justices questioned whether firearm owners properly weighed public safety against their personal interests. Justice Glenn D. Joyal acknowledged the safe historical use of the weapons while noting shifting contexts, Courthouse News reported.
“I can see that many of these weapons, despite their potential danger, can be used safely,” Justice Joyal said, according to Courthouse News. “In some instances, at some point in time, suddenly, irrespective of how safely the weapon is being used by a sports person, others are using it in a very different way.”
Defending the policy, attorney Zoe Oxaal argued on behalf of the attorney general of Canada that the restrictions affect only 3% to 5% of gun owners while leaving numerous alternative firearms available for sport and hunting. Oxaal questioned whether the potential risks posed by the restricted weapons outweighed their continued utility.
While justices probed the breadth of the executive order, Justice Mahmud Jamal suggested that distinct models could potentially be contested individually rather than invalidating the entire regulatory framework. The current ban remains suspended pending the final ruling from the Supreme Court.
Should the justices uphold the executive order, affected Canadians will face a 90-day amnesty period to dispose of or permanently deactivate their firearms. Mid-2026 data indicates that an established buyback initiative has collected nearly 75,000 weapons, with compensation to businesses reaching 96 million Canadian dollars, equivalent to $67 million USD, Courthouse News reported.
| Metric | Figure | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited Models | 1,500+ | Includes AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 variants |
| Weapons Collected | ~75,000 | Total gathered under the federal buyback program as of mid-2026 |
| Business Compensation | $96M CAD ($67M USD) | Paid out to compliant commercial entities |
| Impacted Owners | 3% to 5% | Proportion of Canadian gun owners affected by the ban |
Hearings are scheduled to conclude on Tuesday with interventions from sports associations and provincial governments. Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan are participating in the proceedings to formally oppose the federal ban.
