- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 9,378
- 0
- 6
Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a prominent challenge to the federal government’s 2020 ban on assault-style firearms on Tuesday. The ruling upheld the legality of the government’s decision to prohibit over 1,500 models of firearms deemed by Ottawa to be “assault-style” and unsuitable for civilian ownership.
The challenge was led by the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), supported by individual gun owners and firearm retailers. They argued that the federal cabinet exceeded its authority under the Criminal Code by failing to properly apply section 117.15(2), which prohibits banning firearms the government considers reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.
Chief Justice Yves de Montigny, writing for a unanimous panel, rejected this view. The court found that cabinet had formed a reasonable opinion that the prohibited firearms were not suitable for such purposes. That opinion, the court held, was supported by evidence including the technical features of the firearms, such as their semi-automatic actions, large magazine capacities, and military-style designs, as well as their documented use in mass shootings. The Court reaffirmed that cabinet, not firearm users, is best positioned to assess reasonableness in light of broader policy concerns.
Public safety, the court emphasized, is not only a relevant factor but a necessary one when determining the reasonableness of a firearm’s use. The court pointed to the government’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement accompanying the 2020 regulations, which laid out the rationale for the ban. That document argued that the prohibited weapons posed disproportionate risks due to their design and capacity for harm, and were not appropriate for civilian purposes.
In March 2025, the federal government introduced measures to tackle firearms violence and intimate partner violence. Beginning April 4, 2025, individuals convicted of violent offences against intimate partners or family members will be ineligible for firearms licenses.
The CCFR, however, expressed concern. The group argued that the decision grants cabinet sweeping power to ban firearms that are used legally by Canadians, warning that this precedent could enable arbitrary regulatory overreach with limited parliamentary oversight.
The court also rejected the argument that the government improperly delegated law-making authority to the RCMP via its use of the Firearms Reference Table (FRT), a database used to classify firearms. The court found that the FRT is an administrative tool, not a legal instrument, and that final regulatory authority rests solely with cabinet.
The appellants also alleged violations of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claiming the regulations were vague, overbroad, and arbitrary. The court dismissed these arguments, ruling that terms such as “variant” were not unconstitutionally vague and that the regulations provided fair legal notice. Any potential rights limitations, the Court concluded, were justified in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Charter.
The ruling confirms that regulations enacted under delegated authority enjoy a presumption of validity and are subject to reasonableness review. More broadly, it affirms Cabinet’s role in addressing public safety threats through lawfully delegated powers.
The post Canada Federal Court of Appeal upholds assault-style firearms ban appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
The challenge was led by the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), supported by individual gun owners and firearm retailers. They argued that the federal cabinet exceeded its authority under the Criminal Code by failing to properly apply section 117.15(2), which prohibits banning firearms the government considers reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.
Chief Justice Yves de Montigny, writing for a unanimous panel, rejected this view. The court found that cabinet had formed a reasonable opinion that the prohibited firearms were not suitable for such purposes. That opinion, the court held, was supported by evidence including the technical features of the firearms, such as their semi-automatic actions, large magazine capacities, and military-style designs, as well as their documented use in mass shootings. The Court reaffirmed that cabinet, not firearm users, is best positioned to assess reasonableness in light of broader policy concerns.
Public safety, the court emphasized, is not only a relevant factor but a necessary one when determining the reasonableness of a firearm’s use. The court pointed to the government’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement accompanying the 2020 regulations, which laid out the rationale for the ban. That document argued that the prohibited weapons posed disproportionate risks due to their design and capacity for harm, and were not appropriate for civilian purposes.
In March 2025, the federal government introduced measures to tackle firearms violence and intimate partner violence. Beginning April 4, 2025, individuals convicted of violent offences against intimate partners or family members will be ineligible for firearms licenses.
The CCFR, however, expressed concern. The group argued that the decision grants cabinet sweeping power to ban firearms that are used legally by Canadians, warning that this precedent could enable arbitrary regulatory overreach with limited parliamentary oversight.
The court also rejected the argument that the government improperly delegated law-making authority to the RCMP via its use of the Firearms Reference Table (FRT), a database used to classify firearms. The court found that the FRT is an administrative tool, not a legal instrument, and that final regulatory authority rests solely with cabinet.
The appellants also alleged violations of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claiming the regulations were vague, overbroad, and arbitrary. The court dismissed these arguments, ruling that terms such as “variant” were not unconstitutionally vague and that the regulations provided fair legal notice. Any potential rights limitations, the Court concluded, were justified in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Charter.
The ruling confirms that regulations enacted under delegated authority enjoy a presumption of validity and are subject to reasonableness review. More broadly, it affirms Cabinet’s role in addressing public safety threats through lawfully delegated powers.
The post Canada Federal Court of Appeal upholds assault-style firearms ban appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.