# Supreme Court Reviews Legality of Canada’s 2020 Assault-Style Firearms Ban Justices weigh federal regulatory authority against claims of overreach in a landmark gun rights case. - **Source:** [The Globe and Mail – Canada](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada) - **Published:** 2026-11-09 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/47d59014-e738-47c6-8c8c-a136737394ba ## Supreme Court Legal Challenge The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing appeals regarding the 2020 federal ban on over 1,500 assault-style firearm models. Challengers, including self-represented litigants and gun rights groups, argue the government exceeded its legal authority. The case tests whether the Cabinet can bypass Parliament to enact broad public safety restrictions via regulations. ## Regulatory vs. Legislative Power Ottawa utilized an Order in Council to implement the ban, citing public safety concerns following the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting. Critics contend this administrative approach lacks democratic oversight. The government maintains that the Criminal Code grants the Cabinet sufficient discretionary power to prohibit weapons deemed unsuitable for hunting or sport. ## Arguments from Gun Owners Appellants like Christine Generoux argue the ban unfairly targets law-abiding citizens, including farmers and Olympic athletes. They claim the regulations are vague and infringe upon cultural and recreational rights. The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights asserts that most high-profile shootings involve illegal weapons, rendering the current policy an ineffective, standardless administrative whim. ## Government’s Safety Justification The federal government defends the policy by referencing historical tragedies, including the 1989 École Polytechnique shooting. Attorney Zoe Oxaal argued that only 3% to 5% of gun owners are affected. Ottawa maintains that the potential for enormous harm justifies removing military-grade weapons from circulation, regardless of their historical use in sports. ## Judicial Perspectives and Questions During hearings, Supreme Court justices questioned the balance between public safety and individual interests. Justice Glenn D. Joyal acknowledged that many weapons are used safely but noted their potential for misuse. Justice Mahmud Jamal suggested that while specific models might be contested individually, the entire regulatory framework may not be inherently defective. ## Buyback Program and Compensation As of mid-2026, the federal government has collected approximately 74,000 to 75,000 prohibited firearms. Businesses have received $96 million in compensation, averaging $1,300 per weapon. An amnesty period remains in effect for owners until 90 days after the Supreme Court issues its final judgment on the legality of the federal ban. ## Provincial and Group Opposition The legal challenge is supported by the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, which oppose the federal government's reach. These provinces join various firearms associations in arguing that the ban disrupts the lives of ordinary Canadians. Conversely, the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control stands as the primary intervener supporting the federal government. ## Future Implications of Ruling A ruling in favor of the government would solidify the Cabinet's authority to regulate firearms through executive orders. If the court finds the regulations overstepped, it could force a legislative overhaul of Canadian gun laws. The decision will define the limits of federal power in balancing public safety against individual property rights. ## Sources covering this story - [The Globe and Mail – Canada — Gun Owners Challenge Ottawa’s Firearms Ban at Supreme Court](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-gun-users-battle-ottawas-firearms-ban-at-supreme-court/) - [Courthouse News — Canadian Supreme Court Reviews Federal Assault Rifle Ban](https://www.courthousenews.com/gun-owners-fight-assault-rifle-ban-at-supreme-court-of-canada/) --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._