Gun owners and firearms advocacy groups challenged the federal government’s firearms ban before the Supreme Court of Canada on Nov. 9, arguing that Ottawa exceeded its legal authority by prohibiting firearms used for hunting and sport shooting.
The appellants are asking the court to overturn lower-court decisions upholding the Liberal government’s May 2020 ban on about 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14. The list of prohibited firearms has since expanded to more than 2,500 varieties of what Ottawa calls assault-style firearms.
In written submissions, firearms owners Christine Generoux, John Perocchio, and Vincent Perocchio argued that the restrictions violated provisions of the Criminal Code intended to protect legitimate hunting and sporting activities.
A central argument concerns Section 117.15(2) of the Criminal Code, which prevents federal cabinet from prohibiting firearms that, in cabinet’s opinion, are reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
The appellants argued Parliament included the restriction to protect firearms legitimately used for those activities and Ottawa improperly interpreted the provision as allowing public safety considerations to override those protections.
They maintained that some prohibited firearms were designed for sporting purposes and had been used lawfully in Canada for decades. They also challenged Ottawa’s characterization of the firearms as military-style weapons, arguing that some semi-automatic rifles lacked the capabilities the government attributed to them.
They further argued that the lower courts gave excessive deference to cabinet’s interpretation of its authority rather than examining whether Ottawa had complied with Parliament’s restrictions.
Firearm Variants
Another dispute concerns the prohibition of firearm variants, including models not specifically identified in the regulations.
The appellants argued that the term “variant” lacks a clear legal definition, leaving owners uncertain about whether their firearms are prohibited and potentially exposing them to criminal prosecution.
They also questioned the RCMP’s Firearms Reference Table, which identifies and classifies firearms, arguing that reliance on administrative assessments raises concerns about regulatory authority and owners’ ability to understand their legal obligations.
A restricted gun licence holder holds a AR-15 at his home in Langley, B.C., on May 1, 2020. The Canadian Press/Jonathan Hayward
Constitutional Arguments
The appellants said the prohibitions violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects life, liberty, and security of the person. They alleged that the regulations were unconstitutionally vague and overly broad because owners could face criminal penalties without clear guidance about which firearms were prohibited.
The Generoux appellants further argued that the restrictions infringed Section 15 of the Charter by discriminating against what they described as Canadian gun culture. They also raised concerns under the Canadian Bill of Rights, alleging the regulations interfered with property rights without adequate due process.
The appellants added that some prohibited firearms had historical, sentimental, and cultural significance and argued that their potential destruction would harm Canada’s firearms heritage.
Government Response
Federal government lawyers disputed the appellants’ interpretation of the Criminal Code, arguing that cabinet acted within its authority in prohibiting firearms Ottawa considered a significant threat to public safety.
The lawyers said the regulations were intended to reduce the likelihood and severity of mass shootings, citing tragedies at École Polytechnique in Montreal, Dawson College, and other locations. They argued that certain firearms were capable of sustained rapid fire and that their design made them particularly dangerous during mass shootings.
“The significant risk that these firearms pose to the public safety outweighs any justification for their continued use and availability,” government lawyers said, quoting the regulatory impact analysis accompanying the 2020 prohibitions.
Government lawyers argued that Section 117.15(2) doesn’t automatically protect firearms from prohibition simply because Canadians have used them for hunting or sport shooting. Instead, they said Parliament authorized cabinet to assess whether firearms were reasonable for those activities while considering public safety risks.
The lawyers pointed to legislative changes in 1995, when Parliament replaced an earlier provision protecting firearms commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes. They argued that the revised wording gave cabinet greater discretion to weigh hunting and sporting uses against public safety concerns.
During questioning, Supreme Court justices pressed government lawyers about the limits of cabinet’s discretion and whether the regulations adequately considered legitimate hunting and sporting interests.
Government lawyers said the prohibitions affected an estimated 3 to 5 percent of Canadian firearms owners, while thousands of other models remained available for hunting and sport shooting. They also argued that the prohibited firearms were not required for Olympic shooting competitions or any particular form of hunting in Canada, although some recreational competitions could be affected.
The lawyers said the government had considered indigenous and sustenance hunting by allowing temporary exemptions during the amnesty period.
On firearm variants, government lawyers argued that the restrictions must include existing and future models to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the prohibitions through minor modifications. They said the RCMP had identified 384 newly designed and manufactured variants since May 2020 that were not specifically listed but were nevertheless prohibited because they belonged to nine firearm families.
The lawyers rejected suggestions that the RCMP’s Firearms Reference Table effectively gave police authority to determine which firearms were prohibited. They maintained that the database provided technical assessments but had no legal force.
On the constitutional questions, government lawyers acknowledged that owners could face criminal penalties for possessing prohibited firearms but argued that the regulations were sufficiently clear.
“Possession and use of firearms in Canada is not a right. It is a privilege,” government lawyers said.
Government lawyers asked the Supreme Court to dismiss all four appeals. If the court invalidated the regulations, they requested a 12-month suspension of the ruling to allow Ottawa to address any regulatory gaps.
Previous Court Decisions
A Federal Court judge dismissed the challenges in October 2023, concluding that cabinet had acted within its delegated authority. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld that decision in April 2025, describing the lower court’s reasons as “thorough and persuasive.”
The Supreme Court is hearing four related appeals involving firearms owners, businesses, and advocacy organizations, including the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. The hearings continue Nov. 10, when provincial governments and others are scheduled to present their arguments.
The Canadian Press contributed to this article.
English (US) · 
Turkish (TR) · 