Themis, Goddess of Justice, a bronze statue by Jack K. Harman holding scales under the glass roof of the Vancouver Law Courts

Nov 14, 2026

Information & Education

What happened at the Supreme Court firearms ban hearing, in plain English

By Travis Bader, founder of Silvercore Outdoors.

Last updated: 14 November 2026

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the four appeals against the May 2020 firearms ban on 9 and 10 November 2026. The nine judges did not rule. They reserved judgment, which means they will release a written decision on a later date. Nothing changes for owners today. The amnesty stays in force. It ends on the 90th day after the Court decides the last of the four appeals, unless the government changes the amnesty orders.

Key facts

Case: Supreme Court of Canada files 41858, 41859, 41860 and 41861, heard together.
Heard: 9 and 10 November 2026, by all nine judges.
Result so far: judgment reserved. No decision date is set.
What is challenged: SOR/2020-96, the May 2020 regulation that prohibited about 1,500 makes and models of firearms, counting named variants.
Amnesty: ends on the 90th day after the last of the four appeals ends by judgment, dismissal or discontinuance. It covers the 2020, 2024 and 2025 prohibitions.

This post is built from the Court's webcast of both days, about four and a half hours of argument. It explains what the people challenging the ban asked the Court to do, what the government answered, what the judges wanted to know, and what each possible ruling means for you. You do not need to be a lawyer to follow it. A case this size affects a lot of people, and the process should be something they can understand. If you want the background on the parties and the lower court decisions first, read our explainer on the appeals.

For the record on where I stand: I gave expert evidence by affidavit and expert report in Parker v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1419, the Federal Court proceeding these appeals grew out of, and was cross-examined on it. The Doherty appellants rely on that report in their Supreme Court factum, and the CCFR factum cites my affidavit. I gave that evidence as an expert, and an expert’s duty is to the court. For that reason this post reports what was said in the courtroom and makes no prediction about the result.

Six terms you need, in plain English

Governor in Council. The federal cabinet, acting formally. When this post says cabinet, that is who it means.
Regulation. A rule made by cabinet under a power Parliament gave it. Cabinet makes a regulation without a vote in the House of Commons.
Section 117.15 of the Criminal Code. The section that gives cabinet the power to name firearms as prohibited. Subsection (2) limits that power: cabinet may not prohibit a firearm that, in cabinet's opinion, is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
Ultra vires. Latin for "beyond the powers". A regulation is ultra vires when cabinet made a rule Parliament never gave it the power to make. A court can declare the rule invalid.
Variant. The 2020 regulation prohibits nine families of firearms "and any variants or modified versions of them". The word variant is not defined in the regulation, the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act. The regulation also prohibits firearms over set bore and muzzle-energy limits.
Firearms Reference Table (FRT). The RCMP's database of firearm models. It is where a model gets labelled a variant of a prohibited family in practice. Canada's position is that it binds neither courts nor prosecutors.

What the challengers were trying to achieve

Four groups of owners, clubs, businesses and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights brought the appeals. Each group had about 22 minutes. Between them they asked the Court to do one of two things: strike down the 2020 regulation entirely, or cut it back to the firearms it names. They made four arguments.

1. Cabinet went past the limit Parliament set. Think of section 117.15 as a power with a fence around it. Parliament gave cabinet the power to prohibit firearms, then fenced off any firearm that is reasonable for hunting or sport. The challengers say many of the 1,500 models were used lawfully for hunting and sport for years, and some for decades, so cabinet prohibited firearms that sit inside the fence. They pointed to what Justice Minister Allan Rock told a Commons committee in 1995 while the bill was before Parliament: that the section was aimed at military-type assault weapons and had nothing to do with hunting rifles and shotguns. Canada answered that Rock was drawing a line between military-style firearms and ordinary hunting rifles, and that cabinet drew the same kind of line in 2020. The challengers also went after the factual claim underneath the ban. The government's published explanation says these firearms were built with the intent to be used by the military. Counsel for the CCFR told the Court that statement is not supported by the evidence in the record.

The challengers described the role of public safety differently. Asked by the bench, counsel for the CCFR said public safety "would be a factor that would be considered". Counsel for the Doherty group said public safety is engaged at subsection (1), the power to prohibit, and that subsection (2) is a carve-out from it.

2. "Variant" is too vague to send someone to prison. Possessing a prohibited firearm is a crime. The Charter requires a criminal law to tell people where the line is. The Doherty group told the Court that Canada's witness, Murray Smith, a former manager of the RCMP's firearms support service, testified there is no written definition of variant and no written procedure for deciding what is one, and that an RCMP technician's memo described the exercise as "essentially a lottery".

Canada answered that the memo's author was not a witness in the case, and that the trial judge accepted Mr. Smith's evidence that variant is a known and used term in the firearms community.

3. The RCMP is deciding what the criminal law covers. The Eichenberg group argued that the Criminal Code requires prohibited firearms to be prescribed by cabinet, in the regulation. A firearm that is unnamed, or that did not exist in 2020, was never considered by cabinet. Cabinet cannot hold an opinion about a firearm that does not exist. In practice the FRT makes the call, and Parliament gave the RCMP no power to do that.

4. The Court was not shown what cabinet actually considered. The government filed a certificate under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, which keeps cabinet documents from the court. The Eichenberg group asked the Court to draw an adverse inference, meaning to assume the withheld material would not have helped the government. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) made a related point: when cabinet keeps its material confidential, a court should not fill the gap by assuming cabinet considered the right things.

What the government answered

The Attorney General of Canada asked the Court to dismiss all four appeals. Its lawyers made five points.

The purpose is preventing mass shootings. Canada's lawyer opened by naming Portapique, École Polytechnique, Dawson College, the Quebec City mosque, Mayerthorpe and Moncton.
Subsection (2) is a real limit, and cabinet respected it. Canada agreed the subsection restricts cabinet. Its position is that the word "reasonable" lets cabinet weigh hunting and sport use against the risk to the public, and that cabinet did that weighing.
Most firearms are untouched. Canada said 3 to 5% of firearms owners own an affected firearm and more than 19,000 non-restricted makes and models remain available, figures that also appear in its written argument. In reply, counsel for the CCFR said the CCFR does not believe that figure includes firearms that were non-restricted before the ban.
Variants have to be covered or the ban fails. Canada said the RCMP identified 384 newly made variants after May 2020 that were not on the list. Canada said that without the undefined word variant, those 384 would have become available in the Canadian market.
The FRT binds no one. Canada said the regulation is what prohibits a variant. The FRT is a reference tool, and in a prosecution the Crown has to prove to a judge that the firearm is a variant.

On whether owners had fair notice of what is prohibited, Canada's lawyer said firearm ownership is highly regulated and licensed owners are trained to know what they own. Her words: "Possession and use of firearms in Canada is not a right. It is a privilege."

How a Supreme Court appeal is actually decided

Watching the webcast, it is easy to think the case turns on who performed best at the podium. Most of the work is in writing.

The written argument comes first. Every party files a factum, which is its full argument on paper, months before the hearing. The judges also have the record from the courts below, including the affidavits and cross-examinations.
The judges arrive prepared. Each judge has up to three law clerks, who research the law and prepare memoranda for the judge.
The hearing is for the judges' questions. Counsel get a short time to speak, and the judges interrupt to test the weak points of each side. A lawyer who is pulled off a planned argument by a question is seeing the system work as designed.
Time is short. The Court's rules give all the appellants in an appeal one hour in total by default, and the respondent one hour. In this case the four challenger groups shared about 90 minutes, about 22 minutes each.

So the questions below matter, and they are one part of what the Court decides on.

What the judges asked

Judges at the Supreme Court interrupt with questions throughout. A question shows what a judge wants answered. A hard question does not tell you how that judge will vote. Here is what they pressed on.

To the challengers: where does public safety stop? Several judges asked versions of the same question. If cabinet may consider public safety at all, what marks the point where it has gone too far? Justice Jamal said the word "reasonable" and the words "in the opinion of the Governor in Council" give cabinet "a pretty wide berth". Justice Karakatsanis said reasonable use has to mean "something more than just historical use". Justice Jamal also said that if cabinet banned every firearm in Canada, the challengers might have a point.

To the challengers: is this an argument about evidence? On vagueness, Justice Kasirer pointed out that the Federal Court judge heard the expert evidence on what a variant is and preferred the RCMP witness. The Federal Court of Appeal had held that the judge was entitled to do that. Justice Jamal said a law is not vague just because experts disagree about how it applies.

To both sides: the words have to mean something. Justice Rowe told Canada's lawyer that subsection (2) is "qualified" and "limited", and that reading it as a general power to protect the public abandons the text. Canada's lawyer replied that she agreed: the subsection is a constraint. Earlier in Canada's argument he had said a list made up of side-by-side shotguns or semi-automatic .22s would be a problem, and that the government's published explanation identifies the listed firearms by their lineage and design. Canada answered that the firearms farmers and hunters commonly use are not what this regulation covers. Earlier, Justice Rowe had pressed the challengers on the same point, comparing the AR-15 to the M16 and the VZ 58 to the AK-47. On day two he told the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control that treating public safety as the only consideration makes the words "hunting or sporting purposes" disappear. The Coalition's lawyer answered that it accepts subsection (2) is a binding limit and that public safety is the purpose that guides it. Counsel for the Doherty group told the Court in reply that some of the prohibited firearms are .22s. The regulation's AR-15 list names several .22 rimfire models, including the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and the Tippmann Arms M4-22.

To the government: people face charges because of the FRT. Justice Moreau put it to Canada that Crown prosecutors rely heavily on the FRT, so a person ends up in criminal jeopardy because of what the RCMP put in it. Canada answered that the FRT "is not proof in any courtroom". In reply, counsel for the Eichenberg group read from R. v. Bako, 2016 SKPC 83, a Saskatchewan Provincial Court decision cited in the Eichenberg factum, in which the judge found that an FRT report, filed as an exhibit with the defence's consent, proved the firearm was prohibited. Canada's written argument says that case does not make the FRT binding and that the Crown always carries the burden of proof.

To the government: what about sport shooters? Justice Karakatsanis asked Canada about alternatives for recognized Olympic events. Canada pointed to evidence in the record that the Olympics do not require the prohibited firearms, and said there may be some other competitions that shooters cannot enter because of the regulation. Counsel for the Eichenberg group had told the Court his clients include competitive shooters who now borrow firearms overseas to compete.

What the provinces and other groups told the Court

An intervener is an outside party the Court allows in because it brings a perspective the main parties do not. Eleven filed written arguments. Ten spoke on the second day: the three provinces had ten minutes each and the others had five.

Attorney General of Alberta. The government's published explanation for the regulation never says which firearms cabinet considers reasonable for hunting or sport. Without that, a court cannot check whether cabinet stayed inside the fence. Alberta's lawyer called that a "trust me" exercise.
Attorney General for Saskatchewan. The law requires cabinet to balance public safety against the interests of hunters and sport shooters. Saskatchewan accepted that public safety is the primary consideration and said those interests were not fairly taken into account in the published explanation. It took no position on the bore and muzzle-energy parts of the regulation. The Canadian Bill of Rights also requires a law that takes property to deal with compensation.
Attorney General of Ontario. Cabinet should be allowed to use imprecise words to define a crime only when Parliament expressly permits it. "Variant" and "modified version" are imprecise, and Parliament gave no such permission.
Canadian Constitution Foundation. Offered a three-part test for when a document like the Firearms Reference Table is really a law: it sets a legal position, legal consequences follow from it, and people are able to find out about it. It took no position on whether the FRT meets that test.
Canadian Shooting Sports Association. The regulation works against public safety. The government's explanation says it does not know how many formerly non-restricted firearms are affected, because they were never registered, and that compliance depends on owners coming forward. That leaves no way to trace those firearms or confirm they were turned in.
International Practical Shooting Confederation Canada (IPSC Canada). "Sporting purposes" is a real limit on cabinet, and firearms used in an established international sport were prohibited as unreasonable for sport. The European Union restricts similar firearms and still allows an exception for qualified target shooters.
Ontario Rifle Association. Long-established target disciplines, including service rifle and F-Class, are sporting purposes. A rifle action used in F-Class competition is named in the regulation. Deference to cabinet should not mean ignoring those facts.
Canadian Coalition for Gun Control. Public safety is the purpose that guides section 117.15. Subsection (2) is a binding limit, and it contains no separate goal of preserving hunting and sporting firearms. Parliament left the judgment to cabinet.
BCCLA. When Parliament hands cabinet the power to write criminal law, courts should read that power narrowly. When cabinet keeps its material confidential, a court should not assume the gaps in its favour. The Court can set those limits whichever way it decides these appeals.
Canada's National Firearms Association. Parliament decides what conduct is criminal, and cabinet's job is to carry that decision out. The Court should give "reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes" a narrow meaning it can enforce: suitable for hunting or sport. Too much deference leaves cabinet's power with no real check.
Safari Club International. Did not speak. It relied on its written argument that the regulation catches ordinary hunting rifles.

The legal tests argued at the hearing

Counsel on both sides relied on the Court's past decisions. These are the main ones, with who relied on each. The decision will show which tests the Court applies.

All public power has legal limits. Eugene Meehan, for the Eichenberg appellants, read from the Court's July 2026 decision in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28: under the rule of law, all public powers must be legal, and all legal powers have limits.
A regulation is reviewed for reasonableness, and it is presumed valid. In Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36, the Court held that a regulation must fit the text, context and purpose of the statute it is made under. The Court also held that a regulation is presumed valid, that the challenger must show otherwise, and that a court does not judge whether a regulation is wise or effective. Canada, Saskatchewan, IPSC Canada and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control all cited Auer. So did counsel for the Doherty appellants, for the point that a general purpose cannot override a specific restriction.
A decision must be justified, and the reviewing court does not redo it. In Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the Court said a decision must be justified, transparent and intelligible and must respect the legal limits on the decision-maker. It also said a reviewing court does not decide the matter afresh. Saskatchewan, IPSC Canada, the Ontario Rifle Association and Canada's National Firearms Association relied on the first point. Canada's written argument relied on the second.
Cabinet's opinion. Section 117.15(2) turns on "the opinion of the Governor in Council". Canada argued that this wording gives cabinet a wide margin. The BCCLA answered that the word "opinion" must be given limits, and Canada's National Firearms Association said too much deference would leave no real check.
Public safety is the purpose of the firearms scheme. The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control relied on Reference re Firearms Act, 2000 SCC 31, where the Court tied discretion under the firearms scheme to its public safety purpose.
A criminal law has to give fair notice. In R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (1992) and R. v. Levkovic, 2013 SCC 25, the Court held that a law is unconstitutionally vague when it does not give sufficient guidance for legal debate. The bar is high, and perfect precision is not required. Counsel for the Doherty appellants relied on both cases. Canada relied on both cases as well and noted that "variant" has appeared in Canada's prohibition regulations since 1992.

What each side pointed to in other laws

Lawyers on both sides compared section 117.15 with other laws. These were arguments. The Court has not ruled on any of them.

Pointed to by those challenging the regulation

Ontario asked the Court to recognize a new rule: cabinet may use imprecise words in a criminal prohibition only if Parliament expressly allows it. Ontario drew an analogy to section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, under which a tax can be imposed only by the legislature or under its clear and express authority. It also pointed to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, where Parliament defined "analogue" in the Act and used the term in the Act's own schedules, which cabinet may then amend.
IPSC Canada pointed to article 9(6) of the European Union's firearms directive. It lets member states, if they choose, authorize qualified target shooters to own certain semi-automatic firearms the directive places in its most restricted category, on conditions that include club membership and active competition.
Canada's National Firearms Association said section 117.15(2) has no language like the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which tells parole authorities how to weigh public safety against rehabilitation. That Act makes the protection of society the paramount consideration.

Pointed to by those defending the regulation

Canada pointed to the wording that section 117.15(2) replaced. Before 1995, cabinet could not prohibit a firearm "commonly used" in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes. Parliament changed the test to "reasonable", in cabinet's opinion. Canada said that change was deliberate and widened cabinet's discretion.
Canada also pointed to two earlier decisions, Henderson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 696, and R. v. Christensen, 2012 BCPC 210, in which courts decided whether an unnamed firearm was a variant, and said that is the ordinary work of a court.
The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control said that when Parliament wants cabinet to pursue a specific policy goal in making regulations, it says so expressly, and that section 117.15 contains no instruction to preserve hunting and sporting firearms.

What each possible ruling means for you

The Court has three broad paths. Whichever path the Court takes, the amnesty orders end the amnesty on the 90th day after the last of the appeals ends.

If the Court dismisses the appeals. The prohibition stands as written, including unnamed and future variants. The amnesty ends on the 90th day after the last of the four appeals ends. Public Safety Canada lists three options for owners outside the compensation program: export the firearm under an export permit, deliver it to police, or have it deactivated, all without compensation.
If the Court cuts the regulation back to named firearms. Firearms the regulation names stay prohibited. Firearms caught only as unnamed variants come out. Whether your firearm is in or out depends on whether the regulation names it. Canada asked that any order be suspended for 12 months, and the Court decides whether to grant that. Canada's position is that cutting the regulation back would not automatically restore a firearm's earlier classification.
If the Court strikes the regulation down. The 2020 prohibition falls. Canada asked for a 12-month suspension here as well. Canada's position is that striking the regulation would not automatically restore each firearm's earlier classification, so some formerly restricted firearms would become non-restricted unless the government acts.

Three things hold in every scenario.

The December 2024 and March 2025 prohibitions are not before the Court. Those regulations remain in force, and their amnesty ends on the same 90th day after the last of the four appeals ends.
This case is about what cabinet can do by regulation. Saskatchewan's lawyer told the Court the issue is not whether Parliament can ban firearms, and counsel for the Doherty group said a ban on firearms that are reasonable for hunting and sport has to be made by direct legislation.
The compensation program closed to new declarations from individuals on 31 March 2026.

Why this case matters beyond firearms

Underneath the firearms question is a wider one: how much room cabinet has when Parliament lets it define a crime by regulation. The Court was asked whether a regulation can define a crime with an undefined word, what legal weight a police reference table carries, and how a court reviews a cabinet decision when the material cabinet considered is confidential. That is why three provincial governments, a civil liberties association, a constitutional foundation and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control asked to be heard alongside the firearms organizations. What the Court says on those questions will guide courts reviewing other regulations that create criminal offences.

The reasons will matter as much as the result. The BCCLA told the Court it can set limits on how cabinet uses this kind of power whichever way it decides the appeals. When the decision comes, read the reasons for where the Court says the hunting and sport limit sits.

When the decision comes

The Court sets its own date and gives short notice. In 2025 it took an average of 5.1 months from hearing to judgment. Public Safety Canada said in June 2026 that it expected the decision in 2027. Do not plan around a specific month.

What to do between now and the decision

Keep your PAL valid. The amnesty protects you only while you continue to hold your licence.
Do not sell, transfer or use an affected firearm, except as the amnesty order that covers your firearm allows. The orders permit limited use of formerly non-restricted firearms for Indigenous hunters exercising section 35 rights and for sustenance hunting.
Check your exact make and model against the official list. Do not rely on summaries, including this one.
Decide now what you will do in each of the three outcomes above. Ninety days is short.

Our post on the amnesty extension covers the amnesty rules in detail.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Supreme Court rule on the firearms ban?

No. The Court heard argument on 9 and 10 November 2026 and reserved judgment. It will release a written decision on a date it chooses.

Is the amnesty still in effect?

Yes. The amnesty ends on the 90th day after the last of the four appeals is decided. There is no fixed calendar date.

What does ultra vires mean?

It means beyond the powers. The challengers say cabinet made a regulation that Parliament never gave it the power to make, because section 117.15(2) of the Criminal Code bars cabinet from prohibiting firearms that are reasonable for hunting or sporting use.

If the challengers win, do I get my firearm back in use right away?

Not necessarily. Canada asked the Court to suspend any order for 12 months, and the Court decides whether to do that. The 2024 and 2025 prohibitions are not part of this case.

When will the Supreme Court decide the firearms ban case?

No date is set. In 2025 the Court took an average of 5.1 months from hearing to judgment. In June 2026, Public Safety Canada said it expected the decision in 2027.

Does the hearing change what I can do with my firearm today?

No. The prohibition remains in force. The amnesty orders for the 2020, 2024 and 2025 prohibitions run until the 90th day after the last of the four appeals ends, unless the government changes them. The amnesty's conditions on use and transport still apply.

What is the Firearms Reference Table?

It is the RCMP's database of firearm models and their classifications. The challengers say it decides in practice which unnamed firearms are treated as prohibited variants. Canada says it is a reference tool that binds no one.

What does "variant" mean in the firearms ban?

The regulation prohibits nine families of firearms and "any variants or modified versions of them". The word is not defined in the regulation, the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act. Canada says the meaning comes from the named family, the listed variants and the term's use in the firearms community. Whether that is precise enough for a criminal law is one of the questions before the Court.

Can I watch the hearing?

Yes. The Supreme Court archives its webcasts. Both days are on the case page for file 41859 under Webcasts.

The Silvercore Path

The end of these appeals starts the amnesty clock. Silvercore Club members get regulatory updates by email. Membership is $59 a year, and anyone can join, with or without a PAL. Join the Silvercore Club.