Canada's Prime Minister mandates examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons

Well, once you get an ATT transport for the purpose of target shooting you will get conditions attached to your license. So, you don’t have to fill out a form every time you want to go a range or a gunsmith.

See question 14.


Millions of Canadians do not lawfully use handguns or assault weapons today.

There are about 3 million firearm owners in Canada. Only about 10% of those owners have a handgun, so there’s 300,000-ish who would be affected (assuming the existing handguns weren’t grandfathered).

Assault weapons - well now, that’s a whole messy thing. What is an “assault weapon” even? Most modern militaries would consider it a rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Those are already illegal for civilians in Canada and the USA to own. So if they did implement a further “assault weapon” ban, it would use some other criterion, so it’s hard to guess how many of the 3 million-ish firearm owners would be affected


OK - fair enough - the hundreds of thousands of lawful handgun owners today.

As I understand it - the full autos, as you said, are already illegal. They have a list of “prohibited” firearms which include some rifles colloquially called “assault rifles”. But there are others with identical functionality that are legal. Semi auto rifles are limited to 5rnds, and handguns to 10 (with a few exceptions, usually older guns like the M-1 Garand).

Not astounding. Merely irrelevant in a country with the 2nd Amendment and the recent case law.

1 Like

If you outlaw gun control laws - only outlaws will have gun control laws.


Let me help you parse it:

Canada has three categories of firearms. Things like automatic weapons are “prohibited,” things like handguns are “restricted,” and those categories, and the regulation of same, go way back. Rifles (neither prohibited nor restricted) are less regulated, because we have lots of hunters and ranchers who own rifles.

After the École Polytechnique massacre of 1989, there was a groundswell of support for stricter gun regulation, which caused the (centrist) Liberal government to enact a new firearms regulation act in 1995. The act mandated that all firearms be registered and all owners be regulated, no exceptions. Hunters objected, very loudly, through the mouthpiece of the (right wing conservative, rural based) Reform/Alliance party.

When the new Conservative party (AKA the Reform party after it assimilated the centre-right Progressive Conservative party, thus “uniting the right”) finally won an election, one of the first things they did was scrap the part of the 1995 firearms act that had to do with registering owners of rifles, called the “long gun registry.” They did not scrap the registration of all other firearms (the “handgun registry”), because not even the hunters who resented having to register their guns thought that was a good idea.

TL,DR: what this statement from the Liberal party means is that they are promising to not ban rifles or the ownership of rifles by rural hunters and ranchers.


I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said “The Experts Agree, Gun Control Works” and had photos of Stalin and Mao and Castro, and I thought "you know. . . those guys came to power by using guns, it wasn’t like access to guns kept their countries from becoming dictatorships, quite the opposite.


There are strict firearms and ammunition storage regulations already in place. The problem with the overwhelming percentage of shootings are with mainly handguns smuggled in from the US, and a small percentage stolen from lawful owners. This review is knee-jerk BS to pander to that small part of the Canadian public that doesn’t examine any problem but panics at every news story of a shooting.
I live in BC and we have a lot of drug gang shootings. These guys aren’t buying these in a gun shop or by any other lawful means. The vast majority of these guns come right across the border at the Peace Arch and Pacific Highway Border Crossings.
I don’t own firearms but am an experienced shooter with both rifles and handguns. I have friends in various parts of the country that legally own, safely store and use a variety of firearms. I oppose this legislation (admittedly without reading it in depth) on the basis that it won’t make us safer and takes funding away from CBSA and various law enforcement agencies, funding that can provide for more rigorous vehicle and cargo inspections and active investigation/prosecution of gang members and others that unlawfully carry handguns.


Perhaps, but given the two countries’ many similarities astounding in a nation that’s currently living in the Darkest Timeline.

Consider: this examination of a full ban was apparently prompted by an unusual amount of shootings in Canadian cities over the summer. In the U.S. all that prompts is calls for teachers and students and store clerks to be armed with more pistols.


I was aware of all of those things, other than the analysis at the end with the bill and wording to hopefully not raise the ire of “hunters and ranchers”. I still call BS as both “hunters and ranchers” and “others” legally use both types of firearms they want to ban (thus impeding their use).

I’ve also read about the rifle registration being unpopular because, like in the US, rifles are very rarely used in crime, especially vs the numbers out there. The cost of maintaining the registry wasn’t yielding results in solving or reducing crime.

But thanks much for the context and added info. It’s always good to post things like this to give everyone an understanding of the situation.


Not really. There’s a lot of illegal importation of firearms from the US to supply our criminal element. This ban, if it ever gets past the “do a study” phase, would probably go hand in hand with tightening the border to cut down the supply of illegal guns coming in.


Canadian gun owner here, so I feel somewhat qualified to comment on this.

There are 2 generally available types of guns in Canada - non-restricted and restricted. Both require licensing, a process which involves a written and a practical test. After passing the test, you need to fill out an application form that asks about mental issues, relationship information (including former relationships), criminal and financial problems, and references. If you’re not squeaky clean you’ll get extra attention before being granted a license. If you apply for a restricted license (RPAL), you get more attention as well. The system has its flaws, but works relatively well.

There is a problem with legal firearms being stolen and brought into the criminal ecosystem. Many people, particularly those who have had licenses predating the current system, are lax when it comes to securing their firearms, which doesn’t help one bit.

Personally I don’t think this proposal will help with the problem, as it’s attempting to address the symptoms rather than the real issue, which is criminal gangs. I live in one of Canada’s perennial ‘most violent cities’, and most of the serious crime is gang related. Many of the guns used in these crimes here are cut-down rifles, which a hand gun ban won’t solve.

I would much rather see the effort put into reducing the poverty and racism that feeds the gang and drug activity that’s actually driving the spike in violent crime.


Justin Trudeau, Canada’s Prime Minister for US President.


Why not (fund) both?

Why not (do) both?

Quit it with the false dichotomy arguments. Governments can do more than one thing at once.


Unfortunately, our beloved prime minister is pretty useless at implementing the things he promises to do. Except legalizing pot.


It’s slow progress, but at least you have PROGRESS.


My post was not meant as posing a dichotomy, but I can see how that could be taken that way. Rather, it should be two independent statements

  1. I’d rather the government not take away a perfectly valid hobby for thousands of people for something that I don’t think will make a large difference in violent crime statistics.

  2. I would like the government to do more to combat poverty, racism, and other conditions that breed gang related criminal activity.


Shit, you legalize pot and expect people to get things done?

They only thing getting done is sparking up this huge bowl, bro!

You’re a law abiding gun owner up until the moment you pull the trigger and hit a neighbour. Or peace officer. Or four. Or sixteen. Or sixteen women.

Handguns serve no legitimate hunting purpose in Canada, and are not a self-defense weapon. Canadians have a Duty to Withdraw and to date, less than 20 concealed carry permits have been issued (only Six are current). This suggests that under Canadian and common law, these are considered weapons of sport.

Sport is fun. So is meth. Given that handguns are easy to obtain* and even easier to conceal, they have a habit pf finding their way into the hands of too damn many hotheads. We banned Meth because it has a negative impact, despite its recreational uses. So too, should we more heavily restrict handguns.

Shotguns and Rifles have legitmate hunting uses. High capacity, rapid reload guns are restricted in Canada: if you can’t kill a deer in five shots, you’re a shitty person who has no business hunting, let alone using a gun.


I should have added that above: Canada shows that a country can legalise pot without it becoming a national-scale performance of Reefer Madness.