SoapBoxGuns

To be clear... the GiC is only of the "opinion" that they are disproportionate for civilian use. It was never established as a fact. That's most of the legal and political debate right now. This highlights just one of the many flaws of Chief Justice Montigny's ruling from the FCA. it is one of circular reasoning. Just immediately above your quote, in the same paragraph, Montigny said this when talking about the reasonability of banning our hunting and sporting firearms: "I fail to see how it can be unreasonable to consider the extensive harm that can be caused by prohibited firearms." [When forming the opinion to ban our firearms] So in the Chief Justice's mind, the reason it is appropriate to ban our firearms is because they're dangerous. How do we know they're dangerous? well it's because they're banned, and banned firearms are dangerous - it's why they're banned. That is hardly the only idiosyncrasy in the ruling.

Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear challenge of a @liberal_party gvt ban on firearms models & variants it considers fit for the battlefield, not for hunting and sport shooting. The April 2025 unanimous three-judge panel of Court of Appeal concluded: "Surely, the inherent danger that some firearms pose to public safety because of their lethality and their ability to injure or kill a large number of people in a short period of time, the fact that they have been used in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, the fact that they are disproportionate for civilian use, and the increasing demand for measures to address gun violence are all valid considerations in determining whether their use is reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes”. ctvnews.ca/politics/artic…

I spoke to a few people today at the TSS who were scared into declaring their guns to the ASFCP. This breaks my heart because they regret it - we are headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. If we are successful the OIC can be overturned, but if your guns are already gone - it’s over for you. Below is important information for those with regret: There is no public, automated feature to "withdraw" a declaration once it has been submitted to the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP). Because participation in the program is voluntary, submitting a declaration does not legally obligate you to complete the buyback process (i.e., you are not forced to surrender your firearm just because you declared it). When you are contacted for confiscation, tell them you’re no longer interested in participating, period. Hold the line 🇨🇦👊🏻#SeeYouInCourt

If the Supreme Court believed that, they could have simply refused to hear our case, they could have just upheld the decision of the lower court. But they didn’t … 😉🇨🇦 LFG!!! #HoldTheLine

Just your reminder that if you declare your firearms with the ASFCP, you do not have the opportunity to wait out the decision of the Supreme Court in CCFR v Canada ... confiscations of declared firearms will begin in April and continue through October. Those of us who will "hold the line" will keep ours pending a positive outcome. Lots of things can change between now and then, and we're protected by the amnesty. We will have the opportunity to apply for an injunction to extend that amnesty while we await the SCC decision. Don't let their fear-spam emails scare you. Hold the line!!!! #TeamCCFR

It depends on how the SCC sides with gun owners. But in all likelihood, not much. Although it'll certainly be embarrassing for the Liberals if they have to explain to everyone why they have to re-ban firearms the SCC prevented them from banning the first time. The LPC well of political capital is not infinite

@SoapBoxGuns Watched the video. Great work. Had a scary thought what happens if the Supreme Court sides with gun owners. What is stopping the Liberal government that will have a majority from ramming through gun bans again.

New video up. Finally got my SCC video done. I was pretty sick yesterday so I couldn't record, sorry if this is a bit late for some people. But it covers all I/we currently know, which is not much, about what is to come at the SCC as well as some of my own speculations. The @CCFR_CCDAF heading to the Supreme Court is undoubtedly a huge win for gun owners, but it's also not exactly going to be smooth sailing here either. CCFR heads to the Supreme Court to challenge the Gun Confiscation. CCFR ... youtu.be/1PL4vYDxTyM?si… via @YouTube

@Wides71 @TWilsonOttawa Yeah, but like, it's not even THAT much money... They sellin' their soul for a fiddle o' slightly shiny wood?

@SoapBoxGuns @TWilsonOttawa Money. It’s always money. Except when it’s not money, because then it was just money instead of money. Always ALWAYS money.

Waterloo is in, will be helping the Liberals with the gun grab against licensed owners of firearms … let’s plan a rally

Nawh man they got real lawyers helping them out. I just have ideas. I know the CCFR watches most of my videos. If I say anything worth saying they will know about it and can ask their lawyers about it.

@SoapBoxGuns @TWilsonOttawa Soap box you need to help the CCFR on their appeal!

@HerrSkeletal @junonewscom That'd be neat, but no. I watched the FCA remotely. Their lawyers (mostly) know what's up. Nobody in that courtroom is going to be confused by C-21.

@SoapBoxGuns @junonewscom I hope trhe governments lawyers try to defend C21 while CCFR is attacking the OIC. should be entertaining.

Gary has a LOOONG track record of being completely clueless regarding firearms and firearms law in Canada. Does he really not know the difference between C-21 and the OIC gun bans? Yikes. @junonewscom too. This isn't about C-21 guys.

Yes, that's basically the gist of it. I have done a whole series about it on Youtube if you want to become informed on what has happened so far in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal rulings, but essentially a bunch of parties got together, including the CCFR and the NFA and then said these OIC's are BS and you shouldn't be able to do it. After several years they had their day in court at the Federal court, then when they lost 4 of these 6 parties continued onto the Federal Court of Appeal, and when they lost there they considered not even bothering with the SCC since it's so hard to get in, but eventually they decided to try and here we are. Those same 4 parties are now on their way to the Supreme Court whenever a hearing date is decided. So yes, a win at the Supreme Court could, in theory, overturn the OIC gun bans and ensure they can't be done again - at least not via OIC. If they win on some of the constitutional challenges, it could be a bigger win than even that. However the Supreme Court could issue less absolute rulings or simply mandate certain definitions to be adopted and so on. They have a lot of discretion to do all sorts of things. And of course we could also lose and that would be no good either. (NFA backed the Parker Applicants and dropped out after the Federal Court ruling along with the Hipwell applicants.)

@SoapBoxGuns @TWilsonOttawa My apologies but I'm unfamiliar with this. What are they hoping the SCC will do? Get rid of the gun grab?

In some ways I'm not surprised... But holy crap is this a surprising turn of events. Unfortunately these application decisions are often lacking in specificity. We don't know exactly why the SCC thinks our case should be heard or what the specifics of the decision were based on. But still. This was the biggest hurdle to get over to get a victory at the SCC. To put this into perspective about how big of a deal this is, there were 24 decisions put out today by the SCC for which cases are to be heard... The CCFR's case was the ONLY ONE the SCC wanted to hear (granted). The other 23 were turned away (dismissed). This is huge. The CCFR's case will be heard alongside 3 sister dockets by the Eichenberg, Generoux, and Doherty applicants, they all applied at the same time and all were granted leave for the SCC. These were the same parties present at the FCA and account for 4 of the 6 total dockets made at the intitial FC process with Injustice Kane.

@navpreetsinghCA I mean... no? Even for the Liberal government that'd be a stretch. But the government is also redacting everything related to the program more or less as a standard practice, so if the public can never find out about it, what's to stop them? But no. They couldn't do that.

@TWilsonOttawa @SoapBoxGuns @IanRunkle @CivilAdvantage1 Just saw Canadian Army tweet about replacing 65k firearms I just have a hunch, can the govt just add the 65k to the asfcp to boost the number and call it a success? Any opinions on this....

@JoshuaBurton You take off the suit ONE time...

Patriot, Patriot, Patriot, Vampire...

@JoshuaBurton @Safety_Canada It's "less than" pathetic

@Safety_Canada Your totals add up to 46,995, less the "Less than 10" in Nunavut. So let's give them 6. 47,001 Just drop the act and give the real number, it's less pathetic.

After two months of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program for individuals, more than 47,000 prohibited firearms have been declared across Canada. Deadline to submit your declaration is March 31. See the provincial and territorial breakdown here: canada.ca/en/public-safe…

@Wides71 @SwedgenC Maybe. But the issues being raised by the CCFR aren't exactly firearms related. If the SCC rules against us here, that'll cause ripple effects which will have impacts on far more than just guns or gun owners.

@SoapBoxGuns @SwedgenC They are getting the guns. Hell or high water, the can’t have an armed populace

Could be. The courts are supposed to be independent from this kind of interference, but if Carney could get an easy, and responsibility free (he loves that), out from this confiscation debacle that might be helpful to him. Course he might just double down and enact these gun bans legislatively with his incoming stolen majority.

@SoapBoxGuns I'm thinking Carney told them to hear the case and rule against the gun theft program. Then he gets out of this absolute dog of a program and can blame it all on the "old" government.

Maybe, but the questions being asked aren't really firearms related for the most part. For example, If they set the precedent that OIC's can be used to criminalize gun owners en masse, they can then also be used to criminalize anyone else en masse. Even if the SCC doesn't like firearms or gun owners or whatever else, that precedent is a problem for everyone, not just gun owners. Most of the issues being raised fall into that category of question, which is also why the SCC was inclined to hear it. These issues are way bigger than just how they apply to gun owners.

@SoapBoxGuns Agreed on both points. My gut reaction is that they’re going to use this to set precedent. I just don’t think the SCC will want the government to have to redo the 2020 bans through legislation.

They could. That might even be why they want to hear it. It could also go the other way. The SCC could get the govt to fck off permanently if we win on the right issues. The ruling could fall anywhere in between those 2 extremes. We won't know what it'll be until they make it.

@SoapBoxGuns Can’t they just hear this case to crush it and set precedent?