Ottawa Extends Gun Amnesty Amid Supreme Court Legal Battle Over Firearm Bans
Coveragetap to expand ▾Spectrum: Center Only🌍Other: 4 · US: 1
- The government previously said prohibited firearms must be disposed of or deactivated by the end of an amnesty period on Oct.
- In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal challenging the initial federal firearm prohibitions, announced in May 2020.
- The government now says the amnesty has been extended until 90 days after the Supreme Court delivers its decision, which is expected next year.
- Ottawa says the new amnesty expiry date does not affect a federal compensation program for owners of banned guns, which is expected to wrap up by October.
- More than 142,000 firearms have been declared, collected or destroyed under the program for individuals and businesses, Public Safety Canada said in a media statement Tuesday.
The Canadian government has announced an extension of the amnesty period for owners of banned firearms, allowing them to retain these weapons while a legal challenge unfolds in the Supreme Court of Canada.
This decision follows the Supreme Court's agreement to hear an appeal regarding the federal government's prohibitions on approximately 2,500 types of firearms, including popular models like the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14, which were outlawed on the grounds that they belong only on the battlefield.
The government previously set a deadline for firearm owners to dispose of or deactivate their weapons, but this new extension will last until 90 days after the Supreme Court issues its ruling, expected next year. Critics of the extension express concern that it prolongs the presence of highly lethal weapons in civilian hands, potentially compromising public safety.
Gun control advocates argue that the government's actions are necessary to protect communities, while firearm owners contend that the prohibitions infringe upon their rights. The legal battle is emblematic of the broader national debate over gun control in Canada, highlighting the tensions between differing perspectives on public safety and individual rights.

