Notwithstanding the Charter: How a Conservative Government Could Reshape Canada’s Gun Laws
A Step-by-Step Blueprint to a Canadian ‘Right to Bear Arms’
From Unthinkable to Plausible
Could Canada ever embrace a “right to bear arms” similar to the United States? The idea seems far-fetched in a country with no constitutional gun rights and a longstanding culture of strict firearms regulation. Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no explicit right to gun ownership, and courts have repeatedly upheld stringent gun laws as lawful[1][2]. Successive governments have treated firearm ownership as a regulated privilege, not a fundamental right. “These weapons were designed for one purpose... to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared in 2020 while banning assault-style rifles by executive order[3][4].
Yet a grounded hypothetical scenario, one informed by recent political signals and legal mechanisms, suggests a determined federal government could incrementally engineer U.S.-style gun legislation. The strategy would involve procedural sleight-of-hand, calculated legislative steps, and ultimately an extraordinary invocation of the notwithstanding clause to cement a de facto Canadian gun right.
This analysis charts a step-by-step blueprint for how a future government (most likely a Conservative one aligned with gun-rights advocates) might pull it off. Drawing on historical precedents and Canada’s current legal framework, we explore how each phase of this plan could unfold, from rewriting obscure regulations to normalizing formerly banned firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 and AR-15: guns that have become symbolic bulwarks against U.S.-style gun culture.
We also examine the political alliances powering such a shift, including ties between the Conservative Party of Canada and the gun lobby (notably the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, or CCFR), and why the plan’s endgame would hinge on invoking Charter Section 33, the notwithstanding clause.
The goal is to illustrate a plausible (if controversial) path to a Canadian “right to bear arms” – without amending the constitution. Each step is rooted in real precedents or proposals, stitched together into a hypothetical narrative. What emerges is a portrait of a “long game” strategy: gradually changing laws and norms so that by the time courts or opponents react, the new reality has already taken hold culturally and commercially.
Step 1: Clipping Executive Wings – Curbing Orders in Council
The first hurdle is undoing the tools of rapid gun control. In recent years, Canadian governments have relied on Orders in Council (OICs) – cabinet decrees similar to a Executive Order in the United States – to swiftly reclassify or ban firearms without parliamentary debate.
Trudeau’s Liberal government famously used an OIC in May 2020 to ban some 1,500 models of “military-grade” firearms, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14, in the wake of a mass shooting[3][4]. The ban, enacted by regulation rather than legislation, took effect immediately: “Effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country,” Trudeau announced (The consumer carbon tax was most recently reduced to zero by Prime Minister Mark Carney using the same legislative mechanism. -ed.).
A future Conservative government’s first step toward a gun-rights agenda would likely be reining in this very power of OICs. “We’re going to take away the OIC power altogether so that ministers can no longer arbitrarily designate a firearm as illegal,” Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre pledged in early 2024[7].
In practical terms, this means legislating limits on the federal cabinet’s ability to unilaterally change firearm classifications. Such a reform could be wrapped into a larger omnibus bill… a tactical move to ensure it passes with minimal public attention or resistance. For example, an omnibus “Public Safety and Sportsmen’s Rights Act” might bundle the OIC curbs with unrelated but popular measures (say, expanded park funding or veterans’ benefits), diluting controversy.
The core of this reform would be to mandate Parliamentary approval for any firearm reclassification, effectively stripping future cabinets of the quick-ban tool Trudeau used. This procedural change is subtle on its face, presented as a good-governance tweak to “restore democratic oversight”, but it lays critical groundwork.
In short: Step 1 removes the opponent’s Queen from the chessboard. It ensures that any future attempt to crack down on guns must clear the hurdle of Parliament – where, under this hypothetical government, gun rights supporters hold sway.
Step 2: Softening the Laws – Incremental Legislation with a Big Impact
With OICs curbed, the government’s next move is to introduce gun legislation that, on the surface, appears moderate, but in effect starts expanding gun access in significant ways. The key is to start with measures that are less overtly controversial than a full-blown “right to bear arms” declaration.
A prime candidate is the AR-15 rifle – perhaps the single most polarizing firearm in North America. In Canada, the AR-15 was a restricted weapon (allowed only for target shooting at ranges) for decades, and after 2020 it became outright prohibited for civilian use[3][4]. To test the waters, the government could table a bill to reclassify the AR-15 and similar rifles as non-restricted, legal to import, sell, and use for hunting or sport like any regular rifle.
This deregulation would be framed carefully: officials would emphasize that the change is about “access for lawful sport shooters and hunters,” not arming the populace for self-defense. They might point to other rifles of similar power that are already legal, arguing there’s nothing uniquely dangerous about the AR-15 in a Canadian context.
Similarly, the Ruger Mini-14, used in the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, has long been targeted by gun control advocates as a symbol of mass violence. Trudeau explicitly named it when justifying its 2020 ban. Undoing such a ban would carry huge symbolic weight — but with the right narrative (e.g., “fairness for sport shooters”), it could be defused.
Alongside headline-grabbing rifles, the government could ease magazine capacity limits, simplify licensing, and expand authorized handgun use in sport shooting. Each change would be pitched as “common-sense firearms reform”, and most crucially: designed to invite a court challenge.
Legal opposition would likely come through Charter arguments – Section 7 (right to life and security of the person) or Section 15 (equality rights). These challenges would serve a strategic purpose: they trigger Step 3.
Step 3: Invoking Section 33 – The Notwithstanding Clause Gambit
As expected, the new gun law heads to court. A judge may find that reclassifying weapons like the AR-15 violates the Charter. At this point, the government makes its boldest move: it invokes Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the notwithstanding clause.
Section 33 allows Parliament to override certain Charter rights — including Sections 2 and 7–15 — for a renewable five-year term. While originally conceived as a last-resort clause to preserve legislative supremacy, no federal government has ever used it. A Conservative government could break that precedent by shielding its new firearms law from judicial invalidation.
The government’s narrative would be straightforward: “We’re protecting the democratic will of Canadians from judicial activism.” It would stress that there is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada and argue that courts should not invent limits where none exist.
The political risk would be enormous. Civil liberties groups, opposition parties, and many in the legal community would denounce the move. But to a motivated gun-owning constituency — and to a government positioning itself as a populist defender of individual rights — this would be seen as strength, not overreach.
Procedurally, the override would likely name specific sections — such as 7 and 15 — to ensure the law remains immune from those angles of attack. And by invoking the clause midway through litigation, the government can effectively freeze the law in place for at least five years, even if the courts ultimately rule against it.
Cultural and Commercial Entrenchment: Five Years to Normalize a Gun Rights Regime
Once shielded from the courts, the government has a five-year window to let its new gun law take root — culturally, economically, and politically. During that time:
American gun manufacturers could flood the Canadian market with newly re-legalized rifles.
Firearms retailers and gun ranges would build their businesses around these models.
Public relations campaigns, coordinated with groups like the CCFR, would work to normalize gun ownership and reframe it as a symbol of freedom and responsible citizenship.
Pro-gun MPs and Ministers might hold AR-15 photo-ops, rebranding it from “mass shooting weapon” to “Canadian sport rifle.”
This is how policy becomes culture: not through court rulings or Charter text, but through routine and repetition. If enough Canadians get used to AR-15s on ranges, in sports leagues, or even in hunting camps, the backlash to reversing that access weakens.
By year five, the government could renew the notwithstanding clause or leave it to lapse, gambling that the now-“normal” law would be politically untouchable. Even a future government might hesitate to re-ban popular products and seize lawfully owned property.
This approach mirrors how cannabis was legalized in Canada: by first relaxing enforcement and framing access around medical or decriminalization contexts, followed by legislative changes that normalized use before full legalization. Over time, the shift in public perception made the eventual legal regime not just acceptable but expected. Similarly, this gun rights strategy relies on normalization during a period of legal uncertainty, leveraging the time bought by the notwithstanding clause to entrench cultural and commercial expectations.
The Conservative-CCFR Nexus: Powering the Long Game
Behind this hypothetical plan is an existing alliance: the Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR). This isn’t a new pairing — Conservative politicians have courted the CCFR and its supporters for years. In 2014, Peter MacKay was photographed wearing a pro-AR-15 “No Compromise” t-shirt at a party event — a subtle signal to firearm advocates that he was in their corner.
During the 2020 and 2021 CPC leadership contests, nearly all candidates attended CCFR town halls and pledged to repeal recent Liberal gun bans. Under Pierre Poilievre, the party has doubled down on gun-rights messaging, promising to repeal Bill C-21, halt the buyback program, and end so-called “arbitrary classifications” by Order in Council.
The CCFR, in turn, has become a modern political machine — one that blends gun-owner advocacy with slick marketing, social media mobilization, and a populist narrative of grievance. Their slogan — “stand up for gun owners” — fits neatly with Poilievre’s broader themes of individual freedom vs. government control.
Legal and Political Caveats
None of this is risk-free.
The notwithstanding clause cannot override federalism — if a future gun law intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, courts can still strike it down.
A new firearm rights regime might provoke constitutional tension with provinces like Québec, which strongly support gun control.
And there’s the court of public opinion: if a mass shooting occurs involving one of the re-legalized guns, the political fallout could be catastrophic.
Still, the plan’s power lies in its sequence: procedural reform, then policy change, then temporary immunity, all while rebuilding cultural expectations around firearms. If successful, this path wouldn’t just change Canada’s gun laws — it would transform the entire political terrain surrounding them.
Conclusion: A Charter Showdown in the Making?
This scenario may sound far-fetched — but every step is plausible within Canada’s existing legal and political system. It would not require a constitutional amendment. It would not require a referendum. It would not even require majority public support. All it would take is a determined federal government, a supportive grassroots base, and a willingness to play the long game.
A Canadian “right to bear arms” may never appear in ink in the Charter — but a version of it could be written into law, shielded for half a decade at a time by Section 33, and reinforced through consumer behavior and political normalization.
And by the time that shield comes off, the fight may already be lost — or won — depending on where you stand.
Sources
Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Hasselwander (1993).
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1033/index.doCentre for Constitutional Studies, "No Right to Bear Arms in Canada" (2010).
https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2010/09/no-right-to-bear-arms-in-canada/Public Safety Canada, "Banning of assault-style firearms" (2020).
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/index-en.aspxCBC News, "Trudeau bans assault-style weapons in Canada" (May 2020).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assault-style-weapons-ban-trudeau-1.5552131House of Commons Debates, Sitting No. 36 (2020).
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/house/sitting-36/hansardConservative Party of Canada, 2024 platform.
https://www.conservative.ca/planPierre Poilievre, Official Policy Statements.
https://www.pierrepoilievre.ca/policiesNational Post, "Peter MacKay pictured in pro-gun t-shirt" (2014).
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/justice-minister-peter-mackay-pictured-in-no-compromise-pro-gun-t-shirtCanadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Integrity March 2020.
https://firearmrights.ca/en/integrity-march-2020/House of Commons Petition E-111 (Bob Zimmer).
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-111CCFR, "The Canadian Gun Ban Explained."
https://firearmrights.ca/en/canadian-gun-ban-explained/Supreme Court of Canada, Reference Re Firearms Act (2000).
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1784/index.doCanadian Bar Association, "Understanding Section 33" (2021).
https://www.cba.org/Sections/Constitutional-and-Human-Rights/Resources/Resources/2021/Section33GuideThe Globe and Mail, "Why the notwithstanding clause should be limited" (2022).
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-the-use-of-the-notwithstanding-clause-should-be-limited/Federal Court of Canada, CCFR et al. v. Canada (2023).
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/521324/index.doBloomberg News, "America’s Guns Are Flowing Into Canada" (2022).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-07-07/america-s-guns-are-flowing-into-canada-and-fueling-crimeCCFR, Legal Challenge Updates.
https://firearmrights.ca/en/legal-challenge-update/CCFR, About Us.
https://firearmrights.ca/en/about-us/Liberal Party of Canada, "Taking Action on Gun Violence".
https://liberal.ca/our-platform/taking-action-on-gun-violence/Pierre Poilievre, "Halt $600M gun buyback program" (2024).
https://www.pierrepoilievre.ca/newsroom/poilievre-to-halt-600m-gun-buybackOffice of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Tracey Wilson registry.
https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368019®Id=930850House of Commons, Main Portal.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/enSupreme Court of Canada, General Decisions Portal.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/Library of Parliament, "Understanding Section 33 of the Charter."
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202101ECP24, "Poilievre's Notwithstanding Clause Pledge Draws Fire" (2023).
https://www.cp24.com/news/poilievre-s-notwithstanding-clause-pledge-draws-fire-from-legal-experts-1.6574961The Walrus, "How the CCFR Became the NRA of Canada".
https://thewalrus.ca/how-the-ccfr-became-the-nra-of-canada/CBC News, "AR-15 ban and Conservative backlash".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ar15-ban-firearms-policy-1.5763003PolySeSouvient, Advocacy Homepage.
https://polysesouvient.ca/Reuters, "Nova Scotia shooting and federal response" (2020).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-shooting-idUSKCN2291HKRCMP, Canadian Firearms Program: Statistics.
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/statisticsCanadian Shooting Sports Association, Home.
https://cssa-cila.org/National Observer, "Firearms Advocates March on Parliament" (2020).
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/09/14/news/firearms-advocates-march-parliament-against-liberal-gun-lawsCanadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Homepage.
https://firearmrights.ca/Global News, "Conservative Candidates and Gun Lobby".
https://globalnews.ca/news/6962270/conservative-leadership-guns/CBC News, "Complaints against Dr. Najma Ahmed dismissed".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/najma-ahmed-complaints-dismissed-1.5344030Royal Society of Canada, "Canada and Firearms: AR-15 and Mini-14".
https://rsc-src.ca/en/news/canada-and-firearms-ar-15-and-mini-14The Hill Times, "Liberals, NDP Slam Poilievre on Section 33".
https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/09/07/liberals-ndp-slam-poilievres-promise-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-to-enact-mass-murderer-sentencing-law/393472/Canadian Human Rights Commission, "Hate Speech and Hate Propaganda".
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/en/resources/hate-speech-and-hate-propagandaHansard, House of Commons, Justice Committee Evidence.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-75/evidenceOntario Court of Appeal, Montague (2010).
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca141/2010onca141.htmlCanadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Position on Gun Tracing.
https://www.cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=2561Public Safety Canada, Buyback Program for Prohibited Firearms.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/bckgrndr-bybck-prgrm-en.aspxCBC News, "Gun Classification System in Canada".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gun-classification-system-canada-1.5772753Elections Canada, Official Site.
https://www.elections.ca/Statistics Canada, Firearm-Related Homicide Report.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00015-eng.htm
Thank you for your response. I am very shocked, saddened and concerned that some Canadians are still supporting (or considering to support) this Far-Right crap, not short of extremist and anti-Canadian. This is not our nation, we cannot become this. 😢