The Supreme Court of Canada is preparing to hear four connected appeals concerning the federal Order in Council that prohibited more than 1,500 firearm models beginning May 1, 2020.
CSSA has applied for leave to intervene.
That does not mean the Supreme Court has granted CSSA a place in the case.
It means we have asked for permission to present a focused perspective the Court should hear: the practical experience of licensed, trained and law-abiding Canadians who acquired, stored and used these firearms under an already extensive legal framework.
If leave is granted in November, CSSA has asked to file a factum of no more than 10 pages and make up to five minutes of oral argument. We would seek no costs, introduce no new evidence and work to avoid duplicating the arguments of the appellants or other interveners.
This is a disciplined application with a specific purpose.
CSSA proposes to explain the licensing, safety, storage and regulatory rules that governed affected owners before the 2020 Order in Council, during the amnesty and after that amnesty ends.
The Court will be asked to assess the validity, reasonableness and effects of the regulatory scheme. That assessment should include what the scheme means in the lives of the people required to obey it.
CSSA represents more than 37,000 active members.
According to the affidavit of Executive Director Tony Bernardo, many hundreds of CSSA members are directly affected. He conservatively estimates that more than 100,000 licensed owners were affected by the May 2020 Order in Council and that approximately 300,000 formerly non-restricted rifles and shotguns were captured by it.
Those numbers matter, but the compliance history behind them matters just as much.
Licensed owners complete prescribed safety training, undergo police background checks and receive licences subject to continuing legal requirements.
Clubs and ranges operate under Chief Firearms Officer oversight.
CSSA provides additional safety instruction for range officials, instructors and competitors.
The application argues that this established culture of safety is not background noise. It is central to judging whether the federal measure reasonably addresses a public-safety problem.
The practical contradiction is difficult to ignore.
Some affected firearms were lawfully transferred with regulatory approval only months, weeks or days before the Order in Council.
Their owners did not suddenly fail a background check or breach a licence condition.
The legal status of their property changed while their own conduct did not.
The amnesty has prolonged that uncertainty.
Bernardo’s affidavit says CSSA has fielded an average of three member calls per day since May 1, 2020—roughly 6,570 inquiries over six years.
Members are trying to understand what they may possess, store, transport or use, and what happens when the amnesty expires.
That is precisely why CSSA is seeking a voice in this appeal.
Licensed firearms owners are not asking the Court for special treatment. They are asking that the legal framework, their record of compliance and the real-world consequences of the government’s decision be understood before the Court rules.
The Court will decide whether CSSA may intervene.
Our responsibility is to make the request clearly, responsibly and on behalf of the members whose lawful activities have been disrupted for more than six years.
Public safety deserves evidence.
Lawful owners deserve fairness. The Supreme Court deserves the full picture.
