On March 22, a second letter was sent to Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer.[i]
It asked one question. A simple one.
“Will the Chief Firearms Officer revoke the firearms licences of those who do not turn in their newly prohibited firearms?”
And then, for clarity:
“Yes, or no. Please choose one.”
It is a question that requires no briefing note.
Ontarians are being forced to make decisions without knowing the consequences.
As of today, no answer has been received.
That silence matters more than any press release.
Because while the question sits unanswered, Ontarians are being told something very different in the Legislature.
The government’s position is clear. Ontario does not support the federal firearms confiscation scheme.
From the Premier down, the message is repeated.
“We will stand with legal gun owners every single day.”[ii]
Here’s the contradiction.
The Ontario Provincial Police declared they will not assist the federal government in confiscating legally-owned firearms from licensed gun owners.
But the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario, an OPP member, holds the power to revoke firearms licences for anyone who does not surrender their newly prohibited firearms.
Government support is declared.
Protection is absent.
Bobbi Ann Brady, MPP for Haldimand Norfolk, said it plainly in the Ontario Legislature:
“This is precisely the moment that calls for real protection, not sound bites.”
A statement of opposition does not stop enforcement.
It does not protect the licence holder.
What happens if you don’t comply?
That is the question no one will answer.
The Ontario Provincial Police have said they will not participate in firearms confiscation.
The province says it does not support these firearms confiscations.
But the Chief Firearms Officer, appointed by that same provincial government from the ranks of the Ontario Provincial Police, holds authority over firearms licences.
That authority changes the outcome.
Because you don’t need to physically seize firearms if you revoke the legal right to own them.
Once a licence is revoked, possessing your firearms becomes illegal.
Revocation means instant criminalization.
The question is unavoidable.
Is Ontario truly refusing to participate? Or is it simply choosing a quieter method?
This is where silence becomes evidence.
The letter was not vague. It did not invite interpretation. It did not require legal analysis.
It asked for a simple one-word answer.
Yes or no.
Weeks later, there is still no answer.
No clarification from the Chief Firearms Officer.
No statement from the Premier.
No explanation from the Solicitor General.
At the same time, Ontario firearms owners are being told not to worry because the province stands with them.
They’re being told this is about targeting criminals, not lawful owners.
But Bobbi Ann Brady raised another critical point.
Other provinces are not relying on political statements.
Saskatchewan and Alberta both use provincial legislation to actively shield firearms owners from federal gun confiscations.
Ontario has not.
Instead, what’s emerging is something far more uncertain.
Some police services are opting out.
Others are opting in.
Enforcement now depends on where you live.
Hanging over all of it is the unanswered question:
Will your licence be revoked if you refuse to comply?
Brady warned of the “potential criminalization of previously law-abiding owners.”
That’s not rhetoric. That is the logical outcome of a system where the rules change, enforcement varies, and the real consequences are never clearly stated.
So we return to the only question that matters.
Will the Ontario Chief Firearms Officer revoke the licences of those who refuse to participate?
Yes, or no.
Silence is not neutral.
Silence is a decision.
Silence shapes policy.
Silence drives compliance.
Silence carries consequences.
And right now, silence is being used as the answer.
[i] https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/CSSA/PDF/CSSA-Letter-to-Ontario-CFO-Steven-Thompson-2026-03-22.pdf
2 Comments
Tom
The issue is fairly straight forward. Provinces, territories, and many police agencies/unions across Canada, including Ontario’s OPP, have outright stated that they do not support the ASFCP. That program consists of declaring what prohibited firearms you might have (made prohibited by illegal federal government actions I might add…) as Phase 1, which is now complete. Phase 2 is the “pick-up” or, more accurately, confiscation of your legal personal property, which is when “they” (in Ontario likely the RCMP, given that most police forces have said they will not participate) will go around picking up the firearms you have seen fit to declare to the federal government (or they might have you bring said firearm(s) to a collection facility by appointment). The final phase, Phase 3, is where you will get paid for those declared/surrendered firearms, …maybe, but most likely not, or at least not for the true value (materialistic and intrinsic – consider the worth of a firearm that is now prohibited in a country, one that no one can any longer obtain legally…on the black market, that thing is now worth at least 10x the MSRP!).
So, everyone and their dog has denounced THIS program. They have denounced these 3 phases, saying they will not participate in these activities (declaration/registration, collection, payment). This is a totally separate issue from when the amnesty expires. As the commissioner of the OPP’s office stated a handful of years ago: The OPP will enforce federal laws, the federal criminal code of canada to be specific. This has nothing to do with the ASFCP – it is totally separate. When the clock on the amnesty strikes midnight, anyone in possession of an illegally (by OIC, thanks, Liberals) prohibited firearm is subject to charges, criminal prosecution, and a max prison sentence of 14 years. People need to get this through their heads – Authorities saying they will not support the ASFCP is NOT THE SAME as authorities turning a blind eye on someone who is in possession of a prohib after the expiration of the amnesty. At least AB and SK are trying to do something about it. Write/email the Ontario Solicitor General (Michael Kerzner) and the Premier, as well as your MPP, to force them to protect the property rights of their residents! And for God’s sake, if you declared anything, UNdeclare it, NOW!
lawrence coultis
I couldnt agree more and fully intend to contact the concerned parties. the fish or cut bait time is now