Victorinox Swisstool Spirit MX

Few companies can claim to have embraced the archetype of any given product so thoroughly that its name comes to stand for an entire segment. Think Kleenex, Thermos, or Xerox. And of course, the Swiss Army Knife. It’s a high bar to clear, and generally requires such a long-standing commitment to the product in question so as to elevate it above reproach. All that is to say, Victorinox, the manufacturer of the original Swiss Army Knife, knows a bit about making multitools.

But multi-tools have come a long way since the Swiss Army Knife broke cover in 1890, and eventually, even a company that can lay claim to such a successful proprietary eponym needs to evolve. And that’s precisely what they did when the storied Swiss brand launched their line of plier-based Leatherman competitors in 1997 with the original SwissTool, expanding the lineup with the more curvaceous SwissTool Spirit in 2004. Since then, both SwissTool and SwissTool Spirit lines have been treated to various updates and revisions, with the SwissTool Spirit MX being the latest offering in the latter’s catalogue.

So what does this latest gorgeous tool from Switzerland bring to the table that previous iterations didn’t? Well, generally speaking, one significant improvement for most users: A single-handed opening knife. Eschewing the fingernail-bit deployment that most Victorinox knives are known for, the MX features a 6-centimetre-long blade with an integrated paddle of sorts on the spine, allowing for easy one-handed opening. 

Victorinox Swisstool Spirit MX

Joining this are 9 other deployable tools, many of which boast multiple functions, such as the reamer, which features a small pulling hook near the pivot, and the box cutter, which also features a chisel tip, scraper, and wire-stripping notch. These all use the familiar fingernail-bit deployment, but are generally easy to access, with perhaps the exception of the slippery, small Phillips head screwdriver, which requires digging underneath the screwdriver head to deploy. But even that’s not exactly hard.

And then of course, there are the pliers. Precisely ground to a needle-nose tip, they close absolutely perfectly and provide great purchase on even the slickest of surfaces due to their extremely well-machined serrations. Their action is tight; there is exactly no play in the joint, and they work as well as any similarly sized needle-nose pliers from Klein or Knipex.

Victorinox Swisstool Spirit MX

Finally, there’s another relatively recent addition that, although not unique to the Spirit MX model, is probably even more revelatory to the SwissTool line than even the MX’s one-handed opening blade: a simple pocket clip. For many, this is an absolute must-have feature, and the SwissTool’s is excellent. It’s thicker than most, providing more than enough tension to ensure it never slips out of a pocket, but it’s well polished surfaces also mean it doesn’t beat the seam of your pocket up unnecessarily. It’s also worth mentioning that the pocket clip also doesn’t interfere with your grip on the handles when using the pliers either; it just sits in the web of the right thumb, where no pressure is applied.

All this combines to make the Spirit MX perhaps the best of the SwissTool line, which is really saying something, given SwissTools have a well-established reputation for being the best-made multitools extant - and that’s not hyperbole. Simply put, the level of attention to detail is without equal, from the polished finish throughout to the riveted assemblies to even the logo excised into the handle being absolutely perfect. And it’s well thought-out. Like all SwissTool Spirits, the locking mechanism’s small releases have clearly been designed to avoid creating hot spots when using the pliers hard, but are slightly textured for ease of use, and the rivet heads are nicely rounded and almost flush with the handles for the same reason. But unlike other SwissTool Spirits, you no longer need to fumble with two hands to open the knife, and when combined with the relatively recent addition of the pocket clip, it makes it a much more compelling EDC item.

But it’s not perfect. As with seemingly all Victorinox tools, the decision to polish every surface to a lustrous sheen makes the screwdriver bits less practical, with the Phillips bit in particular requiring a disproportionate amount of pressure to prevent slipping in a screw head. Laser etching the screwdrivers’ bearing surfaces would be a vast improvement. Also, the cutting edge of the scissors is quite small, being only about two-thirds as long as other Victorinox scissors that are roughly the same overall size - not sure what’s up with that. And a couple of other specific issues come up around the knife, on account of the SwissTool’s firm tension system as well. First, it’s basically impossible to deploy the knife one-handed when held in the left hand. Second, to provide the right hand enough purchase to overcome that tension, the end of the deployment paddle sits pretty proud of the handle itself, and so pushes on the pocket of one’s jeans pretty well when clipped in the usual spot. It’s far from a huge issue, but it will probably cause some wear.

Overall, though, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that pound-for-pound, the SwissTool Spirit MX is probably the best multitool on the market for the average suburbanite. Like all SwissTool Spirits, it hits that sweet spot between larger tools like the Leatherman Surge, which are excellent in their own right and bring more tools and thus utility to the table at the expense of bulk and weight, and minimalist tools that melt into your pocket but obviously fall short on versatility, and rectifies the only significant issue with its forebears by allowing far easier deployment of the knife. Maybe we’ve just become spoiled, but the idea of having to use a whole two hands to open a knife just to break down a box just feels like more steps than are necessary, and with the only slightly older addition of an available pocket clip having become available, the Spirit MX marries all the ease of use we’ve come to expect from modern multitools with the tradition of fine craftsmanship and quality that people have come to expect from the manufacturers of the original multitool, the Swiss Army Knife, for over a hundred years.

Finally, it's worth mentioning an interesting note about the price: In 2020, a SwissTool Spirit X would set you back about $170 while a comparable Leatherman Wave could be had for $130, and since the $40 difference felt a bit bigger in the pre-recession days, the Swiss product was considered a bit of a "luxury" multitool. But since then, the current Wave+ has seen its price rise to roughly $170, while the new Spirit MX costs the same $170 Victorinox' earlier models did six years ago. And since it now offers the same ease of use as many other multitools with a more accesssible knife and an available pocket clip, and comes with a reportedly quite comprehensive and easy-to-use lifetime transferable warranty, the case for getting anything else is frankly hard to make.

SKS: The History of a Canadian Icon

Origins and Design Context

The history of the SKS begins in the Soviet Union during World War II, a period marked by rapid advances in small-arms technology. Prior to and during the early years of the war, Soviet infantry were primarily equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle, a rugged but outdated firearm dating back to the late 19th century that, while incredibly hard-hitting and effective at long range, was slow-firing and ill-suited to the increasingly kinetic and close-range engagements that characterized modern warfare.

In response to this trend, Soviet designers had been experimenting with semi-automatic rifle designs prior to the, such as that of the SVT-40, but these weapons proved complex and difficult to mass-produce under the perilous wartime conditions in the Soviet Union, especially after the German invasion in the summer of 1941. And so, as the war progressed, while it became clear that a new type of infantry weapon was needed - one that better balanced firepower and reliability, as well as both ease of use and production, the development of precisely that kind of weapon would be something of an exercise in fits and starts.

Even more unfortunate for the Soviet forces, the conclusion that a lightweight autoloading carbine represented the next evolution in combat arms wasn’t theirs alone to reach. But when they faced German troops armed with what history now remembers as the first assault rifle, the MP 43 or Maschinenpistole 43, the importance of such a carbine was surely underlined. Chambered in the docile 7.92x33 Kurz round and cheaply manufactured from stamped steel, the MP 43 presented both a significant reason for the Soviets to accelerate the design of a similar weapon, while also providing them with the blueprint for one.

And so, the Soviet Union set about dissecting this new German Wunderwaffen to learn what they could, beginning with the key component: The cartridge. And with a speed that only active hostilities can enable, it created the first version of what would eventually become the modern 7.62×39mm round with a prototype cartridge known as 57-N-231, in December of 1943. Actually measuring 7.62x41mm long, this prototype met Soviet requirements for recoil reduction and lighter weight, while still offering adequate downrange performance, as indicated by their rigorous testing regime… which was apparently predicated on the round’s ability to punch through three sheets of 2.25 centimetre-thick (just over 7/8th of an inch) pieces of plywood at 600 metres. From there, the round was further improved with a boattailed, reshaped bullet to enhance accuracy and ballistic performance, and began serialized production in 1944 as the M43 cartridge.

Sergei Simonov with SKS
Simonov at work in his design bureau, working on early prototypes of the SKS

And it was this round that would prove so consequential to the work of the well-established Soviet arms designer Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov, whose work on a lightweight autoloading carbine had been so rudely interrupted by Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa.

Carbine Development, And the M43 Cartridge’s Role

Simonov’s first significant work on semi-automatic rifles dated back to 1938, with his design for anything but a lightweight, autoloading carbine: The PTRS-41 anti-tank rifle: A massive, nearly 7-foot-long semi-automatic rifle firing the equally massive 14.5x114mm anti-materiel round. But, utilizing a fixed magazine, a short-stroke gas piston system, and a tilting bolt method of lockup, the PTRS provided Simonov a platform that could be relatively easily scaled down, and so from 1938 to 1941 he would experiment with everything from the diminutive 7.62×25mm Tokarev pistol calibre to the same 7.62×54R fired by the SVT-40 and Nagant. The latter specifically had a high degree of success, and in early 1941, the Soviet arms committee agreed to purchase 42 of his carbines chambered in 7.62x54R for field trials under the designation SKS-31.

SKS Prototypes
Simonov's various prototypes, beginning with the SVS-53; the evolution of his original SVS rifle design, which had originally competed with Fedor Tokarev's SVT-40. Although ill-tempered in poor conditions and subject to parts breakages, Soviet design bureau chiefs thought the design had merit. Continuing to refine the design, Simonov simultaneously submitted his next two designs; the SKS-30 and SKS-31. They were largely the same, with the notable exception being their method of feeding, with the SKS-30 being fed by 10-round en-bloc clips fed from the bottom, while the SKS-31 featured the now-familiar fixed magazine with a hinged floorplate that was fed by a pair of 5-round stripper clips from above - the same method he would use in the SKS-45.

But June would change all that, and all of Simonov’s designs would be shelved for the foreseeable future in the face of Hitler's invasion of Russia. But, with the development of the M43 round, Simonov’s SKS design was dusted off, with Simonov resuming work and adapting the larger SKS-31 to fire the new 7.63x39mm round in 1944. As part of this revision, he also removed the SKS-31’s muzzle brake (no longer required by the lighter-recoiling chambering), incorporated a permanent, folding bayonet, and replaced the metal gas system shroud with a removable wooden handguard that provided both superior insulation for the shooter in the case of rapid fire and improved serviceability of the short-stroke gas piston system.

The design was finalized in 1945, earning it the moniker the SKS-45, and was evaluated by the Red Army alongside the only other 7.62x39mm design that could be completed on such short notice: The AS-44, designed by Alexey Sudayev. Although more compact and featuring a fully automatic function, the AS-44 was also heavier, less reliable, and less accurate than the more polished and refined SKS design, which, in turn, led the army committee to select the SKS for field trials. Coincidentally, shortly after this decision had been reached, a third design chambered in 7.62x39mm was submitted, but rejected as it missed the initial evaluation window - a design created by none other than Mikhail Kalashnikov, and yes, the design that was rejected was that of the AK-47.

The SKS’s field trials were an unmitigated success, and the Soviet Union officially adopted the carbine in 1945. Field trials took place in the waning days of the Second World War, and small revisions were adopted. Production took place primarily at the Tula and Izhevsk arsenals, and by 1949, it had replaced the Mosin-Nagant as the Russian infantry’s issued rifle.

A Transitional Weapon

Despite its innovative features, the SKS was ultimately doomed to be a transitional firearm. Its design reflected a compromise between older and newer concepts, insofar as it offered semi-automatic fire and an intermediate cartridge but retained a fixed magazine and lacked select-fire capability.

But Kalashnikov’s late design entry for what would become the AK-47 had no such deficiencies. It featured a detachable 30-round magazine, select-fire capability, and similarly reliable operation in a stamped-steel and welded package that took even better advantage of the Soviet Union’s decentralized tooling and production capabilities. And so, by the early 1950s, just a few years after the SKS’ formal adoption, the Soviet military began replacing it with the AK-47 as its standard infantry weapon.

As a result, the SKS had a relatively short front-line service life in the Soviet Army. However, it was not retired entirely. Instead, it continued to serve in second-line roles, including with border guards, reserve units, and ceremonial formations, and still does today.

Global Proliferation During the Cold War

Although the SKS was quickly superseded in the Soviet Union by the AK, the end of its Soviet service only served to begin the second and perhaps more consequential chapter of the SKS’s story, which saw it become one of the most prolific firearm designs in history.

With the ability to produce huge quantities of the SKS without reducing its new AK-47 production capacity, the Soviet Union sent both huge volumes of rifles, as well as the machinery and the technical knowledge needed to manufacture SKS rifles, to a huge variety of fellow communist states. China became one of the largest producers, calling their version the Type 56, with millions more manufactured in Yugoslavia, known as the M59 and M59/66, Romania’s iteration called the M56, Poland’s being the ksS, Albania’s Type 56-1, and even East Germany manufacturing a version known as the Karabiner-S. Little is known about a North Korean version known as the Type 63, and Vietnam also made its own homegrown SKS called the Type 1, produced with Chinese cooperation until the factory was blown up by US bombing raids in 1965.

SKS Propaganda
Although the Soviet Union rapidly moved on from the SKS, it remained very relevant in Southeast Asia, appearing frequently in Chinese, Vietnamese and other propaganda campaigns.

In total, it is estimated that between 5 million and 15 million SKS rifles of some form or another were produced worldwide. By comparison, this makes the SKS the third most common autoloading rifle on the planet, with the AK-47 way out in the lead with 75-100 million manufactured, and the AR-15 in second place with a total production volume of about 24 million thus far.

Civilian Life

But by the late 20th century, the SKS was beginning to be considered outmoded for military service. As a result, large numbers of surplus rifles were exported to civilian markets, particularly in North America, where the massive volume available ensured absolute rock-bottom prices.

And few countries benefited from the sudden glut of surplus SKS rifles more than Canada, as US restrictions on arms of Russian or Chinese manufacture severely limited or outright banned the importation of most SKS rifles, significantly reducing the potential market for SKS rifles, which in turn kept Canadian prices for both the rifles themselves and (crucially) the ammunition they required at rock-bottom levels.

In the early 2010s, Soviet surplus rifles could be had for under $200, while Chinese examples commanded prices that were even lower. And there were so many available that it wasn’t uncommon to see retailers offering volume discounts on entire crates of rifles, and bulk packages including free rifles included in the purchases of crates of surplus ammunition, or vice versa.

And the result was that the SKS became a unique phenomenon within the Canadian shooting community. Its military provenance meant collectors appreciated the surprising number of variants, and even the rarest of manufacturers' marks could be had at very reasonable prices. Casual hobbyists appreciated that 7.62x39mm was far and away the cheapest centrefire ammunition available, which, when paired with the rifle’s easy and reliable operation, made it a great plinker. Hunters, especially those in remote areas, appreciated that the rifle offered similar ballistic performance to the familiar and proven .30-30 round but in a package that was more reliable than most lever-action rifles, easier to maintain, more readily available, and significantly lower in price. And of course, the bubbas out there loved the massive array of affordable aftermarket accessories that were available due to the rifle's extremely large market.

Unfortunately, that all changed with Russian hostilities in Eastern Ukraine circa 2014. Having been stored in storage facilities constructed some distance from the hypothetical western front line with NATO troops during the Cold War, most of the available Soviet surplus ammunition and rifles found themselves within contested areas, and were no longer available to Canadian nor global importers. As a result, prices for both the ammunition and rifles began to rise, on the back of constrained supply.

But even those post-2014 prices look good by today’s standards, where price tags for Russian examples regularly crest the four-figure mark, and Chinese Type 56s command nearly as much - the result of the gun’s status as one of only a few remaining non-restricted semi-automatic rifles to have survived the multiple gun bans that prohibited almost all others.

A Canadian Icon

Although skyrocketing prices and the threat of changing gun regulations cast a pall over both the SKS specifically and the gun community writ large, none of that diminishes the SKS’s historically prominent role in shaping much of how Canadian gun culture looks today. For a long time, it was quite literally harder for recreational shooters to justify not owning one than the alternative, and in a period where most non-restricted semi-automatic rifles were prohibitively expensive, it provided many with an approachable, attainable way to access so many of the various facets of the gun hobby.

And today, even with prices having an additional figure attached, it remains stalwart in that role; a firearm the government is reticent to ban due to its ubiquity and importance to so many, and still offering the most accessible way to shoot a semi-automatic rifle affordably. In fact, even with today’s prices, the only thing people seem to regret is not buying one earlier.

Gov't Documents Reveal Stakeholders invited to consult on C-21, including current cabinet member, sought to end handgun target shooting, ban online gun sales, and thought gun owners illegally modified magazines "all the time"

Recently released government documents surrounding consultation on Bill C-21 indicate that stakeholders who consulted on the bill sought to ban online firearm sales, end target shooting with handguns and claimed: “mass shooters who modified their mags were legal gun owners, and it’s common knowledge that gun enthusiasts do this all the time.”

In a document entitled “Preliminary questions re Bill C-21 and other provisions,” a group of stakeholders identified as Polysesouvient, then headed up by current Liberal MP Nathalie Provost, as well as Danforth Families and unnamed others provided former Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino with a series of comments on various aspects of Bill C-21, in preparation for a technical briefing on the bill held between the aforementioned stakeholder groups and Ministry of Public Safety staff. Here are some excerpts from the criticisms levelled by these identified stakeholders around what they perceived to be C-21’s shortfalls:

Regarding the handgun freeze: “Authorized businesses with proper storage (i.e., retailers) could continue to import and sell handguns to other businesses (e.g., gunsmiths, museums, valuable goods carriers), law enforcement, defence personnel and exempted individuals. Can gun clubs own and (especially) acquire handguns that stay on site and can be sued [sic] by the public? Can they accumulate a million handguns from current owners before they pass away, ensuring that handgun target practice never dies out? What about new businesses that will pop up to purchase all the existing hanguns [sic]?”

Regarding the provision to make it an offence to alter a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity and allow for wiretaps for this new offence: “Why is this specific measure in this section? Nothing specifically related to gangs: In fact the mass shooters who modified their mags were legal owners, and it’s common knowledge that gun enthusiasts do this all the time.”

Regarding making it an offence for businesses to promote violence in firearms marketing and sales: “Has anyone ever done this? Who [sic] not do something that will make a difference, like no ads on the internet, or not [sic] online sales?”

Regarding the requirement for a person to present a valid firearms license to import non-prohibited ammunition for firearms: “No additional measure to require PAC to purchase magazines?”

Concerning Insight into Ignorant Influence

This technical briefing is the only reference to a detailed outside consultation included in a 435-page response to a request for “documents regarding the proposal and development of amendments to Bill C-21.” It was authored before the bill’s second reading, meaning it is ostensibly the only such consultation that occurred as government prepared to propose amendments, when the bill passed to the committee phase. This is somewhat surprising, given C-21 combined with the related ban on millions of long guns instituted by Order in Council on May 1, 2020, formed a cornerstone of the most sweeping gun control measures in Canadian history.

In other words, the sole consultation the government participated in during their work on the contentious bill involved individuals who confused the defunct Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) required to buy a firearm in Canada 40 years ago with the Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) program that replaced it in the early 90s, and spuriously tied legal gun ownership to mass shootings in order to make an entirely baseless (and false) claim that gun owners illegally modify their magazines “all the time.”

Taken alongside their advocacy for ending handgun target shooting entirely, a goal that is entirely divorced from any semblance of improving public safety, and banning mail-order gun sales in a country where online shops provide a literal lifeline to rural property owners and remote subsistence hunters, indicates that their “consultation” had nothing to do with providing feedback with the aim of reducing gun violence, and everything to do with simply advancing an anti-gun agenda.

And given the politically-driven nature of the Trudeau-era gun reforms, ranging from questions about the government’s attempts to publicize the illegal firearms used in Portapique to further their political agenda to the years’ worth of statistical evidence that neither the gun bans nor C-21 have had any beneficial impact on the rate of crime committed with a firearm in Canada, that Public Safety Canada only sought feedback from a group that buttressed the Liberals’ political goals with misinformed, false, and misleading rhetoric rather than meaningful evidence is clear evidence that the gun reforms enacted by the Trudeau government are political in nature, not practical. In short, Public Safety Canada sought out those who shared the Liberals’ political aims in order to justify their gun reforms, rather than any actual expertise that could ensure new gun legislation would reduce gun crime.

It is also worth noting that Nathalie Provost, then the leader of one of the most prominent groups identified as contributing to this expose of ignorance, now sits at the Cabinet table as the Minister of State for Nature and has repeatedly appeared alongside Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree during announcements regarding gun policy. Simply put, her involvement in this farce of a consultation, and the comments she contributed to that are contained within, should rationally disqualify her from any involvement in gun policy, as her obvious bias and absolute ignorance of gun laws, policy, and lawful use of firearms in Canada have been quite literally documented by Public Safety Canada above. 

Finally, and perhaps most worryingly, this consultation indicates that the Public Safety Canada staff associated with gun policy seem to serve to further the political ends of elected officials rather than the public. One expects politicians to work towards the advancement and popularization of their political goals, but one also expects Canada’s public service to ensure that those goals are put through a filter of precisely that: Public service. But as is plainly evident, that did not occur here, and it should lead many to wonder where the line between politicians and the public service is drawn.

CTF Calls on Ford to Block Trudeau-Era Long Gun Ban

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Ontario Premier Doug Ford to stand up for gun owners and taxpayers by passing legislation to block Ottawa’s gun ban in Ontario.

“Ford is right to oppose Ottawa for wasting money on this program that police say won’t make Ontarians safer,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “But now he needs to follow the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan and pass legislation to block Ottawa’s gun ban in Ontario.”

Ford has publicly stated that the gun ban is ineffective.

“You’re focusing on the wrong group,” Ford said about Ottawa’s gun grab. “I support law-abiding hunters and gun owners.”

All provinces, except for British Columbia and Quebec, are refusing to participate in Ottawa’s gun ban and confiscation scheme.

The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan have gone further and passed laws to block the federal government from confiscating guns in those provinces.

The government has committed at least $742 million to carry out its gun ban and confiscation scheme, according to Budget 2025. Other experts estimate the total cost to taxpayers could reach $6 billion.

According to Leger polling, among those with an opinion, 62 percent of Ontarians think that the money Ottawa is budgeting for gun confiscation should fund law enforcement instead.

Law-enforcement experts have been saying for years that Ottawa’s program won’t work.

“We know that the gun buyback program is going to have, essentially, zero impact on the crime in Toronto,” said Clayton Campbell, the president of the Toronto Police Association.

Dozens of police forces across the country have also declined to participate in the program.

“Law enforcement experts in Ontario say the gun grab will do nothing to make this province safer,” said Noah Jarvis, CTF Ontario Director. “All governments need to focus on the real problem of criminals and illegal guns, not going after licensed firearm owners.”

A Gun Owner’s Guide to the Conservative Party of British Columbia Leadership Candidates

It may surprise some to learn that among provinces with over 2 million inhabitants, British Columbia boasts one of the highest rates of gun ownership, second only to Alberta and almost 40% higher than Ontario's. And on May 30th, the Conservative Party of British Columbia (CPBC) will announce its next leader and, with it, take what will likely be a hugely formative step for one of the fastest-growing political parties in recent memory - and the province's gun owners.

A Brief History

The modern resurgence of the Conservative Party of British Columbia began in 2023 when John Rustad, a former BC Liberal MLA expelled over controversial views, became leader of a long-marginal party with no recent legislative presence. Under Rustad, the party rapidly gained traction, capitalizing on dissatisfaction with the governing British Columbia New Democratic Party and the decline of its traditional centre-right rival. By 2024, the Conservatives had transformed from a fringe movement into a competitive political force, aided significantly when Kevin Falcon suspended the BC United campaign mid-election and encouraged supporters to back Rustad. This consolidation of the right-wing vote helped propel the Conservatives into the role of Official Opposition following the 2024 provincial election.

During 2024–2025, the party’s growth was accompanied by internal strain. Rustad led a large and ideologically diverse caucus, many of whom had defected from other parties, creating tensions over discipline, messaging, and policy direction. While the party had achieved unprecedented electoral success and visibility, it struggled with cohesion and governance as an opposition party. Reports throughout 2025 highlighted disagreements within caucus ranks and challenges in maintaining unity, even as the Conservatives sought to present themselves as a government-in-waiting.

The crisis culminated in early December 2025, when a majority of Conservative MLAs publicly declared they had lost confidence in Rustad and demanded his removal. After initially refusing to step down, Rustad resigned on December 4, 2025, following a brief but intense internal revolt and months of mounting turmoil. His departure triggered a leadership vacuum and the appointment of an interim leader, setting the stage for the current leadership race.

The Candidates

Peter Milobar is the MLA for Kamloops Centre and previously served as mayor of Kamloops, giving him extensive municipal and provincial political experience. Before entering provincial politics, he built a reputation in local government leadership and policy-making in British Columbia’s Interior.

Yuri Fulmer is a Vancouver-based entrepreneur and business executive with a long career in real estate development and private enterprise. He has not held elected office, instead bringing a background in corporate leadership and economic development.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay is a former federal Conservative MP who served as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. She is also a lawyer by training, with decades of experience in law, public policy, and national politics.

Caroline Elliott is known as a political commentator and media personality with experience in communications and public advocacy. Her background is rooted more in political analysis and grassroots engagement than in elected office.

Warren Hamm is a contractor and trades professional with experience in construction and small business operations. He has no prior political office, representing a candidacy grounded in hands-on industry work rather than government or corporate leadership.

Iain Black is a former BC Liberal MLA and cabinet minister who later transitioned into the business sector as a senior executive. His career spans both provincial government leadership and private-sector economic development roles.

The Gun Question

We contacted each of the campaigns through whatever means possible, and asked for comment on the following:

“British Columbia is home to the second-highest percentage of gun owners of any province with a population over 2 million, with 64.6 gun owners per 1,000 residents. The only such province that surpasses this figure is Alberta, with 74.7. Third place falls to Ontario, with just 40.

As such, absent the legislative protections afforded to Albertans by Danielle Smith’s government, British Columbian firearm owners have found themselves disproportionately impacted by the bans on over 2,500 models of long guns passed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This is reflected by BC’s position as having submitted the highest number of claims to the Liberal government’s Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program on a per-capita basis.

Currently, BC’s NDP government has stated that police support for this program will not be compulsory. In a statement on participation in the program, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police has advised that instead, they will “continue to prioritize enforcement and investigative activities that disrupt organized criminal networks and achieve the most immediate and measurable public‑safety outcomes.

If you are elected to lead the Conservative Party of BC, how will you address this issue for the over 370,000 firearms owners in the province?”

The Responses (Or Lack Thereof)

Iain Black provided a direct response. It is as follows:

“I do not support the federal government’s gun buyback program, nor do I support arbitrary gun bans. Not because I don’t take public safety seriously—quite the opposite. Keeping British Columbians safe is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. But we need policies that actually work, that target the real sources of gun violence, and that respect law-abiding citizens.

The current approach misses the mark on all three.

It focuses billions of dollars on confiscating firearms from licensed, vetted owners—people who have followed every rule, passed background checks, and stored their firearms safely. These are not the individuals driving gun crime in our communities.

The real issue is illegal guns—often trafficked across the border—and the organized crime networks that use them. That’s where enforcement needs to be stronger. That’s where resources need to go.

At a time when families are struggling with affordability, when our healthcare system is under pressure, and when communities are dealing with addiction and mental health challenges, it’s hard to justify spending billions on a program that does little to address the root causes of violence.

I believe in a smarter, more focused approach:

We can be tough on crime and smart on policy at the same time. British Columbians expect results—not symbolism. And as Premier, my focus will always be on solutions that actually make people safer.”

Caroline Elliott provided the following response:

“British Columbia is home to more than 370,000 lawful firearms owners, including hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and responsible citizens who follow the rules and contribute to their communities.

I understand this personally, my husband is a hunter and a licensed firearms owner, and like so many British Columbians, he takes that responsibility seriously.

Law-abiding firearms owners in this province should not be treated like criminals by a federal government that continues to pursue costly, ineffective, and politically driven policies.

The federal firearms buyback program is a clear example. It targets law-abiding Canadians, not criminals, and diverts valuable public resources away from where they are actually needed, tackling organized crime, gangs, and the illegal flow of firearms.

As Premier, I would join provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in opposing this program. We would not allocate provincial resources, including law enforcement, to support a policy that does nothing to improve public safety.

I support the position taken by the BC Association of Chiefs of Police to prioritize enforcement efforts that deliver real results by disrupting organized crime and targeting illegal firearms.

Our focus must be clear: go after criminals, not law-abiding gun owners.

At the same time, we will continue to advocate for practical, evidence-based approaches to public safety, including stronger action on border enforcement, tougher penalties for gun trafficking, and support for police to do the work that actually keeps communities safe.

British Columbians deserve a government that respects their rights, uses resources wisely, and focuses on real solutions, not political optics.”

Peter Milobar did not provide a response. His campaign page features no policy on firearms, and he did not attend the Juno News debate, where candidates were asked whether they would follow the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan in opposing the gun ban.

Yuri Fulmer did not respond. His campaign page, however, features a section devoted to firearms, which states Fulmer would oppose federal firearm confiscation and affirm the right to use lawful force to defend home and family. Fulmer also stated yes to following the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan in opposition to the gun ban during the Juno News debate.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay could not be contacted. The policies listed on her campaign page make no mention of firearms. She did say yes to following Alberta and Saskatchewan's lead in opposing the gun bans during the Juno News debate.

Warren Hamm did not respond. His campaign page features no policy on firearms, but he did attend the debate convened by Juno News and stated he would follow the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan in opposing the gun ban.

A Historic Show of Unity: Canada's Three Largest Firearms Groups Speak With One Voice on ASFCP

In what may be an unprecedented alignment among Canada's major firearms advocacy organizations, the National Firearms Association (NFA), the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) are delivering an identical message to gun owners across the country: if you've registered a declaration with the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, withdraw your consent. If you haven't participated, don't.

A Voluntary Program

The ASFCP, launched in January 2026, was designed to compensate owners of firearms prohibited under the federal government's 2020 Order in Council ban. As Prime Minister Mark Carney made clear, participation in the program is entirely voluntary; owners were never legally required to register a declaration. To this end, the program's own terms and conditions confirm that those who have submitted declarations may withdraw their consent by contacting the program’s Contact Centre.

Additionally, owners who do withdraw are not left without legal protection: A federal Amnesty Order currently protects licensed owners of impacted firearms from criminal liability related to the possession of affected firearms until October 30, 2026, regardless of participation in the voluntary ASFCP. According to Public Safety Canada, that protection applies regardless of whether an owner has participated in the compensation program.

Supreme Court to Weigh In

A significant legal development is also shaping the calculus for firearms owners. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal headed up by the CCFR challenging the federal government's authority to prohibit more than 2,500 types of firearms through an Order in Council. The top court will hear the CCFR's appeal together with cases led by Christine Generoux and Michael Doherty alongside industry members such as O'Dell Engineering Ltd and Wolverine Supplies, with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan backing the challenge.

A final ruling is expected to be at least a year away, and the outcome remains uncertain. Should the court find in favour of the challengers, the prohibitions could be struck down. Legal observers have noted that the existence of an active Supreme Court challenge makes an extension of the current Amnesty Order likely, as allowing it to lapse while the matter remains before the court could expose owners to criminal liability for possessing firearms whose legal status has yet to be conclusively determined. 

What Owners Are Being Told

The NFA, CCFR, and CSSA have each advised their members that, given the legal uncertainty and questions surrounding the program's ability to deliver on its compensation commitments, participation in the ASFCP is not in owners' best interests at this time. All three groups have framed withdrawal as a straightforward exercise of the rights participants already hold under the program's own terms.

Owners who have submitted a declaration and wish to withdraw their consent can contact the ASFCP Contact Centre at 1-833-759-4551.

ASFPC: Quiet Cuts to Compensation Cause Concerns

As reported previously, although the pending 2026-2027 fiscal year will see the Assault-style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP) eclipse the $1BN spending mark, it comes with an expected surprise: That the amount of compensation that will be available to participants of the program has plummeted from the $250M promised earlier this year to just $64.8M - creating concerns that owners may receive significantly less than initially expected - if anything at all.

Bait and Switch?

When launched just over two months ago, the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, indicated that the amount of total compensation available to individuals would be capped at $250M. To back this commitment, Public Safety Canada requested $260M in spending authority from the Treasury Board for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, to support transfers of funds to individuals and businesses as part of the ASFCP - ostensibly including the $250M for individuals referenced by Minister Anandasangaree, with an additional $10M to cover off claims made by businesses during the first phase of the program, late last year.

But because Public Safety Canada has stated that the processing of compensation claims will not begin until after the declaration period ends on March 31st, which happens to (coincidentally) be the last day of the 2025-2026 fiscal year, none of the claims for compensation will fall within the same fiscal year for which Public Safety Canada sought the promised $250M in total compensation. Instead, they will be processed within the 2026-2027 fiscal year, for which Public Safety Canada has sought $64.8M in spending authority to compensate owners participating in the ASFCP; a $185.2M reduction from the initially promised amount.

Will Gun Owners Get Stiffed?

For gun owners who have opted to participate, this has led to the obvious concern that the significant reduction in available compensation will have ramifications on the amount eventually provided. According to the government, the $250M in available compensation they committed to in January was intended to provide compensation for an estimated 136,000 firearms, with the resulting estimated average compensation per firearm of $1,838 echoing explicit government claims of paying, on average, $1,800 per firearm.

But with only $64.8M available, the government intends to either compensate owners for just over 35,000 firearms in total or significantly reduce its benchmark payment per firearm. The former would reflect the government’s original position that claims would be paid out “fairly,” and that all declarations received after the available funding had been exhausted would simply not be eligible for compensation.

In the latter case, if all claims are to be paid, based on the 51,000 firearms declared, with one week remaining before the program’s conclusion, the average compensation per firearm falls to $1,270. If uptake remains modest, and the program’s total claimed firearms remains at or below 60,000, the most participants can expect to receive on average is just over $1,000.

Put another way, in the case of the former outcome, somewhere upwards of likely 20,000 gun owners who have opted to participate in the ASFCP, and who have volunteered all the information participation requires, will receive no compensation for voluntarily offering their firearms up for confiscation. In the latter, all participants will, on average, receive almost half of what they expected to.

OIC Challenge Advances to Supreme Court

The legal challenge to the government's prohibition of millions of formerly non-restricted long guns by Order in Council will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

The case, which has been previously dismissed by the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, revolves around a section of the Criminal Code of Canada that stipulates:

"(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes." 

In plain language, the above section basically reads: "The Minister of Public Safety cannot issue an OIC prohibiting anything that is, in their own opinion, something that is reasonable for Canadians to use for hunting or sporting purposes."

And while the obvious argument against such regulatory bans finds its fulcrum in the well-documented history of non-restricted and restricted rifles being used for hunting or sporting purposes in this country, unfortunately, equally obvious is that, according to the wording of the law, none of that matters if the Minister of Public Safety is of the opinion that the rifles in question aren't reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.

This caveat seems to create a conflict within the law, as its wording seems to indicate that it seeks to limit the ability of the government to prohibit hunting and sporting firearms, but also provides limitless license to the government to opine on what the definition of "reasonable for Canadians to use for hunting or sporting purposes.” And in doing so, it effectively renders itself moot, as no Minister of Public Safety would issue an Order in Council prohibiting firearms and then admit holding the opinion that those same firearms are reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.

And although the Supreme Court of Canada has not provided any specifics of the legal clarity that they seek to provide in hearing this case, given this particular section of law is worded in such a manner as to make it effectively null and void, it is likely that the Court will be examining the potential spirit of the law, versus the letter of the law, in an effort to ensure the section's future applicability. In other words, it is reasonable to expect their deliberations to largely focus on how firearms are determined to be reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes, and what the Governor in Council's role is in making that determination - with the knock-on effect being that their ruling will determine the legal legitimacy of the Orders in Council issued by the Trudeau government that have seen millions of long guns prohibited.

What's Next?

With leave having been granted, the next step in the process is for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal and provide a decision. Decisions can be provided orally immediately after the appeal hearing (known as a decision from the bench) or reserved and delivered in writing at a later date. Decisions from the bench are becoming the more common outcome, but matters that may encounter a higher degree of dissent among the Supreme Court's judges (as opposed to unanimous decisions), or that may be more nationally significant than others, are more likely to see the verdict delivered in writing after further deliberation. In either case, a decision is probably over a year away. Additionally, it is worth noting that, statistically speaking, Supreme Court outcomes are effectively a coin toss: the chances of an appeal being granted or dismissed are roughly 50/50.

And that the legality of a policy that’s been at the core of the Liberal government for six years now comes down to a coin toss puts undeniable pressure on the government. If the SCC grants the appeal, the ramifications would be both severe and far-reaching: The existing long gun bans would be considered illegal and immediately struck down, a precedent would be set that would limit future governments’ ability to ban firearms by Order in Council, and the government would be exposed to significant financial damages sought by businesses whose revenues were negatively impacted by the bans.

How the government reacts to that pressure remains to be seen. In the near term, it’s very likely that the amnesty protecting owners from criminal charges will be extended, as a failure to do so would greatly increase the likelihood of the court issuing an injunction against the bans to prevent owners from being jailed for contravening a regulation that the SCC may eventually deem to be itself illegal.

But on a broader perspective, while extending the amnesty is a band-aid solution, it would not solve the government’s overarching problem of facing accountability for potentially being found to have illegally banned millions of firearms. To that, there are only two remedies: Striking a deal that would see the appellants* agree to discontinue their appeal in exchange for the cancellation of the long gun bans, or passing amendments to the Firearms Act that would prohibit the impacted firearms legislatively, rather than by regulation/OIC. The former would prevent the SCC from finding the prohibitions illegal, thereby negating any potential political and financial liability that may arise from such a decision, while the latter would indemnify the government against the same, regardless of the SCC’s eventual decision.

*Appellants: 

Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, 
Maccabee Defense Inc.,
Wolverine Supplies Ltd.,
O’Dell Engineering Ltd.,
Burlington Rifle and Revolver Club,
Montreal Firearms Recreation Centre Inc.,
Rodney Giltaca,
Ryan Steacy,
Christine Generoux,
John Perocchio,
Vincent Perrochio,
Michael John Doherty,
Nils Robert Ek,
Richard William Robert Delve,
Lindsay David Jamieson,
Mark Roy Nichol,
Peter Craig Minuk,
Jennifer Eichenberg,
David Bot,
Leonard Walker.

Gun Ban Budget Exceeds $1BN

According to recently released departmental plans and Treasury Board documents, the cost of the gun ban launched by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nearly six years ago has officially crested $1BN.

According to their 2026-2027 Departmental Plan, Public Safety Canada has earmarked $145.1M in spending for the 2026-2027 fiscal year in support of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP), which the Treasury Board's 2026-2027 Main Estimates provides further clarity on:

1) $64.8M in expected compensation for those businesses and individuals participating in the compensation program,

2) $28.8M in transfers to other entities supporting the delivery of the ASFCP, including all private contractors providing logistical, storage, and security services, and the destruction and disposal of confiscated firearms,

3) $51.5M in operating and administrative costs.

Additionally, the department's plan budgets a further $3.6M for the program during it's forecasted sunset period through the 2027-2028 fiscal year, which, when combined with the estimated $651.3M spent by the department on the ASFCP from 2021-2025 and $145.1M estimated over the next fiscal year, brings Public Safety's bill for the ASFCP to an even $800M.

Additional Cost Centres

Unfortunately, neither the Treasury Board's Main Estimates document nor the RCMP's 2026-2027 Departmental Plan includes any programmatic spending details related to their commitment to the ASFCP for 2026-2027, but recent financial reports indicate the RCMP's contribution to the ASFCP required $85.6M in spending authorities last year. If that funding level holds steady for the next fiscal year, which seems reasonably conservative given their involvement is unlikely to decline as the program moves into the collection and destruction/disposal phase, it will bring the RCMP's total projected spending on the ASFCP to $214.1M from 2021 to 2027.

Projections: $1BN for 42,000 Firearms & Worse Performance Than the Long Gun Registry

This brings the total projected cost of the ASFCP, initially estimated to cost between $47 and $225M when launched in 2020, to at least $1B by the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

To put that in historical perspective, it means the ASFCP will have incurred at least half the cost of the defunct long-gun registry (LGR), in roughly half the time.

Worse still, with AI models predicting a total involvement of roughly 42,000 firearms by the compensation program's end later this month, the ASFCP's projected participation rate is estimated to land between 2-4%; a far cry from the LGR's heady estimate of 50% compliance, which was itself considered a dismal failure and a significant contributor to that program's eventual demise.

Finally, if both the budgeted amounts and AI-powered models of participation rates hold true, the cost to the taxpayer is projected at $24,145. However, as we all know, two truths are unavoidable: 1) AI is fallible, and 2) the ASFCP has required additional funding beyond the amount allocated by the Treasury Board's main estimates every year since its inception. So while we may see more (or less) than 42,000 firearms declared to the ASFCP, in all likelihood, the total cost to taxpayers by the end of the fiscal year will exceed the $145.1M currently indicated - perhaps significantly, as the program moves into the cost-heavy collection, destruction, and payment phase.