Well, it’s over. The most expected surprise election in recent memory is behind us, just 36 days after it began - the legally-mandated minimum allowable time for an election writ. Volatile polls throughout the campaign saw the Conservatives soar to within earshot of a projected majority before returning to a relatively flat result. And of course, when the only poll that actually matters happened, the Trudeau Liberals were rewarded with 160 seats as opposed to the 157 they started with while the O’Toole Conservatives claimed 119 of the 121 seats they previously held.
Further highlighting the efficiency of the Liberal campaign machine, the slight increase in Liberal seats within the House of Commons comes in the face of some of the lowest voter turnout numbers in history; the Liberals lost nearly half a million votes nationally since 2019 and yet they gained seats. In fact, none of the major parties did terribly well when it came to connecting with voters.
However, that doesn’t change the outcome; a returned Liberal government with an ever-so-slightly increased mandate - at least with regards to seats in the House of Commons if nowhere else. So what exactly was the gun platform that this returned government ran on? And arguably more importantly, are they able to enact it?
“Toughen our laws on banned assault weapons by making it mandatory for owners to either sell the firearm back to the government for destruction and fair compensation or have it rendered fully and permanently inoperable at government expense.”
Minister of Public Safety Mandate Letter
What it means: This, the first policy listed under “what a re-elected Liberal government will do,” quite plainly states that the rifle ban enacted by Prime Minister Trudeau last year will no longer provide owners with the option of keeping their firearms intact and having their license amended to allow for the continued possession of such rifles. Instead, owners will be given a price the government is willing to pay, or instructions on how to get a gunsmith to render it permanently inoperable at the government’s expense - in which case one would not be compensated for the loss of the firearm, imaginably.
Should you be worried: Maybe? Compliance rates for all firearms banned that are not registered AR15s will likely be comically low, but those with AR15s may be forced to confront the issue at some point, depending on a few factors. First and foremost are the various legal actions working their way through various courts. From Section 74 challenges to the larger Wolverine Supplies and CCFR-funded suits being brought against the government, it’s unlikely that the government could make this policy into an actionable buyback plan with the very legality of the OIC itself being in dispute before the Supreme Court. However, should that matter settle itself in the government’s favour, all bets may be off.
On the other hand, forcibly confiscating legally purchased items on the condition that you’re being given an amount of money the government deems appropriate is not politically appetizing. Although the Liberals may have gotten Erin O’Toole tied in knots over guns, the confiscation of legally purchased firearms and the payment of billions of dollars is something that’s far more likely to attract pointed questions from journalists about the reasoning behind the costs, validity, and compliance rates - to say nothing of the likely protests and political fallout that may occur. The Liberals don’t want to see a quaint, careworn farmer being interviewed about his Ruger Ranch Rifle being confiscated, nor do they entirely want to give the pro-gun control segment everything they’ve asked for either, for fear of having them less motivated to vote on election day. It’ll come down to focus groups, and caucus meetings, so if you live in a Liberal-held riding - now is the time to make your opinion known.
Warning signs: The budget will be the big one here. In the previous government, where the OIC wasn’t factored into a federal budget, disbursing taxpayer dollars such as would have been required by the OIC’s initially-stated optional buyback plan would have required an act of legislation be voted on by the House of Commons. Now, it can be accounted for in the annual budget, which will obviously be a contentious one with the other parties likely eager to push the Liberals harder than ever before on partisan issues. If there’s a big commitment of funds under some form of gun policy headline in the budget (whenever it’s tabled), then it should be taken as an indicator that the Trudeau government does not want to extend the current amnesty for possession of these firearms, which expires on April 30th of next year. Conversely, positive outcomes from the court cases, and specifically the Supreme Court case, could derail the entire OIC ban.
“Crack down on high-capacity magazines and require that long gun magazines capable of holding more than 5 rounds be permanently altered so that they can never hold more than 5 rounds”
Minister of Public Safety Mandate Letter
What it means: That all magazines that fit a long gun be permanently altered so that they can never hold more than five rounds. The opening clause about cracking down on so-called “high capacity magazines” seems to have nothing to do with the proposed policy that follows, which is easily the most damaging part of the Liberal platform.
This is because the wording of this policy, which is both concise and clear, makes no distinctions: All long gun magazines will be permanently limited to five rounds. The Ruger 10/22 rimfire rifle’s popular and reliable 10-round rotary mag? Prohibited. The Lee Enfield rifle’s 10-round box magazine? Illegal. Lever action rifles ranging from the Winchester 94 rifle to the Savage 99 with its internal rotating magazine would need to be permanently modified in some way to prevent the rifle from holding more than five rounds. All long guns would be limited to five rounds. Rimfire, bolt-action, pump, shotgun, you name it.
And it gets messier still: The preponderance of popular pistol calibre carbines on the market are all long guns, and all use magazines that can contain in excess of five rounds. Thus, nearly every popular handgun magazine in the country would invariably end up being limited to the five-round limit imposed by this policy, on long arms.
Should you be worried: Yes, for a few reasons. First and foremost, this remains the sole “new ground” being broken by the Liberal party on gun policy. Everything else builds on or adapts a previous regulation, such as the buyback becoming mandatory when it was once optional. Furthermore, firearm magazine capacities aren’t seen as an issue in Canada, where strict magazine capacity limits are already in place, so it can be assumed then that this particular policy must have done well in internal polling and focus groups. The combination of those two facts makes this the likely “go-to” policy in the event of a high-profile crime occurring in Canada with a firearm.
Alternatively, the incredibly broad-reaching nature of this policy means it’s also likely to receive significant push-back and may end up being something that this minority government cannot pass through the house. Additionally, working in sanity’s favour is the pure and simple impossibility of the task of magazine capacity regulation. Due to the cross-compatibility of magazines across platforms and calibres, it is almost impossible for the Liberals to legislatively disentangle just those magazines that are politically beneficial for them to ban without also impacting a whole slew of other firearms they likely don’t want to impact. And it shouldn’t be overlooked that the difficulty (and cost) of this particular policy becomes almost immediately apparent to anyone tasked with looking into it.
Warning Signs: The Minister of Public Safety’s mandate letter will provide the clearest insight into where the government is on this particular issue. However, even there, some patience may be required: The policy may appeal to the Prime Minister’s Office when they issue the mandate letters, but the aforementioned problems the Minister will then have to confront may dissuade forward progress. So overall this is an unfortunate “sit and wait” sort of affair. Especially given it feels like such a natural response to the aforementioned high-profile crime. Again, if you happen to live in a Liberal-held riding, email your MP to ensure they know your mind on the subject; a caucus that’s recalcitrant to push forward on this may be enough to end any momentum it might gather.
“Ban the sale or transfer of magazines that could hold more than a legal number of bullets, regardless of how they were intended to be used by the manufacturer.”
Minister of Public Safety Mandate Letter
What it means: Ultimately the meat and potatoes of this policy reside at the tail end; “regardless of how they were intended to be used by the manufacturer.” Currently, magazine capacity is limited based on what the magazine was designed and manufactured for. This policy would upend that, and in doing so, seemingly refer back to the previous policy dictating that all long guns be limited to five rounds. In other words, if you have a magazine that can hold two different calibres of ammunition, what calibre or form of firearm it was expressly designed for is moot; it will be limited based on the smallest calibre that functions from the magazine in the gun with the most restrictive capacity - 5 rounds, based on this policy.
It means that many 9mm pistols will end up with four round magazines, due to the common cross-compatibility of 9mm and .40 S&W from the same magazine, and this policy’s explicitly stated goal of bringing all magazines to heel, regardless of manufactured intent. Various bolt-action rifles will be similarly impacted, especially those using the incredibly popular AICS-pattern magazines that were expressly designed to easily adapt to a wide variety of calibres.
But by far the worst impact will be on anything with a tubular magazine. For example, Cooey rimfire repeaters function with 22 Short as well as 22LR, and when viewed in conjunction with the previous policy, this policy would seem to indicate that owners will be expected to limit those Cooey magazines to five rounds of 22 Short, as limiting them to five rounds of 22LR would create a prohibited device. Likewise, most semi-auto and pump shotguns would be similarly impacted; the mere existence of the 1.34 inch-long Aguila Minishells means most shotguns would never be able to carry more than a few rounds of standard 2-3/4 inch shells, or a couple of magnums, potentially.
Should you be worried: Less so than with any of the other policies. This one’s thoroughly in the weeds of gun control policy, with little of the panache and appeal of larger blanket bans, and would be quite difficult to explain to the public and even more difficult to enact. So, it doesn’t seem like a winner, however, it may be astute to interpret this policy’s very specific and pointed wording (and the previous five-round magazine limit) as a strong indication of the Liberal party’s emphasis turning to magazine capacities.
Warning signs: The same as with the magazine capacity ban. If this policy ever sees the light of day, it will be as a component of that five-round long gun magazine capacity limit.
“Set aside a minimum of $1 billion to support provinces or territories who implement a ban on handguns across their jurisdiction, to keep our cities and communities safe.”
Minister of Public Safety Mandate Letter
What it means: Basically a continuation of their repeated promise to allow cities to ban handguns municipally, this commitment of money is basically an inducement to municipalities and provinces that may be interested in pursuing this to begin doing so. A billion dollars in federal transfers is significant, especially to municipal politicians who may be looking to make headlines as various jurisdictions head towards municipal elections in 2022, including BC and Ontario.
Should you be worried: Not particularly. Although the money may be appealing, this particular policy is incredibly fraught with problems from stem to stern, starting from the very bottom: Those municipalities most likely to even consider banning handguns are likely neighbouring various other large cities with city councils of their own - and unless there is near-universal buy-in across large geographic swathes of land, even municipal politicians will be forced to confront the futility of banning guns in say, Vancouver or Toronto, but not in Langley, Surrey, Peel or Windsor. And at that point, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
On a broader scale, provincial governments pose a greater threat in some jurisdictions but again must confront the greater issue of enforcement, transit, and of course the next level of problems for this particular policy: Constitutionality. Simply put, there are significant legal hurdles posed by municipal- or provincial-level bans on possession. They may not be insurmountable, but currently, those hurdles represent legal risk to any municipality or province that might attempt to pass such a ban, lest they end up in court being sued by a conglomerate of every gun club, store, and smith in their jurisdiction.
Warning signs: The federal government will likely talk up the dollar figure whenever possible, in an attempt to lure jurisdictions to engage with them, but ultimately the push will likely come from individuals in your community approaching city council. Fact is, many large gun clubs are sustained by the handgun owners that have to go there to shoot, and some councils may view the opportunity to ban handguns (or their discharge, more realistically) as a chance to remove a gun club that may be generating a lot of noise complaints from encroaching development, or is otherwise creating issues for the city.
Having your local clubs and shops form a local board of sorts is likely the best way to counteract this. While private individuals will absolutely use this policy to try to get various cities and provinces to ban handguns however they can, a united front of rational and calm stakeholders from the local community will carry a lot of credibility with a city council that doesn’t know our gun laws, and likely just wants to move on to other things.
In something of a void. While Trudeau’s base of power did indeed grow by a few seats, the popular vote tells a different story, with his brand clearly shedding votes with every passing election. So, while the makeup of the House of Commons is very reminiscent of 2019, this government quite simply isn’t. While 2019 was seen as something of a victory, given the various scandals that swirled at the time, this minority result isn’t being received the same way among Liberals.
On one hand, that may mean guns fall to the government’s back burner, as internal conflicts, the ongoing pandemic, and various looming economic issues come home to roost in the coming months. However, we also know that guns are one of this government’s favourite “channel changers,” so it wouldn’t be surprising to see them reach for any of their above gun policies to try to direct attention away from the next government scandal.
It also means that no time has ever been more crucial for gun owners, clubs and businesses to reach out to their local politicians of every stripe and level and begin opening a dialogue. Functionally, the best argument against any of these policies is a simple fact and little more than a moment’s measured thought. And provoking that moment’s worth of thought falls to you, fellow gun owner.
SUBSCRIBE TO CALIBRE MAGAZINE
$30.00 / year
UNAPOLOGETICALLY CANADIAN MEN'S T-SHIRT
$29.00
UNAPOLOGETICALLY CANADIAN WOMEN'S T-SHIRT
$29.00
