A challenge to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 2020 ban on some 1,500 models of firearms deemed “assault-style weapons” by the Canadian government has failed, a fact that should make all Americans appreciate our Second Amendment more than ever.

On April 15, a three-judge panel of Canada’s Federal Court of Appeals, in the case Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada, unanimously upheld the punitive law, leaving Canadians to continue dealing with the restrictions despite having a new prime minister.

At issue is the May 1, 2020, Order in Council SOR/2020-96, which immediately classified 1,500 models of firearms (and modified versions and unnamed variants), previously listed as “non-restricted” or “restricted,” as illegal “prohibited” firearms under the federal Criminal Code. In creating the ban, Trudeau bypassed the legislative process, and the order was not pre-published or subject to public input or comments.

The case, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82, arose out of consolidated judicial review applications brought by firearm owners, firearm businesses, and gun rights advocates, headed by the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR), challenging the Trudeau order. That court found that the order didn’t violate Canada’s Bill of Rights.

Appellants in the case challenged the case on a number of grounds. First was the assertion that the Governor in Council’s ability to classify firearms as non-restricted, restricted and prohibited was limited by the Criminal Code. Additionally, appellants challenged what they described as the executive’s unlawful sub-delegation of authority to classify firearms as “prohibited” to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Lastly, they argued that the reclassification of firearms violated the 1960 Bill of Rights and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the appeals court opinion, Chief Justice Yves de Montigny wrote: “There is no corresponding right, constitutional or otherwise, to possession of a specific firearm. Nor is there any de facto expropriation, since there is no evidence that Canada has acquired any asset or advantage as a result of the Regulations. As a result, the Federal Court did not err in concluding that the Regulations do not infringe the Bill of Rights.”

The court also noted that “from the sole perspective of a sensible hunter or sportsman, it makes no sense to ban firearms that are well suited or even specifically designed for hunting or sport purposes.” But the “inherent danger that some firearms pose to public safety because of their lethality and their ability to injure or kill a large number of people in a short period of time, the fact that they have been used in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, the fact that they are disproportionate for civilian use, and the increasing demand for measures to address gun violence are all valid considerations in determining whether their use is reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes.”

The CCRF, which had taken the lead in the lawsuit to invalidate the law, expressed disappointment with the appeals court’s ruling.

“Today we received the decision out of the Federal Court of Appeal on our long fight against the gun ban,” the organization said in a released statement. “It’s bad news for Canadians for multiple reasons. It is the opinion of the judges that the “protections” in the Criminal Code to prevent the Governor in Counsel (GIC) from banning guns that are legitimate for hunting and sporting use are irrelevant. Section 56 of the decision illustrates that the protection provision is subject to the whim of the GIC, who can change their mind at any time.”

The organization also said it would be carefully reviewing the decision to determine its next steps in the battle.

“The decision is clear, the courts will not constrain the government’s overreach on this issue,” CCRF concluded. “This has negative implications on many aspects of the legal and legislative system in Canada.”