A shadow of fear is falling across the Canadian gun-owning community, and it’s a scenario deeply dreaded by American conservatives: a sweeping government buyback program. Officially named the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, it’s rapidly escalating into a complex legal and political battleground, with the clock ticking towards a critical deadline.
The roots of this conflict lie in a 2020 Order-in-Council that initially prohibited around 1,500 models of what the government deemed “assault-style” firearms. This list has since ballooned, now encompassing approximately 2,500 makes and models, targeting popular rifles like the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14, as well as powerful hunting rifles capable of taking down large game.
But the ban doesn’t stop there. A controversial “capable” clause casts a wider net, prohibiting firearms simply *capable* of exceeding a specific energy level, even if they aren’t typically configured to do so. This ambiguity has fueled outrage, as it potentially criminalizes firearms owners for possessing legally obtained weapons.
Gun owners face a stark choice: declare their intent to participate in the buyback by March 31, 2026, or risk severe penalties. While the government insists participation is voluntary, compliance with the law is not. Refusal to accept compensation means surrendering firearms without payment, exporting them, or bearing the cost of permanent deactivation.
The stakes are incredibly high. After an amnesty period ends on October 30, 2026, possession of a prohibited firearm carries a potential prison sentence of up to ten years. This isn’t a theoretical threat; it’s a harsh reality looming over thousands of Canadians.
Opposition to the program is fierce and geographically concentrated, particularly in Western Canada and rural areas. Several provinces – Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador – have outright rejected the program, refusing to dedicate provincial resources to its enforcement.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have taken the most defiant stance, enacting legislation specifically designed to block federal intervention. Alberta invoked its Sovereignty Act, while Saskatchewan passed its own Firearms Act, demanding federal authorization before any seizures can occur. Their Premiers have publicly condemned the buyback as a flawed and wasteful overreach.
The financial implications are also under intense scrutiny. Advocacy groups like the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights argue the government’s $250 million compensation fund is woefully inadequate, estimating that over two million firearms are now prohibited. They predict the fund will be depleted long before all owners are compensated.
At the federal level, the Conservative opposition has seized on the issue, promising to repeal the buyback and prioritize tougher penalties for gun traffickers. They portray the program as a costly and ineffective distraction from real crime prevention.
The Liberal government defends the program as a necessary public safety measure, accusing opponents of spreading misinformation. They warn that provincial obstruction could leave gun owners without compensation, facing seizure by the RCMP without any financial redress.
Even within law enforcement, there’s a deep divide. Some police forces, like Halifax Regional Police, will participate, citing a responsibility to reduce firearms in the community. Others, including the Ontario Provincial Police and forces in several major cities, have refused, citing staffing shortages and a focus on more pressing criminal activity.
This widespread police refusal has created a dangerous jurisdictional vacuum. The federal government is now scrambling to find alternatives, exploring the use of mobile collection units, private contractors, and even off-duty or retired officers to carry out the firearm collections in uncooperative provinces.
The situation is rapidly evolving, a complex web of legal challenges, political maneuvering, and deeply held beliefs. What began as a gun control initiative has become a defining moment for Canadian federalism, and a stark warning to those who fear similar measures could take root elsewhere.
