Written by Jonah Halpern

On December 5, 2024, the Canadian Parliament enacted a new ban on 324 additional gun models, effective immediately. These restrictions primarily target military-style firearms rather than hunting weapons, as Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc emphasized during Thursday’s briefing. He stated unequivocally, “This means that these firearms can no longer be used.” This move builds on a previous ban introduced in May 2020, which initially prohibited over 1,500 firearm models. That number has since expanded to over 2,000, as manufacturers developed variants of the original restricted designs. Why has Canada made such a drastic move?

Supporters of the ban contend that certain firearms belong exclusively in the hands of the government, not private citizens. They argue that assault weapons should be reserved for the military to reduce the risk of mass shootings. According to this view, owning such weapons is a privilege granted by the state, not an inherent right, and the government has the authority to revoke this privilege with legislation like this. Critics, however, maintain that citizens should have the right to bear any firearm, including assault weapons. They argue that the state has no right to interfere with personal gun ownership or impose regulations on what firearms citizens can or can not possess. 

Canada’s ban goes further than just the confiscation of guns – Defence Minister Bill Blair confirmed that Canada may even donate the confiscated guns to Ukraine, stating that “we’ve been working very closely with our friends in Ukraine to ensure that weapons that were intended to be used in combat could be made available to them.” This raises significant questions about what exactly Canada’s priorities are. Opinions on assault weapons vary, but sending your own citizens’ firearms to a foreign country—on the other side of the world, no less—to fuel a war that does not directly involve your nation raises significant questions about its necessity and implications. This decision could be perceived by some as fearless and by others as reckless; I’ll leave it for you to decide by yourself.

The party that enacted this ban, the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) might argue that military-style firearms are better suited for soldiers, (even if they’re Ukrainian soldiers) than for Canadian civilians. They might justify the decision by pointing out that since Ukraine intends to use the guns in a war effort rather than for individual self-defense, the need is more pressing. However, this explanation seems unlikely. Considering Canada has already provided nearly $20 billion in aid since the war began, the impact of a few firearms would pale in comparison.

I propose another, more plausible notion for why the incumbent LPC seems so intent on eliminating these firearms: to ensure that they are never restored back to Canadians if and when Prime Minister Trudeau gets trounced in next year’s election—given his meager 25% approval rating. By shipping these guns off to Ukraine, they effectively guarantee the firearms won’t be returned under any administration. However, this raises the question: if the LPC believes that these guns can be used to protect Ukrainans’ freedom, then why can’t the very same guns be used to protect Canadians’ freedom?