Canada’s Liberal government, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has intensified its assault on firearm ownership by expanding the list of prohibited “assault-style” firearms. On December 5, 2024, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc announced the immediate ban of an additional 324 firearm models, including numerous variants of the historic M1 carbine—a semi-automatic rifle extensively used by U.S. soldiers during World War II.
This move builds upon the May 2020 prohibition of approximately 1,500 firearm models, a number that has since swelled to over 2,000. LeBlanc justified the expansion by asserting that these firearms are designed for battlefields and have no place in Canadian communities.
The government’s aggressive stance doesn’t stop at domestic policy. In a controversial twist, Canada is coordinating with Ukraine to donate the newly banned firearms to support their ongoing conflict with Russia. Defense Minister Bill Blair emphasized the importance of aiding Ukraine’s defense efforts, stating that such assistance is crucial for their victory.
Concurrently, the government has extended the amnesty period for owners of previously prohibited firearms until October 30, 2025. This extension underscores the complexities and delays plaguing the so-called “buyback” program, which has yet to finalize details or compensation plans for affected firearm owners.
Critics argue that these measures are part of a broader incremental strategy to erode gun rights. By continually expanding the list of prohibited firearms, the government inches closer to comprehensive disarmament, all while claiming to respect hunters and law-abiding gun owners.
This latest action coincides with the 35th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, a tragedy that has profoundly influenced Canada’s gun control policies. However, opponents contend that exploiting such events to justify sweeping bans is both disingenuous and ineffective in addressing the root causes of gun violence.
As Canada tightens its grip on firearm ownership, the implications for law-abiding citizens become increasingly concerning. The pattern is clear: incremental restrictions pave the way for broader bans, underscoring the necessity for vigilance in defending constitutional rights against systematic encroachments.
