Summary#
This bill changes the Criminal Code to make weapons prohibition orders mandatory after more violent crimes. If a person is convicted of an indictable offence where violence against a person was used, threatened, or attempted, the court must issue an order banning them from possessing weapons for a set period. The bill removes the current link to the length of sentence and applies the rule in all such cases (Bill Summary; Bill, amending Criminal Code s.109(1)(a)).
- Makes a weapons ban mandatory after any indictable violent offence, not tied to sentence length (Bill Summary; Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
- Keeps the court’s role to set the ban period as provided in existing law (Bill Summary).
- Applies nationwide in criminal courts once in force (Bill).
- Expands the situations where a weapons ban must be issued (Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
What it means for you#
- Households
- If you or a family member is convicted of an indictable violent offence, the court must order a ban on possessing weapons for a set period, regardless of the sentence length (Bill Summary; Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
- During the ban, you cannot lawfully possess weapons covered by the order. Violating a prohibition order is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code (Criminal Code s.109).
- Hunters and sport shooters
- A conviction for an indictable violent offence will trigger a mandatory prohibition order. This can restrict or stop hunting or sport shooting during the order period (Bill, s.109(1)(a); Criminal Code s.109).
- Victims and the public
- Courts must impose a weapons prohibition order in these cases. This removes legal access to weapons by the convicted person for the set period (Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
- Defense counsel and accused persons
- Judicial discretion is reduced. In covered cases, a prohibition order is no longer optional; it is required by law (Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
Expenses#
Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.
- No fiscal note or official cost estimate identified. Data unavailable.
- The bill contains no direct appropriations. Data unavailable.
- Any changes to court workload or enforcement costs are not quantified. Data unavailable.
Proponents' View#
- Ensures consistent protection: every person convicted of an indictable violent offence faces a weapons ban, creating a uniform rule across cases (Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
- Closes a gap: removes the current link to sentence length so that shorter sentences do not avoid a prohibition order (Bill Summary).
- Preventive effect: reduces legal access to weapons by those recently convicted of violent offences, for a set period (Bill, s.109(1)(a)). Assumes reduced access lowers risk; no empirical estimate provided.
- Clear guidance to courts: mandatory language simplifies decisions and reduces uneven application (Bill, s.109(1)(a)). Assumes current practice varies; Data unavailable.
Opponents' View#
- Less judicial discretion: judges cannot tailor decisions in edge cases or lower-harm situations once the offence meets the bill’s criteria (Bill, s.109(1)(a)).
- Broader reach than today: more convictions will trigger mandatory orders, but the bill provides no resources for administration or enforcement. Magnitude is unknown (Bill, s.109(1)(a)). Data unavailable.
- Collateral impacts: mandatory bans can affect lawful hunting or sport shooting by people under orders, regardless of individual circumstances (Bill, s.109(1)(a)). Assumes such activities are affected; scope not quantified.
- Implementation risk: without guidance or funding, courts and police may face added workload to issue, record, and enforce more orders. No cost estimate provided. Data unavailable.