Canada bans .22 rifle because it looks similar to an AK-47

[iverglas]

34. have a look at the decision

The excerpt I posted here might be enough to clarify.

The courts (other than the first / lowest one) felt they had to show "deference" to the Firearms Officer.

Courts show deference for other courts and tribunals that have some advantage they don't. An appeal court will show deference to a trial judge regarding findings of credibility, for instance, since the trial judge had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. They'll show deference to specialized administrative tribunals; for instance, to an immigration tribunal, which has specialized knowledge of conditions in certain countries. And they'll show deference to the legislative branch in cases they determine to be matters of policy within that branch's purview. There being no clear lines in any of those instances, of course. Many of us will say the SC of Canada should have shown a whole lot more deference for Parliament in the case about public health insurance a few years ago than it did.

In this instance, it showed deference for the Firearms Officer because of his expertise in things firearm. It seems to me though, that once the AK-22 was included in the prohibited list, it wouldn't take a lot of expertise to tell whether something else was essentially the same thing.

As for challenging the regulations themselves, certainly regulations can be challenged. Constitutional grounds are about the only thing laws get directly challenged on. The govt of Alberta and other parties challenged the Firearms Act itself, alleging that it infringed provincial powers over "property and civil rights" ("civil rights" doesn't mean what you might think, it's the original meaning, the right to do things like own property). The feds claimed jurisdiction under their criminal law power. The SCC agreed with the feds.

The other type of challenge is of course a Charter challenge, alleging a violation of an individual right or freedom. I'm thinking it would take some hard arguing to persuade a court that putting a firearm on the prohibited list came up to that level.

I dunno. If the fed Cabinet decided to put your grandmama's varmint-shooting shotgun on the list ... or just put all guns everywhere on the list ... that last would undoubtedly be struck down on a Charter challenge, but any particular item, I'd have my doubts.