An appeal to Americans who believe in individual liberty, constitutional government and the rule of law
Five Canadian citizens need your help to continue a legal challenge before the Supreme Court of Canada.
On May 1, 2020, the Canadian federal government used an "Order in Council" (our version of an "Executive Order") to prohibit more than 1,500 makes and models of firearms (now close to 4,000) that had previously been legally owned and used by licensed Canadian citizens.
The prohibition was imposed through executive regulatory action rather than a new firearms prohibition law debated and enacted by Parliament.
The legality of that action is being challenged by affected firearms owners, businesses and organizations.
After our previous challenges were unsuccessful in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to hear four related appeals.
The hearings are scheduled for November 9 and 10, 2026.
One of those appeals is Michael John Doherty et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, Supreme Court file 41860.
The Doherty group originally consisted of nine individual applicants.
Unfortunately, the group has been reduced to five, the financial burden of the 6 year fight has become to large for us individually. One applicant passed away. Another left Canada, and two others could no longer afford to continue the litigation.
Why should Americans care about a Canadian court case?
This is not simply a dispute about Canadian firearms legislation.
It raises a broader question:
How far can executive government authority extend when it comes to prohibiting property that citizens previously acquired and possessed lawfully?
Americans have constitutional protections, including the Second Amendment. Canada has no firearms rights of any sort, and in fact minimal rights to own private property. After the civilians are dissarmed, what tends to happen next?
principles of accountable government, individual liberty, legal certainty and limits on executive authority are not uniquely Canadian concerns.
We believe Americans who value constitutional government and individual rights have good reason to take an interest.
Why we need financial assistance
Supreme Court litigation is expensive.
For just this final supreme court round, the remaining members of the Doherty group has already incurred approximately $35,000 in legal fees and expenses through October 1, 2026.
The anticipated requirement for this stage of the litigation is at least $CAD 50,000, according to the group's current estimate.
The remaining five cannot reasonably be expected to carry the entire financial burden themselves.
We are therefore seeking assistance via contributions from American individuals, organizations and supporters who believe that this legal challenge deserves to be properly presented.
Where will the money go?
Funds raised through this campaign will be directed exclusively toward the legal expenses of the Doherty appellant group, through its designated legal representative and subject to applicable professional and trust-accounting requirements.
The intended expenses include:
- Legal representation.
- Legal research and preparation.
- Court-related expenses and disbursements.
- Other necessary expenses directly associated with the proceedings.
We intend to maintain financial records and provide periodic updates on funds received and expenditures.
Contributions are voluntary and are not charitable tax-deductible donations.
How you can help
You do not need to be Canadian to appreciate the importance of these issues. In fact we are obstructed & throttled when attempting to raise funds in Canada.
You can help by:
- Making a voluntary contribution.
- Sharing this appeal with American firearms-rights organizations.
- Bringing the case to the attention of constitutional-law advocates.
- Sharing the campaign with friends, colleagues and interested organizations.
- Helping introduce the case to American media and commentators.
Five ordinary Canadian citizens have taken their challenge all the way to the highest court in their country.
They deserve the opportunity to have their arguments properly heard.
What is this case actually about?
The central question is whether the federal government lawfully exercised the authority Parliament delegated to Cabinet under section 117.15 of the Criminal Code. (In layman's terms)
"is it legal for the government to make up key legislation by executive order without any debate in Parliament (our name for congress) or to show any reasoning for banning items lawfully owned for decades)"
The appellants contend that Cabinet (Justin Trudeau,) exceeded that authority when it prohibited such a sweeping range of firearms through regulatory action.
There are important issues in the Doherty appeal:
1. The limits of executive authority
Did Parliament actually authorize Cabinet to impose the prohibition in the manner it did?
2. The evidence supporting the prohibition
Was the statutory opinion required of Cabinet properly formed and supported by the evidence?
3. Legal certainty and firearm variants
Can Canadian citizens reasonably determine whether their firearms are prohibited when the regulations use language concerning variants and related models?
4. The role of RCMP classifications
In Canada, the RCMP (our version of FBI) reviews every make and model of firearm before it is allowed to be sold. Initially, this List categorized firearms by actual functionalities. But in the age of "woke" factual evaluation has been discarded in favor of sweeping and near total bans on anything "semi automatic" or any handgun.
In fact special terms like "variant" have been created. If your single shot .22 resembles in any way some sort of automatic firearm it gets banned. Thus the "furniture" rather than functionality makes a gun a "variant" Thus there is no way for a layman to even know exactly if their previously legal firearm is on the newest ban list.
Furthermore, the initial creator of this list now sells it to various governments for personal gain)
The federal government maintains that Cabinet (Essentially Prime Minister Trudeau, now Carney) acted within its delegated authority.
The Supreme Court of Canada will decide the matter. (This will not have legal bearing on law in USA, but learn our lesson, and vigilantly protect your 2nd amendment rights. )
Thank you for reviewing our campaign.
