The federal government has quietly given Canada Post the authority to transport and store prohibited firearms as part of its long-promised buyback program. On paper, this may look like progress in finally removing banned assault-style weapons from circulation. In reality, it raises some uncomfortable questions about safety, responsibility, and whether this policy is being rushed through without fully considering the risks.
More than 1,500 firearm models were prohibited in 2020 after the horrific mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 23 people dead. Since then, retailers holding these banned weapons have been legally required to store them securely until Ottawa figured out how to collect and destroy them. Nearly four years later, we’re still waiting for the program to fully launch. Now, Canada Post has been tasked with playing a central role in the first phase shipping these firearms from businesses back to the government for destruction.
Supporters will argue this is the simplest, most cost-efficient way forward. Retailers already follow strict mailing rules when it comes to firearms, and Canada Post insists it has the protocols in place to manage the process safely. But this solution also feels like a shortcut one that puts postal workers in the middle of a sensitive and potentially dangerous operation. It’s no surprise that Canada Post has drawn the line at handling weapons from individual owners in the second phase of the buyback. Employee safety, after all, is not a small concern.
The bigger issue here is trust. Canadians are being asked to accept that mailing prohibited firearms through the postal system is not only safe but also the best way to enforce one of the most contentious pieces of gun legislation in recent history. Yet the government has already had to extend the Criminal Code amnesty twice, and the new regulations conveniently set to expire in October 2025 leave many wondering whether this is a stopgap solution rather than a long-term plan.
The goal of removing assault-style firearms from circulation is sound and widely supported. But the way Ottawa is going about it feels improvised. Instead of building a transparent, carefully managed program that reassures both the public and firearm owners, the government seems more interested in checking a box before the next election cycle.
Canadians deserve a buyback program that prioritizes safety, accountability, and efficiency not one that leans on our postal service as a quick fix. Otherwise, this policy risks looking less like meaningful reform and more like political theatre.
