Firearms and Weapons Charges in Alberta: What You're Actually Facing

Canadian firearms law operates across two regimes that intersect at the point of any criminal charge. The Firearms Act establishes a licensing regime — what gun owners colloquially call the PAL, RPAL, and ATT (terms that do not appear in the Act itself, which speaks simply of a "licence") — and creates its own offences in Part III for false statements, tampering with licences and registration certificates, and breach of licence conditions. The Criminal Code creates the principal firearms offences — running from licensing infractions and storage offences on the low end through to possession of prohibited or restricted firearms with ammunition, trafficking, and the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence on the high end. Where lawful owners face technical breaches, the consequences include a criminal record, a mandatory or discretionary prohibition order under s. 109 or s. 110 of the Criminal Code, and the loss of the licence itself. Where the conduct alleged is at the more serious end, the sentencing exposure can extend to life imprisonment.

This page explains the framework of firearms offences in Part III of the Criminal Code, the current state of mandatory minimum sentencing after the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15, R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2, and R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3, the partial repeal of firearms mandatory minimums under Bill C-5 (Royal Assent November 17, 2022), the changes brought in by Bill C-21 (Royal Assent December 15, 2023), and the Charter and substantive defences that engage in modern firearms prosecutions. KJR Law represents people facing firearms and weapons charges across Calgary and Southern Alberta.

Do Not Give a Statement Before You Speak with a Lawyer

Firearms investigations are built on the physical recovery of the weapon and the connection of the weapon to the accused. The accused's own statements about ownership, knowledge of the firearm's location, awareness of its classification, or use are routinely the most useful piece of evidence the Crown has at trial. Statements offered to "clear things up" — about whether the firearm was properly stored, whether it was a lawful possession, whether the accused knew it was in the vehicle or residence — frequently establish elements the Crown would otherwise have to prove circumstantially. The right to remain silent under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay under s. 10(b) apply at the roadside, at the scene of any search, and at the police detachment. Call a lawyer first. A statement, if it is in your interest, can be prepared properly later.

The Three Classifications of Firearms

The sentencing exposure on every firearms charge is driven, first, by the classification of the firearm. Section 84 of the Criminal Code divides firearms into three categories:

• Non-restricted firearms — most ordinary rifles and shotguns used for hunting or sport. Lawful possession requires a PAL.
• Restricted firearms — most handguns, certain semi-automatic centre-fire rifles, and other firearms designated as restricted by regulation. Lawful possession requires an RPAL. Routine transport to and from approved shooting clubs and ranges is now authorised by a condition attached to the licence under s. 19(3.1) of the Firearms Act; standalone ATTs remain only for specified non-routine purposes.
• Prohibited firearms — firearms designated as prohibited under s. 84, including automatic firearms, certain converted automatics, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less, handguns chambered in .25 or .32 calibre, and the models designated as prohibited by the Order in Council of May 1, 2020 (SOR/2020-96, the "assault-style firearm" list). Lawful possession is limited to grandfathered authorisations. The mechanism the Criminal Code provides for owners caught by reclassification is the Governor in Council's power under s. 117.14 to declare an amnesty period, allowing surrender, deactivation, or other lawful disposal without criminal liability.

Bill C-21, which received Royal Assent on December 15, 2023, codified the national handgun freeze and added further restrictions. The freeze is implemented through two interlocking mechanisms in the Firearms Act: the Registrar is barred from issuing new registration certificates for handguns to individuals (s. 12.2), and ATTs from ports of entry are barred unless the individual already holds a registration certificate (s. 19.1). Narrow exemptions exist for holders of an Authorisation to Carry and for those who train, compete, or coach in Olympic or Paralympic handgun shooting disciplines. Bill C-21 also created a new offence at s. 102.1 of the Criminal Code targeting computer data capable of being used with 3D printers, CNC machines, or similar systems to manufacture firearms or prohibited devices — the "ghost gun" provision. It increased the maximum penalties for ss. 95, 96, 99, 100, and 103 from 10 to 14 years on indictment.

The Principal Offences

Part III of the Criminal Code creates a graduated set of firearms offences. The most commonly charged provisions:

• Careless use, carrying, handling, shipping, transport, or storage — s. 86. The most common charge faced by otherwise lawful gun owners. The section catches careless conduct and conduct without reasonable precautions across the full range of activities involving a firearm. Hybrid. Up to 2 years on indictment for a first offence, 5 years for a second or subsequent. Frequently arises from improper storage discovered during unrelated police attendance, vehicle stops, or domestic complaints.
• Pointing a firearm — s. 87. Hybrid. Up to 5 years on indictment.
• Carrying for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, or carrying a concealed weapon — ss. 88 and 90. Hybrid. Up to 10 years on indictment for s. 88; 5 years for s. 90.
• Unauthorised possession of a firearm, weapon, device, or ammunition — ss. 91 and 92. Both sections catch firearms and, at subsection (2) of each, prohibited and restricted weapons, prohibited devices, and prohibited ammunition. Section 91 (possession without a licence) is hybrid with a maximum of 5 years on indictment. Section 92 (possession knowing the possession is unauthorised) is indictable with a maximum of 10 years.
• Possession at an unauthorised place — s. 93. The technical-breach provision that catches lawful owners who transport or store a restricted or prohibited firearm at a place not authorised under their licence or registration certificate. Hybrid. Up to 5 years on indictment.
• Unauthorised possession in a motor vehicle — s. 94. Hybrid. Up to 10 years on indictment, or punishable on summary conviction. The provision catches not only the owner of the vehicle but any occupant who knew an unauthorised firearm or prohibited weapon was in the vehicle; it does not apply to an occupant who, on becoming aware of the firearm, attempted to leave the vehicle to the extent feasible. Passenger liability is a frequently misunderstood feature of this section.
• Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition — s. 95. Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, or possession of an unloaded prohibited or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition. Hybrid. Up to 14 years on indictment after Bill C-21; on summary conviction the default maximum of 2 years less a day applies. The 3- and 5-year mandatory minimums formerly attached to this section were struck down in R v Nur and were subsequently repealed by Bill C-5.
• Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence — s. 96. Hybrid. Up to 14 years on indictment after Bill C-21; on summary conviction the default maximum of 2 years less a day applies.
• Break and enter to steal, or robbery to steal, a firearm — ss. 98 and 98.1. Indictable. Both carry a maximum of life imprisonment.
• Trafficking and possession for purpose of trafficking — ss. 99 and 100. Indictable; maximum 14 years. Where the object trafficked is a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, non-restricted firearm, prohibited device, firearm part, ammunition, or prohibited ammunition, the offence carries a mandatory minimum of 3 years for a first offence and 5 years for a second or subsequent (s. 99(2) / s. 100(2)). The 1-year mandatory minimum under the residual subsection (s. 99(3) / s. 100(3) — applying where the object is a non-firearm weapon) was repealed by Bill C-5.
• Making automatic firearm — s. 102. Hybrid. On indictment, a mandatory minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 10 years; on summary conviction, the default maximum of 2 years less a day applies, with no minimum. The 1-year minimum on the indictable branch was not among the firearms minimums repealed by Bill C-5 and remains in force.
• Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorised — s. 103. Indictable; maximum 14 years after Bill C-21. Where the object is a firearm, prohibited device, firearm part, or prohibited ammunition, a mandatory minimum of 3 years for a first offence and 5 years for a second or subsequent applies (s. 103(2)); the residual minimum that formerly applied in any other case was repealed by Bill C-5.
• Using a firearm in the commission of an offence — s. 85. A separate charge that attaches to a list of residual indictable offences where a firearm or imitation firearm was used. The serious violent offences with their own firearms-aggravated provisions — criminal negligence causing death (s. 220), manslaughter (s. 236), attempted murder (s. 239), discharging a firearm with intent (s. 244), reckless discharge (s. 244.2), sexual assault with a weapon (s. 272), aggravated sexual assault (s. 273), kidnapping (s. 279(1)), hostage taking (s. 279.1), robbery (s. 344), and extortion (s. 346) — are excluded from s. 85. Indictable; maximum 14 years (s. 85(3)). A sentence under s. 85 must be served consecutively to any other sentence arising out of the same event or series of events (s. 85(4)). The 1- and 3-year mandatory minimums formerly attached to this section were repealed by Bill C-5.
• Discharging a firearm with intent / reckless discharge — s. 244 and s. 244.2. Indictable. The 4-year minimum at s. 244.2(3)(b) was struck down in R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2. Other mandatory minimums in this area remain in force, including the higher minimums where a restricted or prohibited firearm or a firearm linked to a criminal organisation is used.

Mandatory Minimums After Nur, Bill C-5, Hills, and Hilbach

The mandatory minimum landscape for firearms offences has shifted substantially over the past decade. Three currents have moved the law:

Charter challenges under s. 12. The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down two firearms mandatory minimums on s. 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) grounds: the 3- and 5-year minimums under s. 95(2)(a) in R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15, and the 4-year minimum under s. 244.2(3)(b) in R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2. Both decisions proceeded on "reasonable hypothetical" analysis — Mr. Nur and Mr. Charles conceded the minimum was not grossly disproportionate on their own facts. Hills refined the analysis by setting out the three components on which gross disproportionality is now assessed: (1) the scope and reach of the offence; (2) the effects of the penalty on the offender; and (3) the penalty and the balance struck by its objectives.

R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3. Hilbach was the companion appeal to Hills. It addressed two distinct robbery-with-firearm minimums in s. 344: the 5-year minimum at s. 344(1)(a)(i) for robbery with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and the 4-year minimum at s. 344(1)(a.1) for robbery with an ordinary (non-restricted, non-prohibited) firearm. The courts below in Alberta had held both minimums unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed and upheld both as constitutional, emphasising that the threshold for gross disproportionality is high and that Parliament's denunciatory and deterrent objectives are owed deference. The reason robbery with an ordinary firearm no longer carries a mandatory minimum is not Hilbach but Bill C-5, which repealed s. 344(1)(a.1) shortly before the decision was released; because the repeal post-dated the hearing, the Court analysed the provision as it had previously been enacted. On its own terms, Hilbach is authority that cuts against a s. 12 challenge — it confirms that a firearms mandatory minimum can survive constitutional scrutiny.

Legislative repeal under Bill C-5. Bill C-5, which received Royal Assent on November 17, 2022, eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for fourteen offences in the Criminal Code. The firearms minimums repealed include: s. 85 (use of firearm in commission), s. 92 (possession knowing unauthorised), s. 95 (possession of prohibited/restricted firearm with ammunition), s. 96 (possession of weapon obtained by crime), the residual 1-year minimums in s. 99(3), s. 100(3), and s. 103(2.1), the 4-year minimum at s. 244(2)(b) for discharging with intent where a non-restricted firearm was used, the 4-year minimum at s. 244.2(3)(b) for reckless discharge (also separately struck down in Hills), the 4-year minimum at s. 344(1)(a.1) for robbery with a non-restricted firearm, and the 4-year minimum at s. 346(1.1)(a.1) for extortion with a non-restricted firearm.

What remains. Mandatory minimums remain in force for the most serious firearms-aggravated offences — including manslaughter, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery with a restricted or prohibited firearm under s. 344(1)(a)(i), extortion with a restricted or prohibited firearm under s. 346(1.1)(a)(i), and discharge offences involving a restricted or prohibited firearm or one linked to a criminal organisation. The constitutional analysis under s. 12 continues to be fact-specific: Hilbach confirms that not every remaining minimum is vulnerable, and the analysis turns on the scope of the offence, the effects on the offender, and the balance with the provision's objectives.

Possession: Knowledge and Control

Every possession-based firearms charge requires the Crown to prove the elements of possession. Under s. 4(3) of the Criminal Code, personal and constructive possession (s. 4(3)(a)) require the Crown to prove that the accused knowingly had the thing in their actual possession or knowingly had it in any place for their own or another's use or benefit. Joint possession (s. 4(3)(b)) — where two or more persons share possession with the knowledge and consent of all — adds the further element of consent.

Knowledge. The Crown must prove the accused knew of the firearm's existence and knew of its nature as a firearm. A firearm hidden in a vehicle, residence, or location without the accused's knowledge cannot support a possession conviction. Where multiple persons had access to the place — a shared vehicle, a shared residence, a workplace, a rental — the knowledge analysis is heavily fact-specific.

Control. The Crown must prove some measure of dominion over the firearm. Mere proximity is not control. Mere presence in a location where a firearm is found is not control. The Crown's case for control is most often built circumstantially — fingerprints, DNA, photographs, statements, the location of the firearm relative to the accused's personal effects, and prior conduct.

Constructive possession. The Crown can establish possession through the doctrine of constructive possession — proof that the accused knowingly had the firearm in the actual possession or custody of another person, or in any place for their own or another's use or benefit. Constructive possession requires the same elements (knowledge and a measure of control) but proved through different means. The fact-specific scrutiny of how the Crown proves these elements is the core of most firearms defences.

The Defences That Actually Work

Firearms files reward careful technical work on the police investigation and the elements of possession. The arguments that succeed:

Section 8 — search and seizure. Almost every firearms prosecution begins with a search that produced the firearm. Where the search was warrantless, the Crown bears the burden of justifying it. Where it was authorised by warrant, the Information to Obtain is reviewable under R v Garofoli, [1990] 2 SCR 1421. The review is deferential: the trial judge does not retry the authorisation but asks whether, on the record as amplified, there was any basis on which the authorising judge could have granted it. Material misstatements in the ITO, omissions of exculpatory information, and reliance on uncorroborated tips can lead to the warrant being set aside and the firearm excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Searches of motor vehicles incident to arrest engage R v Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51, which sets the boundaries of the common-law search-incident-to-arrest power in the vehicle context. Residential searches engage the Hunter v Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145 baseline: prior authorisation, by a person capable of acting judicially and entirely impartial, on reasonable and probable grounds established on oath.

Section 9 — arbitrary detention. The detention that leads to the search is reviewable under R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52. Investigative detention requires reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual is implicated in a recent or ongoing crime; the detention must be brief; the detained person must be advised in clear language of the reasons; and there is no obligation to answer questions. The incidental power is a protective pat-down where there are reasonable grounds to believe officer or public safety is at risk — not a general evidence-search power. The threshold question of when a detention has occurred is governed by R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32: psychological detention is established where there is a legal obligation to comply or where a reasonable person in the accused's position would conclude they had no choice but to comply.

Section 10(b) — right to counsel. Statements taken without proper advice of rights, or before the accused had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel, are vulnerable. The admissibility analysis under s. 24(2) is governed by Grant's three-part framework — the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Knowledge and control. Did the accused actually know the firearm was there? Did the accused have control over it? Where a firearm was found in a shared space, a vehicle the accused was a passenger in, or a residence where multiple persons had access, the Crown's case for possession is materially weaker. The contemporaneous record — who had access, who had used the space, who else might have placed the firearm — is the field on which most possession defences are run.

Classification. The classification of the firearm — restricted, prohibited, non-restricted, or not a "firearm" at all within the s. 2 definition — drives both the offence charged and the sentencing exposure. Expert evidence on classification (firearms examiners, modifications, magazine capacity, barrel length, operability) can shift a file from one section of the Code to another.

Constitutional challenges to remaining mandatory minimums. The mandatory minimums that survived Bill C-5 and the Nur/Hills/Hilbach trilogy continue to be challenged in individual cases under s. 12. Where the file presents a reasonable hypothetical or a fact pattern on which the minimum would be grossly disproportionate — analysed through the Hills three-component test — the constitutional challenge remains viable.

Prohibition Orders and Licence Consequences

A firearms conviction carries consequences beyond the custodial sentence:

• Section 109 — mandatory prohibition orders. Conviction for an offence enumerated in s. 109 (most violent indictable offences, drug trafficking offences, and many firearms offences) triggers a mandatory firearms prohibition order. The order operates in two tiers. The lower tier — prohibiting possession of non-restricted firearms, crossbows, restricted weapons, firearm parts, ammunition, and explosive substances — runs for a minimum of 10 years for a first offence. The upper tier — prohibiting possession of prohibited firearms, restricted firearms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, and prohibited ammunition — is mandatory for life, including on a first offence. Both tiers are mandatory for life on a second or subsequent qualifying conviction.
• Section 110 — discretionary prohibition orders. Conviction for other offences in which violence was used, threatened, or attempted, or where the offence's subject matter was a firearm or weapon, allows the court to consider a discretionary prohibition order. Duration is up to 10 years, or up to life where the violence was against an intimate partner, a child of the offender or victim, or a member of the offender's or victim's household.
• Sections 111, 117.011, and 117.04 — preventive orders and seizures. A firearms prohibition can be sought, and firearms can be seized, without any charge or conviction. Under s. 111, a peace officer, firearms officer, or chief firearms officer — not a private complainant — may apply to a provincial court judge for a prohibition order where there are reasonable grounds to believe it is not desirable in the interests of safety that the person possess a firearm or other regulated thing, for a period the judge fixes. Section 117.011 provides a related order where a person associates with someone already prohibited. The emergency "red flag" order under s. 110.1, by which any person may apply ex parte, is described below under "yellow flag vs. red flag." Section 117.04 separately permits a peace officer to apply ex parte for a warrant to seize firearms on safety grounds. These tracks run independently of any criminal prosecution.
• Section 117.01 — breach of prohibition. Possession in breach of any prohibition order made under any Act of Parliament — including an order under s. 109, s. 110, or s. 111, the conditions of a bail order under s. 515, a peace bond under s. 810, or any other federal prohibition — is a stand-alone offence. Hybrid, with a maximum of 10 years on indictment.
• Licence revocation by the CFO. The Chief Firearms Officer may revoke a PAL or RPAL under s. 70(1) of the Firearms Act for "any good and sufficient reason," including loss of eligibility under s. 5. The eligibility analysis at s. 5(2) requires the CFO to consider prior threatening, violent, and protection-related conduct, including prior court orders prohibiting communication with a person or attendance at a specified place (s. 5(2)(d)) and prior history of intimate-partner violence connected to firearms (s. 5(2)(e)). Where the CFO has reasonable grounds to suspect the licence-holder may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking, s. 70.1 requires revocation within 24 hours. Section 70.2 provides for automatic revocation on the issuance of a protection order.
• The reference under s. 74 and the appeal under s. 77. A licence-holder whose licence has been revoked may file a reference (not an appeal) to a provincial court judge within 30 days of notice. The hearing is de novo, with the burden on the applicant to satisfy the judge that the revocation was not justified. The true appeal lies to the superior court under s. 77.
• Yellow flag vs. red flag. The "yellow flag" mechanism in s. 69.1 of the Firearms Act permits the CFO to suspend a licence for up to 30 days while a concern is investigated; it does not authorise seizure. The "red flag" emergency prohibition and seizure mechanisms are in the Criminal Code at ss. 110.1 and 117.0101, not the Firearms Act.
• Re-acquiring a licence after a prohibition. Anyone who has been subject to a firearms prohibition order is required by s. 7(3)(a) of the Firearms Act to re-take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course before becoming eligible to hold a licence again.
• Immigration and travel consequences. A firearms conviction triggers inadmissibility analysis under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for non-citizens. United States travel is typically affected for any indictable conviction or any conviction involving violent or threatening conduct.

Where We Appear

We act on firearms and weapons files in the Alberta Court of Justice, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, and the Court of Appeal of Alberta, including on Charter applications, prohibition orders, and licence-related matters. From our Calgary office we travel to court in Airdrie, Cochrane, Canmore, Okotoks, Diamond Valley, Didsbury, Strathmore, Drumheller, Hanna, Brooks, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Fort Macleod, Taber, Pincher Creek, and Cardston, and we appear in matters arising on the Tsuut'ina, Siksika, and Kainai (Blood Tribe) Nations.

If You Have Been Charged, Call a Lawyer Today.

Firearms files reward early engagement. The investigation and the licence-revocation processes often run on parallel tracks, and the early conversation determines what gets preserved, what gets contested, and what gets explained at the wrong time. The initial consultation is at no charge and is conducted in strict confidence.