Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Opinion

Should taxpayers pay for banned assault-style rifles, or can we prohibit the guns without compensating owners?

There are rumblings about the expense of the proposed buyback of newly prohibited assault-style rifles. Every dollar given for an AR-15 is a dollar not spent on expanding child-care programs or helping small businesses, so gun groups might be wise to work with the government to ensure reasonable compensation.

1 min read
restricted_rifle

A person holds an AR-15 at their home in Langley, B.C. in 2020. Every dollar spent buying back an AR-15 is a dollar not spent on expanding child-care programs or helping small businesses, writes R. Blake Brown.


Many Canadians remember that the escalating cost of the long-gun registry weakened public support for the program, allowing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to pass legislation to destroy the registry in 2012. There are now rumblings about the expense of the proposed buyback of newly prohibited assault-style rifles. History suggests, however, there is a solution to this potential draw on public finances: prohibit the guns without compensating owners.

In the 2019 election, the Liberals said they would ban “all military-style assault rifles, including the AR-15” and would introduce “a buyback program” offering “fair market prices for owners.” The promise to pay owners seemed motivated by a desire to soften potential opposition to new gun control measures, which was probably a fool’s errand.

More from The Star & partners