Sopuck tables Private Members’ Bill to Amend Low-Velocity Rifle Definitions

November 27, 2021

safe and sensible

Ottawa, ON – Today Robert Sopuck, Member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, tabled Private Members’ Bill C-637: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Firearms Storage and Transportation).

Bill C-637 proposes to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to clarify that low-velocity rifles such as BB guns and air rifles should not be considered firearms,” said Sopuck. “They have an incredibly low muzzle velocity and the projectile does not use gun powder: it is literally not a ‘fire arm.’”

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada (Dunn v. R) upheld an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that a BB gun should be considered a “firearm.” This exposed a gap in current legislation, since there are significant differences between actual firearms and BB guns and air rifles. Actual rifles using bullets that contain gun powder have a significantly higher muzzle velocity than BB guns.

“This is a common sense amendment that will clarify a current gap in Canadian law,” Sopuck said. “The Conservatives are the only ones who will ensure that safe and reasonable policies are put in place regarding firearms in Canada. To lump air rifles together with actual firearms is nonsensical.”

Bill C-637 proposes to amend Section 84 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 84 is the definitions section of the part of the Criminal Code relating to “Firearms and Other Weapons.” By adding this clause to Section 84, this Bill will also clarify Section 86 and related provisions of the Firearms Act that deal with how the Acts define “firearms.”

“The Liberals and New Democrats would bring back the long gun registry and needlessly criminalize millions of hunters, anglers, and sport shooters,” said Sopuck. “Just yesterday Liberal leader Justin Trudeau confirmed that they will oppose the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act.”


Associated Links
To view Bill C-637, see:

To view the Criminal Code of Canada, see here:

To view the Firearms Act, see here:

To read the appellant’s factum in Dunn v. R, see: