Tony Bernardo is the Executive Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.Bill 42 does not rewrite federal licencing or abolish “gun control.” What it does is more technical and, in many ways, more enduring.It builds a more robust provincial architecture for administering firearms law and strengthens oversight where firearms are used most intensively (ranges and instructors).It creates a cautious but meaningful bridge between health professionals and public safety, while asserting that when federal law significantly strips property of its lawful use, fair compensation should follow.For those who study or care about Canadian firearms policy, Bill 42 is a clear example of how a province can balance safety, fairness, and constitutional realities.For everyone else, it’s a window into how complex legal tools are used to navigate the intersection of individual rights, federal power, and public safety in a modern federation.If you care about the rule of law, federal–provincial balance, public safety, or property rights in Canada, there are important benefits here — whether you personally own a firearm or not.Even if you have no intention of ever owning a firearm, Bill 42 is a live case study in several core themes of Canadian public law.How provinces respond to federal policy. Deemed‑seizure and compensation rules demonstrate a provincial attempt to protect residents from sudden, uncompensated losses driven by federal regulations..Balancing rights with safety. The medical‑reporting framework, inspection powers, and instructor controls show how safety measures can be built with safeguards for privacy, due process, and transparency.The commissioner/deputy/assistant structure reflects a move toward more professional, scalable public administration.Bill 42 signals that when government action (especially from another order of government) dramatically affects valuable property, there should be a clear, fair, and transparent compensation pathway.Predictable legal frameworks: Owners, clubs, medical professionals, instructors, and the general public benefit when the law is clear about duties, processes, and consequences.Bill 42 turns the “Saskatchewan firearms commissioner” from a single‑person role into a structured office of commissioner, deputy commissioners, and assistant commissioners.The minister can delegate powers to the commissioner, and the commissioner can further delegate to deputies and assistants, subject to conditions.This is administrative plumbing, but it matters. Strong governance frameworks generally result in more timely decisions, clearer lines of responsibility, and fewer “black holes” where files disappear.Bill 42 changes a crucial word in the penalty provisions: instead of applying only to one division of Part 3, the offence and penalty clauses now apply to the entire Part 3..If you’re a firearms owner, you get clearer expectations and more predictable consequences. If you’re not, you benefit from a regulatory landscape that is more coherent and easier to apply.Bill 42 adds a simple but important rule. If a person is subject to a court order imposing alternative penalties (such as training, restrictions, or conditions) and they ignore it, that non‑compliance is now a separate offence.This is a principle that goes beyond firearms. It reinforces the idea that when courts craft tailored conditions instead of simply punishing, those conditions still carry real weight.Bill 42 creates an explicit inspection regime for shooting clubs and ranges that are approved, or seeking approval, under the federal Firearms Act.Obstructing or interfering with an inspector becomes an offence.Even if you never visit a shooting range, this structure is an example of preventive regulation. It’s checking systems before something goes wrong, not only after.Bill 42 introduces a framework allowing medical professionals to report individuals who, in their professional opinion, may be dangerous if they possess or use firearms, and who hold or have applied for a firearms licence.Reporting is permitted but not mandatory, requiring a reasonable belief about the licence status and a professional opinion about danger. Medical professionals are protected from civil liability if they report in good faith. Reports are privileged and not admissible as evidence, except to prove the fact of good-faith reporting..For non‑owners, this is a reassuring bridge between health and public safety.For firearms owners, the safeguards, limited scope, and good‑faith protections help prevent arbitrary or malicious use while acknowledging rare but serious cases.Bill 42 gives the Chief Firearms Officer explicit power to designate who may deliver the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and administer tests in Saskatchewan.Only designated instructors may teach or test.The CFO can revoke designations as appropriate.Policies and guidelines for designation and revocation must be published.Failing to follow these rules is an offence.This is a classic “public interest” reform by improving standards for people who interact with potentially lethal tools..Bill 42 clarifies that “owner” includes the heirs, executors, administrators, and legal representatives of an owner.This is part of a bigger principle of laws dealing with property should anticipate real‑life events like death and succession so families are not left in legal limbo.The most politically charged part of Bill 42 is the new Division that treats certain federal changes as a “deemed seizure” for compensation purposes if the owner isn’t fully paid within a year.When a federal law or regulation (a “specified law”) takes away an owner’s ability to possess or transfer a firearm they previously owned lawfully, and the owner doesn’t receive full compensation within 12 months, Then, for the purposes of Saskatchewan’s Act, the firearm is deemed seized, and the Government of Canada is required to pay full fair‑market‑value compensation under the provincial valuation machinery.The law also applies to specified laws that came into force before this provision, not just future changes. It resets limitation‑period clocks so that time limits cannot be used to easily defeat compensation claims.Why this is significant beyond firearms?Saskatchewan is taking a firm stance on property-rights signalling by asserting that when federal rules effectively strip a class of property of its lawful use and transferability, it should be regarded as a seizure, necessitating a duty to compensate.Saskatchewan is utilizing its jurisdictional tools to influence the interaction between federal firearms policy and the property interests of its residents through federal–provincial dialogue. This approach serves as a clear constitutional and political statement that any federal policy imposing significant economic loss should include a plan for fair compensation, regardless of whether the scheme is ever litigated..Rule-of-law clarity is enhanced for affected owners as the rules are now more straightforward. If your firearm is essentially legislated out of lawful existence and you are not compensated within a year, Saskatchewan law stipulates that you have a recognizable compensation claim.For others watching from the sidelines, this is a high‑profile example of a province building structured responses when residents face sudden regulatory loss of value.Regardless of where you stand on “gun control,” Saskatchewan’s architecture is a model for how provinces may respond when federal action dramatically alters private property rights.Bill 42 adds practical mechanisms for handling firearms caught by the federal firearms confiscation scheme.The commissioner may collect and store firearms while value is being determined. Firearms can be tested (for forensic and ballistic purposes) under adapted rules from the testing division.The commissioner may contract private entities to store firearms, and these entities are explicitly not considered “seizure agents.” Neither the commissioner nor the storage contractor is compensated; the obligation falls on the Government of Canada. Once the owner receives full payment, the firearm must be destroyed or deactivated as directed.This is a design that tries to be both practically workable and aligned with public safety priorities..Bill 42 is about far more than firearms. It’s Saskatchewan drawing a constitutional line in the sand.If the federal government uses its power to legislate a class of lawfully owned property out of existence, that loss should be treated as a seizure and should be met with fair, transparent compensation.Everything else in the bill — the stronger commissioner’s office, the inspection powers, the medical reporting framework, the control over instructors — is important scaffolding.But the heart of Bill 42 is that deemed seizure and compensation regime. It converts what would otherwise be a political grievance into a structured legal claim, backed by clear timelines, valuation rules, and a defined path to resolution.Whether you own firearms or not, that is a powerful precedent.It says that safety measures and public order do not have to come at the quiet expense of individual property rights, and that provinces are prepared to stand up for their residents when federal policy imposes sudden, uncompensated losses. Bill 42 may not settle Canada’s debates over “gun control,” but it does something more durable. It models how a province can insist on both public safety and the rule of law, both responsible regulation and honest compensation, inside a complex federal system.Tony Bernardo is the Executive Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.
