February 10, 2026

Think the Canada Gun Grab Can’t Happen Here? It Already Is.

By Larry Keane

There’s a self-soothing notion that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution keeps the excesses of an overreaching government away from the gun safes of law-abiding gun owners. That notion is just that. It’s veneer-thin, just a wisp away from the shifting political winds that are already blowing across several states that could usher in Canadian-style gun confiscation to the United States.

The fact is that the Second Amendment requires constant vigilance against politicians who would disarm Americans “for their own safety.” That’s why NSSF is battling proposed bans — and even illegal dispossession — of lawfully-owned firearms and magazines in states like Virginia and New Mexico. Legislators there would join California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington and the District of Columbia in banning Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), the most popular selling centerfire rifle in America. There are over 32 million MSRs in circulation today.

The popularity of these commonly owned and typically possessed firearms and standard capacity magazines doesn’t matter much to politicians bent on banning them. The popularity of these rifles and magazines does matter to the Second Amendment, however.

Those like Virginia’s Democratic Delegate Dan Helmer claim that AR-15-style rifles are “weapons of war — similar to the ones I carried in in Afghanistan.”

But they are not. They’re simply semiautomatic rifles that operate in the same manner as a duck-hunting shotgun. The rifle Delegate Helmer carried in Afghanistan was a machinegun capable of firing automatically, a feature that’s been heavily regulated since 1937 and prohibited for sale in new firearms since 1986.

Delegate Helmer claims the bill he’s sponsoring in Virginia is about preventing violence, saving lives and putting public safety first. Meanwhile, New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the proposed MSR ban in her state, “will save lives and make our state a better place to raise a family.”

But this is a false narrative. Banning MSRs and magazines is in the name of “preventing violence, saving lives and putting public safety first” will only disarm law-abiding citizens, it will nothing to disarm criminals who are the real problem and who will ignore these laws.

Data Doesn’t Lie

These are platitudes served up to placate concerns over government overreach and seizure of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, data consistently shows that each year more murders are committed with knives, fists and clubs than by rifles of all kinds — including MSRs. The FBI’s Crime Data Explorer tracks all types of crime and their occurrences, including homicides. National data from 2018–2023 shows a total of 90,650 murders in the United States. Of those 8,107 murders committed by a murderer using a knife or cutting instrument. There were an additional 1,925 murders committed using a blunt instrument. Add to that 459 asphyxiation murders. The total of those three is 10,491.

Compare that to instances of murderers criminally misusing a rifle, which totaled 2,469. That’s the total for all rifles, not just MSRs — or the misnamed “assault rifles” these politicians would ban.

Put another way, murderers using knives, fists and clubs came in at 11 percent of all murders tallied by the FBI between 2018 and 2023. The criminal misuse of rifles — of all types — tallied just 2.72 percent of all murders.

Additionally, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that the 1994 federal ban did not reduce crime. If this were really about public safety, these politicians would be locking up criminals instead of working to reduce sentences for criminals.

Gun Control’s ‘Public Safety’ Disguise

But Canadian-style confiscation is already creeping into America. Virginia’s legislation to ban MSRs would prohibit the sale of new rifles in the Commonwealth and ban the possession of standard capacity magazines. A grandfather clause for those who legally possess these magazines today was originally not included. The original draft legislation required those possessing magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds to destroy them, modify them, surrender them to law enforcement or move them out of the state under the threat of a potential year-long jail sentence and $2,500 fine.

Canada’s mandatory gun confiscation plan to “permanently dispose” of their banned firearms is being pitched to its citizens as a measure “to reduce gun violence in our communities and keep Canadians safe.”

Australia, in response to the horrific antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach near Sydney, announced yet another forced confiscation of firearms. The Australian government is imposing a restriction on the number of firearms that can be legally possessed by one individual, restricting firearm licensing and the type of firearms that can be possessed.

This isn’t the first time Australia has confiscated firearms from law-abiding citizens. The government there collected 650,000 guns in 1996, following a horrific terror attack then. In 2003, a handgun-specific confiscation netted nearly 69,000 guns, costing over $700 billion and between 2024 and today, a series of confiscation schemes nabbed over 83,000 guns. That’s also cost an additional $36 billion in just three years to disarm Australians.

“This national buyback scheme will help get guns off our streets and help keep all Australians safe,” said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Fighting Back

These same “government will care for your safety” arguments are creeping into America. State legislators are mimicking the same arguments that law-abiding gun owners “don’t need” a certain number of firearms or certain types of firearms. Bills are being introduced that would not just ban but dispossess lawfully owned firearms and magazines. NSSF is fighting back. NSSF is involved in challenges against Illinois’ MSR and standard capacity magazine ban (Barnett v. Raoul), funding a challenge to Rhode Island’s similar ban (Ocean State Tactical v. State of Rhode Island). NSSF is also fighting against Oregon’s ban on standard capacity magazines (Eyre v. Rosenblum) and Washington state’s magazine ban (Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns). The likelihood of similar bans being signed into law in New Mexico and Virginia looms, as both Gov. Grisham and Gov. Abigail Spanberger have both voiced support for these overreaching and unconstitutional gun control laws.

Keeping Canadian and even Australian-style gun control, which leads to civil disarmament, means constant vigilance. Politicians must be focused on crime control, not nabbing rights of law-abiding citizens under hollow “public safety” promises.

You may also be interested in: 

Is Media Purposefully Underreporting How Many Americans Own Modern Sporting Rifles?

Freedom From Unfair Gun Taxes Act Aims to Stop Punishing Taxes