Hundreds of thousands of Canadians could face prison time if they do not turn in their newly prohibited guns under a supposedly “voluntary” gun buyback program that is testing the strength of Canada’s bureaucratic regime. Since May 2020, the Canadian government has attempted to institute a massive “assault-style firearms compensation program” that will purportedly trade cash for prohibited guns. If Canadians do not turn in a prohibited gun by October 2026, they could face up to five years in prison. The program has faced massive pushback from provincial leaders and gun rights organizations who say it will only disarm law-abiding Canadians. Cathie Coward/Toronto Star via Getty Images “We’re finding that they’re running into a lot of compliance issues,” Blair Hagen, an executive at Canada’s National Firearms Association, told The Daily Wire. “They have no idea where [the guns are] or who has them. So it’s proving to be a very, very difficult situation for the government.” Due to the scope of the program, the government has extended amnesty three times for ownership of one of the thousands of banned so-called “assault-style” guns, with the latest one set to expire in October 2026. We Can Thank Justin Trudeau David Kawai/Bloomberg via Getty Images An order in council rolled out by then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May 2020 banned thousands of “assault weapons” and claimed to offer compensation to those who voluntarily turn in their weapons. According to Hagen, an order in council is a “non-democratic legal instrument” where the Canadian government can ban items like guns “without having to take legislation through parliament.” Today, the government describes participation in the gun buyback program as “voluntary” but that compliance with the gun ban is required. “While participating in the program is voluntary, compliance with the law is not. Businesses and individual firearm owners must safely dispose of or permanently deactivate their assault-style firearms before the amnesty period ends on October 30, 2026, or risk criminal liability for the illegal possession of a prohibited firearm,” the government says on its website. Justin Davis, the public affairs director of the National Rifle Association, said that it made no sense to call the program voluntary. “I mean, they call these things voluntary, but if the option is either turn them in or you’re going to jail, I would not consider that voluntary,” he told The Daily Wire.  The government also doesn’t guarantee compensation for turning in the designated weapons, only saying that gun owners “who choose to participate in the program may receive compensation subject to availability of program funds.” Carney Calls It Compensation, Not Confiscation James Park/Bloomberg via Getty Images Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the program, which could penalize gun owners with jail time if they don’t comply, was not “confiscation.” “This is not about confiscation. This is about voluntary return of firearms for compensation,” Carney said during a podcast in September 2025. “People aren’t going around confiscating guns. Anyone who says that, that is a mischaracterization, what it is is an opportunity for Canadians to return guns for compensation.” In the same podcast, Carney claimed that the hunting rifles would not be impacted by the extensive gun ban. “We are not talking about hunting rifles. We’re not talking sports shooting or anything like that. We’re talking about assault rifles,” Carney said. However, this appears to ignore the fact that there is a specific carve-out for Native tribes that use prohibited rifles for hunting. The amnesty includes “a temporary exception for Indigenous peoples’ exercising a right” under the Constitution and “as well as those who use firearms for sustenance hunting, which enables them to continue to use their newly prohibited firearms to hunt (if previously non-restricted) until a suitable replacement can be found.” Not In Alberta Leah Hennel/Bloomberg via Getty Images Many Canadian provinces, including Yukon, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, have indicated they will not assist the national government in enforcing the ban. “We will have nothing to do with this program. We will not spend any Alberta taxpayer dollars on this program,” Teri Bryant, the chief firearms officer of Alberta, told CBC News last month. “We can’t block the federal government from setting something up, but they have to set it up and be appropriately licensed.” Effectively, what this means is that the feds will be on their own for enforcing the gun ban throughout much of Canada without any assistance from local law enforcement. “If the feds want to try and enforce it, they are going to have to do it themselves, and of course, the logistics get even more insurmountable and the price goes up,” Hagen said. In the fall of 2025, the Canadian government ran a pilot program of the buyback scheme that ran for six weeks and only yielded 25 guns. The government had reportedly expected to confiscate some 200 weapons. The government declared the program a success, saying that it showed that “factual, consistent information on how the program works, what individuals can expect if they choose to participate, and legal requirements to comply with the prohibition must be readily available and up-to-date.” Hagen said that there was not much public appetite for the gun buyback program, but that it was pushed by leftists embedded in Canada’s federal bureaucracy.  “That’s one of the biggest problems with firearms laws in Canada,” he said. “There is a civil disarmament agenda in that bureaucracy. It started many years ago. They’ve done everything they can to ensure that it continues.” At the end of the day, Hagen sees the government’s efforts to stop crime and violence by taking law-abiding citizens’ firearms as illogical. “You can put all the laws and restrictions and prohibitions on the lawful acquisition and ownership of firearms that you want, but it’s not going to decrease or eliminate crime or tragedies because criminals and lunatics will always find a way,” he said. American Leftists Want The Same Policy That sentiment was echoed by Davis with the NRA, who warned that leftist politicians in the United States wanted to enact similar policies. “The issue here is the idea that criminals would be turning in their firearms is just absolutely illogical,” he told The Daily Wire. “There’s no criminal in the world who’s going to turn in their firearm for a few dollars when instead they can use it for perpetuating crime.” During her first run for president back in 2019, Kamala Harris said she supported a “mandatory” gun buyback program for so-called “assault weapons.” “We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” Harris said. “It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way.” SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images Davis said that the Second Amendment gave a layer of protection to gun owners that those in Europe and Canada didn’t have. “Places like Europe and Canada and Australia do not have those type of protections, and you see political figures continue to push more and more gun control laws that, again, just disarm law abiding citizens and create more soft targets for criminals, and evil individuals in this world who want to do harm to innocent lives,” he said. A 2024 challenge to Canada’s buyback program lost, but advocates for gun rights in Canada believe that the program will become too expensive to institute and will face a host of practical problems. Hagen sees some parallels between the current ban on “assault-style” weapons and the effort to have all long guns registered. That requirement was repealed in 2012 by a Conservative coalition and was seen as a major victory for Canadian gun rights advocates. The policies could also be overturned if Carney’s Liberal Party loses power in Canada. “It’s one thing to ban a bunch of guns and declare that they’re prohibited and state your intention to confiscate them,” Hagen said. “But it’s quite another to actually make that happen.”

A "monstrous act of cruelty" by a couple to their four children in Lancaster, California, led to a life sentence for both.Maurice Jewel Taylor Sr., 39, and Natalie Sumiko Brothwell, 49, decapitated their 12-year-old boy, Maurice, and 13-year-old girl, Maliaka, in Nov. 2020.'Two innocent children were brutally murdered, and their young brothers were left to live through unimaginable horror.'The couple then forced their younger sons, ages 8 and 9, to view the bodies of their dead siblings and confined them to their bedroom for days without food, according to prosecutors."This was a monstrous act of cruelty that shattered an entire family," said Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman in a statement about the conviction."Two innocent children were brutally murdered, and their young brothers were left to live through unimaginable horror," he added. "The jury's verdict delivers justice for these victims and sends a powerful message: Those who commit such evil acts will be held fully accountable."The two were convicted of first-degree murder as well as child abuse.The children's maternal grandmother maintained that her daughter was innocent and accused Taylor of "ruining so many lives" in a statement read to the court.Taylor and Brothwell were given life sentences without the possibility of parole."How do you put into words that two children were beheaded?" said a close family friend outside the courthouse. "This stays with all of us. This is never going to wash off."RELATED: 23-year-old stripper decapitated 55-year-old boyfriend and immediately fled to Mexico, police say The woman, who was only identified as Ellen, said she had urged Brothwell to leave the relationship for years because of domestic violence."She was doing what we were raised to believe. You stand by your man," Ellen added. "You have a family, and you raise your children."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In an era where every grievance gets inflated into a moral crusade, the ideology people call “wokeness” stands out for one trait more than any other: ungratefulness.Wokeness doesn’t simply point to injustice. It fixates on it. It treats progress as an illusion, opportunity as a trap, and gratitude as complicity. Everything becomes evidence of oppression. Nothing counts as improvement. To normal people, that posture feels like a bad odor in a room: It sours everything.Michelle Obama’s story should read like an American testimonial. Yet she often talks about the country as if it injured her.Everyone knows the type. The chronic complainer. A friend who rants about his job every time you see him. The boss is unfair. The pay is lousy. The co-workers are idiots.At first, you listen. You sympathize. You offer advice. Then the excuses begin.“I can’t quit because of the benefits.”“The job market is terrible.”“No one would hire me.”Not with that attitude, pal!Eventually you realize the problem isn’t his job. It’s him. He doesn’t want solutions. He wants a permanent grievance. After a while, you stop inviting him places. Or you nod and tune out.Wokeness runs on the same fuel. It sells victimhood as identity and complaint as virtue. It refuses to admit how far the country has moved on race, sex, and equality because that would require humility — and would shrink the movement’s moral leverage.The result is predictable: Sympathy dries up. People get exhausted. Potential allies become spectators.You see this pattern in activist politics across the board. Some racial activists talk about systemic racism endlessly while refusing to deal honestly with internal problems that damage communities, like family breakdown and educational collapse. Some LGBTQ activists demand constant affirmation while downplaying enormous legal and cultural victories.The message stays the same: You owe us more. It rarely becomes: Look how far we’ve come, or here’s what we can fix ourselves.Michelle Obama embodies this attitude better than almost anyone.Her story should read like an American testimonial. The country elected her husband president twice. The Obamas became global figures. They turned that platform into immense wealth and influence through books, speeches, and media deals. Few families have been lifted higher by modern America.Yet Michelle Obama often talks about the country as if it injured her.Start with her 2008 campaign remark: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” Whatever she meant, it landed as contempt. She had lived an elite, upwardly mobile American life — Princeton, Harvard Law, a prestigious career — and still claimed pride only arrived when her husband’s political rise validated it.Then came the line from her 2016 convention speech: “I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.” She could have framed it as proof of moral progress: a black family in the White House, a nation that overcame its own sins. Instead, she chose the grievance frame, even in the middle of historic achievement.More recently, Obama described her White House years as a kind of trauma: “What happened that eight years ...? What did that do to me internally? ... We made it through. We got out alive.” She doesn’t have to pretend the job was easy. But she keeps using the same vocabulary: burden, survival, damage — as if the privilege itself was the wound.RELATED: Why Trump must block Netflix’s Warner Bros. takeover Wokeness runs on ungratefulness — and normal people are done with itIn that same conversation, she complained about being labeled “bitter” and “angry” as a black woman. Yet she enjoyed years of glowing coverage from the same cultural institutions that demonize her critics: legacy media, Hollywood, corporate America, the prestige press. Whatever hostility Obama faced, she lived under the warmest spotlight in American public life.That’s the dynamic people recognize instinctively. Wokeness demands that everyone feel guilty, even when the facts argue for gratitude. It can’t celebrate progress because celebration would admit the country improved. It can’t relax because the crusade requires permanent outrage. It can’t share credit because that would weaken the hierarchy of grievance.Normal Americans don’t reject wokeness because they hate justice. They reject it because it never stops scolding, never seems satisfied, and never acknowledges anything good. It turns every achievement into an accusation and every success into a complaint.Ungratefulness repels people. Always has. The movement that builds itself on resentment will keep shrinking — not because its enemies “silenced” it, but because everyday people walked away.That’s the fate of every ideology that cannot say two simple words: Thank you.

Jupiter is smaller and flatter than scientists previously thought, new measurements of the gas giant reveal.

By Blessing NwekeSoldiers and swarms of snow plows battled record-breaking snowfall across Japan on Tuesday, as winter storms buried parts of the country’s north and west and pushed the death toll to…

A frightening mystery unfolding in southern Arizona reached the Oval Office on Tuesday, as President Donald Trump weighed in publicly on the disappearance of the mother of NBC’s “Today” show co-host…

© 2026 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may…

Subpoenaed records cited by lawmakers detail years of coordination between European officials and social media platforms affecting American political content.By yourNEWS Media Newsroom A new report released…