SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULES. Is this is new news and how this affects us?

[Kokanee]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indeed.

But given the level of ignorance/panic I'm seeing on here and FB groups, I think its better to inform people properly.

No I was calling Cameron SS a troll, you're spot on dude!

[RainyEyes]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

I am not a troll I swear, but I do have a legal background...

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

The Criminal Code makes it an offence to point a firearm at someone. You can not consent to a criminal code offence, and there is no waiver.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
Marginal note:Consent...

Side note: Maybe putting this outside of AV wasn't such a good idea afterall...

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by MaybeStopCalling

Cameron SS, I suggest you go back and check your facts. Last I checked, magazine capacity requirements as stated here:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/b...323-72-eng.htm

Mean that airsoft guns would have to be centrefire or rimfire for magazine capacity requirements to apply. Calm down, and do your research. Please. The last thing we need is for panic or fear mongering to take hold in the community.

Hi, I can assure you, I am quite calm. I have also done much research on this issue. The information you have provided is not law, and you should be cautious when relying on the RCMP bulletins as they have frequently misquoted and misrepresented the law in their bulletins.

The proper reference you should be reviewing is the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r...462/index.html

Part 4. Prohibited Devices.
Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations.
These regulations prohibit
"3. (1) Any cartridge magazine
(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in
(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,
(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun,
(iii) an automatic firearm whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger;
(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."

Note the lack of reference to centre-fire ammo. It simply says cartridge of the type for which it was designed. If it was designed to hold Airsoft Pellets, and it is designed for use in a full auto firearm, it is limited to five rounds. Yes there is an exemption for rimfires, but that obviously doesn't affect Airsoft.

Just for reference purposes, Section 84 of the criminal code defines both "ammunition" and "cartridge magazine". http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-42.html#h-38

“ammunition” means a cartridge containing a projectile designed to be discharged from a firearm and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a caseless cartridge and a shot shell;

“cartridge magazine” means a device or container from which ammunition may be fed into the firing chamber of a firearm;

Again, no reference to centre-fire/rimfire. Airsoft guns discharge projectiles, and have chambers, there both of the above definitions easily apply to Airsoft guns.

In R. v. Dunn, R. v. Dunn, 2013 ONCA 539 (CanLII) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...13onca539.html, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that any gun that shoots a projectile faster than 214 fps, is a FIREARM. This was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, just this week, when they dismissed Dunn's appeal. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc...2014scc69.html

An Airsoft gun that meets the definition of Handgun in Section 84 of the criminal code, is a RESTRICTED firearm, AND is subject to the above regulations, as they are written, regardless of what the RCMP post on their website.

Originally Posted by Drake

Do you know understand what the ruling was? Do you even know what the specific case in question was about?

Yes, and Yes.

The 214 fps bit was presumably intended for for pellet guns, in the context of the court case. The defined parameters set out for airsoft guns (0.2g@366fps) haven't changed, nor has the CCC been changed in any way.

The ruling made no distinction based on pellet gun. In interpreting the definition of Firearm under the criminal code, it was considering all "barreled weapons shooting a projectile with a velocity of more than 214 fps. No specific consideration was given to mass of the projectile, or means of propulsion. I am unclear of the defined parameters you are referencing for Airsoft guns. Please provide a reference.

While the parameters set out for airguns may not have changed, the interpretation for what is a FIREARM under the law HAS changed, and if an airsoft gun shoots in excess of 214 fps, it is considered a FIREARM, and any airsoft parameters for things that are NOT firearms no longer apply

Not according to the CCC.

Section 99 of the Criminal Code.
99. (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or
(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of
a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

No, they are not. As quoted in the other thread, the CCC specifically identifies parameters for low power airguns (including airsoft which are not considered to be Replica Firearms) which are exempt from the Firearms Act (which covers storage, transportation, etc).
Again, no.

That is why what the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled by supporting the ONCA ruling is so important. If the airsoft gun shoots faster than 214 fps, it is a firearm. Less than 214 fps, and the rules for airsoft guns not deemed replicas applies.

On your person in public, yes (but that was always the case). In your car its fine, just as its always been.

Now that most airsoft guns are deemed to be firearms, this is no longer the case.

Nothing makes them illegal now (unless someone secretly amended the CCC overnight), and its sub-366 fps airsoft guns which remain illegal.

The CCC has not changed, no. But the Supreme Court of Canada has issued a very significant ruling interpreting what the CCC says.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think you should inform yourself a bit better about the law, airsoft, and please refrain from posting misinformation as fact.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with airsoft, but quite familiar with the law, particularly the criminal code and firearms law. This is a very significant ruling and it will result in years of legal action. I wish it were not so, and I didn't come here to rain on anyone's parade.

What I have quoted is not misinformation, and except for where I quoted the law, it is not fact either, just opinion. Just like the RCMP website is THEIR opinion.

Read the law. The SCC has effectively issued a ruling declaring all barreled weapons firing projectiles more than 214 fps are a firearm under section 84 (3) of the Criminal code. This is HUGE.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by RainyEyes

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
Marginal note:Consent...

Side note: Maybe putting this outside of AV wasn't such a good idea afterall...

Yes, I know. Assault, by definition, requires a lack of consent. You can consent to being punched in the face, and it is not an "assault" because there was consent. It would be tautologous to say I consented to a non-consensual act.

Nothing in Section 87 of the Criminal Code addresses consent, and a lack of consent is not a required element of the offence.

87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

Consent is not a lawful excuse.

[L473ncy]

Originally Posted by Chillyrabbit

air guns have real uses too besides airsoft, people compete with air rifles already. So an outright ban on a legitimate sport that uses firearms seems unlikely and from reading it it may even legalize airsoft that can shoot above 214 fps. But the CBSA can still play by its own rules.

Dude no. .177 cal pellets are way heavier than 6mm BB's, the standard measurement is .20's and not .12's or .25's or .28's. You can do the math, it's Joules (speed and a mass) that matter not FPS (speed independent of mass).

Otherwise if you get hyper velocity .177 pellets your air rifle just became illegal or if you use heavy ass pellets to get an air rifle that shoots say 550 FPS down to the 495 limit. Same with using .12's to get velocity to 366 and then being good to go.

[pusangani]

I for one welcome the paranoia, let the idiots that believe the sky is falling leave and sell their guns for cheap. It's fucking win-win! Less idiots and cheap guns is a good thing in my book hehe

[Skeletor]

If it's just a blanket 214 fps rule, couldn't BBBastards or someone like that make .9g ammo or something like that that would show the guns shooting under that limit for legal purposes? (If it did come to something like this, that is. This all looks pretty overblown to me).

It makes no sense without reference to energy or weight of projectile.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by Kokanee

Wrong. The criminal code states:

87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.
Marginal note:Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Playing airsoft is a "lawful excuse", if you consent to being a participant in a game. So there is no problem for players playing the game.

THere is a problem for people misusing airsoft, ie going downtown and shooting people etc... What this ruling does is give law enforcement the teeth to go after offenders who are causing problems for the sport.

THIS RULING IS A GOOD THING FOR THE SPORT.

I wish what you say were true. Would you care to provide a reference for your interpretation of lawful excuse?

Consent is ONLY a lawful excuse IF lack of consent is a required element of the offence.

[RainyEyes]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Yes, I know. Assault, by definition, requires a lack of consent. You can consent to being punched in the fact, and it is not an "assault" because there was consent. It would be tautologous to say I consented to a non-consensual act.

Nothing in Section 87 of the Criminal Code addresses consent, and a lack of consent is not a required element of the offence.

87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

Consent is not a lawful excuse.

Consent is INDEED a lawful excuse.

Consider the logic in this. If consent is considered an essential element to assault, and a successful defense argument in prosecution, it is therefore deemed to be a lawful reason for applying an act.

In the context of assault, the act of applying force, or the knowing of the ability to carry out said threat/application of force is parallel to the pointing of a firearm at another person which is the knowing potential ability to apply said force, it would constitute assault.

Side note: In the event that the firearm is loaded, an officer would charge the accused with both assault and pointing a firearm, but that is a case after the fact, and is irrelevant in determining the charges.

Using syllogism, we can deduct that if consent is a defense that constitutes a lawful excuse in assault, it MUST apply as a lawful excuse in S. 87 C.C.

To spell this out.
Pointing a firearm at a person is assault.
Consent is a legal defense to assault.
Therefore, consent is a legal defense to pointing a firearm at a person.

In the context of airsoft, this would hold true because of the situation, and if you counter argue that there is no case law where this applies, just try it in court. A good lawyer is able to look at the context of the charge and apply a lawful excuse. There's a reason that there are no provisions in the CC that outline lawful excuses; they are contextual and are defined by the type of charge.

That being said, you're not wrong that the essential element of s. 87 is a lack of consent, but consent is, however, a lawful excuse, which is an essential element and the defense to this charge.

As well, I have had the pleasure of having an RCMP officer point his firearm at my instructor in a training scenario. No one was charged. We all left unharmed. Was this a sign of police corruption? Hell no. To insinuate that consent is not a lawful excuse in s. 87 demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of law and a lack of consideration for the context and pragmatism of law.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by RainyEyes

Consent is INDEED a lawful excuse.

Consider the logic in this. If consent is considered an essential element to assault, and a successful defense argument in prosecution, it is therefore deemed to be a lawful reason for applying an act.

Not sure what you mean by this.

In the context of assault, the act of applying force, or the knowing of the ability to carry out said threat/application of force is parallel to the pointing of a firearm at another person which is the knowing potential ability to apply said force, it would constitute assault.

Pointing a firearm at someone CAN constitute assault, IF there was no consent to the pointing. If police witnessed you pointing a firearm, you would likely get charged for both. If the person who you pointed at said "I consented", as in the case of sports, games, backyard fun, whatever, the charge of assault must be dropped. Inherent in the definition of assault is the words, 'without consent'. If when enacting Section 87 of the Criminal Code, Parliament meant for consent to be a relevant factor, they would have said so. Lawful excuse typically, but not exclusively, means a defense of self defense, duress, necessity, etc. or any other excuse established in law relevant to that section specifically.

Using syllogism, we can deduct that if consent is a defense that constitutes a lawful excuse in assault, it MUST apply as a lawful excuse in S. 87 C.C.

To spell this out.
Pointing a firearm at a person is assault.
Consent is a legal defense to assault.
Therefore, consent is a legal defense to pointing a firearm at a person.

You have presented a logical fallacy.
Not all assaults are necessarily a result of pointing a firearm.
Further the Criminal Code has set out Assault and Pointing, as two separate things, and while the same act may fall under both definitions, the legal defenses available to one do not necessarily apply to the other.

In the context of airsoft, this would hold true because of the situation, and if you counter argue that there is no case law where this applies, just try it in court. A good lawyer is able to look at the context of the charge and apply a lawful excuse. There's a reason that there are no provisions in the CC that outline lawful excuses; they are contextual and are defined by the type of charge.

That being said, you're not wrong that the essential element of s. 87 is a lack of consent, but consent is, however, a lawful excuse, which is an essential element and the defense to this charge.

Not sure that if that is a typo, so please clarify. I never said lack of consent was an essential element of s.87. In fact I have suggested the opposite. The essential elements of s. 87 are pointing a firearm at someone, and intending to do so. Consent is only a lawful excuse, if a lack of consent is a required element of the offence. There is no requirement for a lack of consent to pointing a firearm, therefore lack of consent is not a lawful excuse.

As well, I have had the pleasure of having an RCMP officer point his firearm at my instructor in a training scenario. No one was charged. We all left unharmed. Was this a sign of police corruption? Hell no. To insinuate that consent is not a lawful excuse in s. 87 demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of law and a lack of consideration for the context and pragmatism of law.

RCMP officers are exempt from large portions of the criminal code, notably Part 3, when they are performing their duties. If the RCMP officer was not performing his assigned duties and pointed his service pistol at someone, than it is entirely possible that he broke the law.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't have to make sense. There are many examples, particularly under our poorly written firearms legislation, where the law defies all logic and pragmatism. Sadly, it seems like Airsofters are about to feel this pain.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by Skeletor

If it's just a blanket 214 fps rule, couldn't BBBastards or someone like that make .9g ammo or something like that that would show the guns shooting under that limit for legal purposes? (If it did come to something like this, that is. This all looks pretty overblown to me).

It makes no sense without reference to energy or weight of projectile.

No one ever said the law has to make sense.

[Cliffradical]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

---1---

...Note the lack of reference to centre-fire ammo. It simply says cartridge of the type for which it was designed. If it was designed to hold Airsoft Pellets, and it is designed for use in a full auto firearm, it is limited to five rounds. Yes there is an exemption for rimfires, but that obviously doesn't affect Airsoft.

Just for reference purposes, Section 84 of the criminal code defines both "ammunition" and "cartridge magazine". http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-42.html#h-38

“ammunition” means a cartridge containing a projectile designed to be discharged from a firearm and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a caseless cartridge and a shot shell;

“cartridge magazine” means a device or container from which ammunition may be fed into the firing chamber of a firearm;

Again, no reference to centre-fire/rimfire. Airsoft guns discharge projectiles, and have chambers, there both of the above definitions easily apply to Airsoft guns...

---2---

...I am admittedly unfamiliar with airsoft, but quite familiar with the law, particularly the criminal code and firearms law...

---3---

...This is not misinformation...

Clipping my personal observations on content.

1: Airsoft guns do not operate on a cartridge-based system. Unless, of course, you counted the (Airsoft) magazine as the 'cartridge' in this interpretation (a huge and absurd stretch), and the user's load bearing equipment as the 'magazine' (ditto).

2: (see article [1]) That much is true.

3: Within the context of this deteriorating argument, it's fall-back position resting on pedantics, and your own admitted ignorance of the subject of this argument, yes, it is.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Section 99 of the Criminal Code.
99. (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or
(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of
a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

Again, read the CCC properly.

(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
[...]

(d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge

(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or

(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.

Section 99 does not apply. Period.

No, they are not. As quoted in the other thread, the CCC specifically identifies parameters for low power airguns (including airsoft which are not considered to be Replica Firearms) which are exempt from the Firearms Act (which covers storage, transportation, etc).
Again, no.

That is why what the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled by supporting the ONCA ruling is so important. If the airsoft gun shoots faster than 214 fps, it is a firearm. Less than 214 fps, and the rules for airsoft guns not deemed replicas applies.

What you're repeatedly failing to grasp is that airsoft guns which aren't replica, that is that fire above 366fps with 0.2g projectiles, were already "firearms" since 2012, in the same sense that pellet guns were firearms.


You DO also understand that this court case wasn't some random possession or importation case. Dunn was accused of pointing a pellet gun at someone, in public. This has ALWAYS been a crime (at least since 1998, if not prior). His original defense (and acquittal) revolved around the idea that the gun was not a firearm; the appeal used the existing laws (as everyone in the airsoft community already understood them) to establish that it was, in fact, a firearm.

The NFA got wind of this ruling and suddenly woke up and realized something the rest of us had known for two years now. That does not make it new, it does not make it changed. It just means the NFA was asleep at the wheel.

[Drake]

Same thing for your comment about transportation and whatnot, refer to my above quote of the CCC

(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:

Rules for transportation are part of the firearms act. But you know that. So again, not applicable.

[RainyEyes]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Pointing a firearm at someone CAN constitute assault, IF there was no consent to the pointing. If police witnessed you pointing a firearm, you would likely get charged for both. If the person who you pointed at said "I consented", as in the case of sports, games, backyard fun, whatever, the charge of assault must be dropped. Inherent in the definition of assault is the words, 'without consent'. If when enacting Section 87 of the Criminal Code, Parliament meant for consent to be a relevant factor, they would have said so. Lawful excuse typically, but not exclusively, means a defense of self defense, duress, necessity, etc. or any other excuse established in law relevant to that section specifically.

Thank you for proving my point.

You have presented a logical fallacy.
Not all assaults are necessarily a result of pointing a firearm.
Further the Criminal Code has set out Assault and Pointing, as two separate things, and while the same act may fall under both definitions, the legal defenses available to one do not necessarily apply to the other.

Then what was all that you spewed earlier about? Under what other assumption would pointing a firearm at someone NOT constitute assault? For all intents and purposes, any time a firearm is drawn, there is the intent for potential discharge. They are separate charges because of the different context. There's a difference between intentionally harming someone and intentionally harming someone because they wanted to defend their property. Defenses work for multiple charges. The law isn't static; it is contextual and changes with people's interpretations and understanding. What you're doing is applying a fundamental misunderstanding to skew it so that each and every law is applied regardless of social context and consideration for human nature.

Not sure that if that is a typo, so please clarify. I never said lack of consent was an essential element of s.87. In fact I have suggested the opposite. The essential elements of s. 87 are pointing a firearm at someone, and intending to do so. Consent is only a lawful excuse, if a lack of consent is a required element of the offence. There is no requirement for a lack of consent to pointing a firearm, therefore lack of consent is not a lawful excuse.

I messed up the order on that quote. I meant to say you're not wrong that consent is an essential element of Pointing, but considering that an absense of a lawful excuse constitutes the offense, its presence would therefore nullify the charge. Since you've already agreed, and contradicted yourself in the process, by saying that pointing constitutes assault when there's an absence of consent, then a lawful excuse would therefore be consent for the charge of Pointing.

Furthermore, it's fallacious to claim that consent is only a lawful excuse if the absense of consent is an essential element. For the charge of assault, consent is not a lawful excuse, it is consent. For the charge of Pointing, consent constitutes a lawful excuse, but lawful excuses can also be other things. There is no requirement that consent be a lawful excuse in order for it to be an effective defense.

I would like to know what "legal" background this guy has. You seem to just be pulling up legislation pages without any info and spewing it out like gospel. The law WILL change; i guarantee that, but until CanLii posts the decision and rationale, your speculations mean nothing.