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

[zelly]

Just wanted to add to this thread. The "troll" in question is a respected member of the Canadian firearms community. We are discussing this issue in depth their as well and a lot of what he said made sense and your attitude towards him and his discussion was rude and you came off with a lot of childish arrogance. It was sorta sad to read actually. That being said I'm not here to pick a fight or discuss the issue more as you have obviously determined your interpretation of the new laws to be gospel. Merely to say that only time will tell how these new laws will effect us all but hopefully like you state they will benefit our community and not hinder it.

[Cliffradical]

I think you may be reading hostility into these posts where there in fact is none.
The internet can be a frustrating place for serious discussion because there is no body language and vocal tone to go along with a discussion and establish intent. That can turn some discussions into a shitstorm where everybody reads their own negative bias into everyone else's posts.

I've been active here long enough to understand that there is very seldom any actual malice thrown around on this forum, and when there is, it's made abundantly clear. However, since we are all adults, and our hobby is layered with some very serious issues, responses to anything tend to be very blunt. They tend to be extra blunt when dealing with confused or misinformed opinions, ideas, or plans. This is to ensure that confusion is ironed out before it snowballs into full-blown bullshit.

You have the right to be all haughty and offended, but if you and your esteemed friend made an effort to ask questions about our side of the table and discuss rather than open a fact battle, you really wouldn't have to.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by zelly

Just wanted to add to this thread. The "troll" in question is a respected member of the Canadian firearms community. We are discussing this issue in depth their as well and a lot of what he said made sense and your attitude towards him and his discussion was rude and you came off with a lot of childish arrogance. It was sorta sad to read actually. That being said I'm not here to pick a fight or discuss the issue more as you have obviously determined your interpretation of the new laws to be gospel. Merely to say that only time will tell how these new laws will effect us all but hopefully like you state they will benefit our community and not hinder it.

I know who he is, I frequent that forum. I disagree with his assessment.

[zelly]

I guess I'm just taking it at face value. I will need to read more info on it. Mcguyver I would just hate for them "rcmp" start abusing air soft and paintball the way they have recently done with the firearms community

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by zelly

I guess I'm just taking it at face value. I will need to read more info on it. Mcguyver I would just hate for them "rcmp" start abusing air soft and paintball the way they have recently done with the firearms community

This happened before when C-68 came into force. The law then was 500fps, and it meant that nearly all of the estimated 30 million airguns in Canada could be firearms if they used lightweight pellets. The RCMP at that time pressed for the muzzle energy requirement to prevent unreasonable legislation and overwork prosecuting paper crime that violated the spirit the legislation, not to mention Canadian heritage.

I see nothing in this decision that warrants doom and gloom. The legislation on determination of what is a firearm is already laid and in-force.

[Drake]

zelly, while Cameron's statements may have "made sense" (no one is saying they didn't) the problem is many of his conclusions where based on demonstrably fallacious postulations -- which I clearly quoted from the CCC.

And even if the court case did re-interpret airguns/airsoft into Controlled Firearms, the ruling alone does not invalidate or re-write entire sections of the Criminal Code -- and if that was the case, any lawyer would appeal this ruling because its contrary to the law as it is currently written.

And I'm going to take this a step further because its been bugging me the past couple of day: all this rhetoric stems from a statement posted by the NFA. The NFA which for all these years snubbed and looked down on airguns and especially airsoft. And this is a trend with many of the "real steel" gun owners, isn't it: they want to protect their own hobby but simultaneously disrespect a subset of that hobby because they don't personally approve of people having expensive BB guns and think its stupid some airsofters have sunk more money into their hobby than they have into their "real firearms" (butthurt, maybe?).

Considering we've understood that our airsoft were now considered firearms for the past few years, if this was truly news to the NFA it only serves to demonstrate how little attention they were paying to anything airgun/airsoft-related, and that's hardly surprising given the negative attitude they've historically shown towards it.

But what I find truly hard to believe is that there isn't a single lawyer -- or at least someone legally knowledgeable -- at the NFA who could vet public statements for accuracy before releasing them.

So I'm really left wondering if this is intentional misinformation being spread by the NFA just so they can later vilify airsoft and throw us under the bus? "Oh look at those airsofters, breaking all the firearms laws. They're the reason we can't have nice things!"

I certainly hope that isn't the case for that would be a worse betrayal, to both airsofters and gun owners alike (cuz who's the say your pistol or black rifle isn't next), than any government-passed law.

[Drake]

Also, for anyone still in panic mode, the simple "airsoft canary" would be watching if retailers are massively raided or served with orders to surrender their airsoft inventory, as most of them aren't licensed to sell controlled firearms.

[brock0]

How well received would it be if I signed up on CGN or wherever and my first post was to inform you the sky was falling and your guns are all illegal, then went on to argue the fact in further posts, all while being horribly misinformed.

I'm sure that would go over great.

As someone said far more eloquently before, we don't need people coming in to tell us our business.

Originally Posted by zelly

Just wanted to add to this thread. The "troll" in question is a respected member of the Canadian firearms community. We are discussing this issue in depth their as well and a lot of what he said made sense and your attitude towards him and his discussion was rude and you came off with a lot of childish arrogance. It was sorta sad to read actually. That being said I'm not here to pick a fight or discuss the issue more as you have obviously determined your interpretation of the new laws to be gospel. Merely to say that only time will tell how these new laws will effect us all but hopefully like you state they will benefit our community and not hinder it.

[Danke]

Originally Posted by brock0

How well received would it be if I signed up on CGN or wherever and my first post was to inform you the sky was falling and your guns are all illegal, then went on to argue the fact in further posts, all while being horribly misinformed.

I'm sure that would go over great.

As someone said far more eloquently before, we don't need people coming in to tell us our business.

They call those days weekdays over there.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by Danke

They call those days weekdays over there.

Indeed. That forum does tend to eat their own. I certainly don't feel like I have been mistreated based on my comments either. I would highly expect a degree of skepticism as someone admittedly new to the forum, and to airsoft.

As Cliffradical graciously pointed out, I did not come here in the name of hostility or with any malicious intent. This is being hotly debated on gunnutz, and so far the airsoft community has been under represented in that debate. I came here specifically to check in with what the more legally astute individuals on this forum were saying.

Drake, good catch on the section 99 thing. I did misread that. Apologies.

I've spent the weekend searching for case law that supports your interpretation that supports the ability to consent to having a firearm pointed at you, and I can't find any. Its possible that the issue has never gone to trial. If you have a reference you would like to point out, I'd be happy to review it.

What I did find, is that you can not, under any circumstances, consent to grievous bodily harm. This is why despite consenting to playing hockey, someone can be charged if they take a deliberately and malicious swipe at someone, especially outside the confines of the game, after the whistle, etc.
Can you not imagine how this could be applied to your sport in the instance of what I think is called 'Bonus Balling'? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Also, I have pointed out that many municipalities have bans against discharging firearms within city limits. Now that the vast majority of airguns are firearms, do you not think this applies as well?

Just because the RCMP lack the resources and intent to prosecute this now, doesn't mean they never will.

As for magazine limits, I still don't see how Airsoft/Paintball/Pellet guns with MVs over 214 FPS are exempt. You pointed to the RCMP bulletin, which is not law, and I quote the law which does not specify centrefire/rimfire. You never addressed this. Are there any magazine limits being applied to Airsoft firearms now?

As for storage and transportation, it seems like the Airsoft community has already embraced the fact this applies to 366+ FPS guns, so maybe its not a big deal that it now applies to 214 FPS guns.

While I don't personally Airsoft, I have many friends that do, and routinely encourage me to try it, as I am sure you will too. I mean the sport no ill-will. The last thing I want is another community of sporting enthusiasts to be blind sides by seemingly harmless changes in law, and miss an opportunity to do something about it.

Many firearms owners thought that the Firearms Act was a good deal for them when it first came out. 20 years later hundreds of thousands of firearms have been confiscated, and thousands of people have been financially ruined defending themselves in court having committed no real or apparent crime. The poorly written Gun Control legislation in Canada has had 20 years of scope creep, and this recent catches an even greater number of relatively harmless objects into that quagmire.

Many here seem intent to ignore it as meaningless, and I can tell you that rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada are anything but meaningless.

If you're right, then think me a troll, put me on your ignore list, and go back to enjoying your sport like nothing ever happened. If I am right, which I hope I am not, than in the coming weeks months and years when the full impact of this ruling becomes known, many will claim that they never saw it coming, and complained that no one ever warned them.

Its been happening in the firearms community for over 20 years, and every time another gun gets banned and confiscated, its the same chorus from the usual suspects. "How can they do this?" "When did the law change?" from the ignorant who were asleep, and "I told you so?" from the 'chicken littles'.

Again, apologies to anyone I've offended. I truly wish you all the best. Danke, I'm looking forward to your clarifications.

[Ricochet]

There are no restrictions on airsoft such as magazine capacity, etc. The 'uncontrolled firearm' designation was put into effect strictly for a classification with the happy purpose of making it legal to airsoft in a system, that at the time, threw them into a grey or legally ambiguous state. The whole 366 FPS thing is a guideline that is really only in practice by the CBSA, and this 214 ruling, was used in court to determine that what buddy used in the incident was indeed a firearm for the purposes of the criminal code, which, if you understand the whole point of the ruling, had everything to do with intent, and nothing to do with whoops. Airsoft guns are airsoft guns, nothing more, nothing less. A whole set of rules was brought in place by the Canadian Firearms Program strictly to make them legal for us, not less. In the firearms act it states that any device that mimics a firearm with near precision is a replica, so the airsoft guns that don't have some obvious giveaway to being a toy, could be deemed replica, except that replicas do not cause bodily harm. Let me explain; would your .308 bolt action be an illegal replica of you had it customized to look just like an M16? Nope, it wouldn't, it still functions as it functions, making it no different. What makes a firearm a firearm in the safety act? The ability to cause bodily harm is one part of clarification, and that has been neatly applied to airsoft to exempt them from replica status. So forget the 366 FPS guideline, as long as they can cause severe bodily harm, then they are legal. On the far, far, far other end you have what makes a firearm a firearm for the sake of the criminal code and other legislation. This is so a slingshot, potato gun, etc, do not get designated as firearms, so people can have them, except also have reasonable limits so some asshole doesn't design a potato gun that has the power of an abrahms tank. 500 FPS AND 5.7 joules, which in the case of airsoft guns, make them in no way safe to shoot at another human being even while wearing all reasonable safety gear. So now that that crap is spelled out for you, here's where we sit today. For the instances of commiting a crime with an airsoft gun, you can be charged as if it is a real firearm. As an uncontrolled firearm, it isn't subject to the same control laws, hence the title, as a controlled firearm. Things like storage and magazine capacity don't apply here, so you CANNOT get charged with a firearm related crime for transporting it open in your back seat, nor necessarily flashing it in public, although I wouldn't recommend these things. There are other, non-firearm related crimes, that they could charge you with if they saw fit, but because for the purpose and intent on the gun side of the crime is not there, this whole 214 FPS ruling is totally irrelevant and can serve no purpose nor precedent. However, let's say you rob a store with an airsoft gun, which could make the gun a key component in the crime, ie robbery versus armed-robbery, then the 214 ruling comes into play as a baseline for your airsoft gun to have been fairly represented as a real gun in the crime itself, as would've been the intent of the perpatrator. See the big gaping differences? Here's the funny part; if buddies airsoft gun could not have caused serious bodil harm (under 214 FPS) and mimicked a real firearm with near precision, he could still not only get charged with it as it was represented in the crime as a real gun, but he could've landed an additional charge for being in possession of an illegal replica or 'prohibited device'.

I looked up this morning and the sky seems to be right where it needs to be still.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

There are no restrictions on airsoft such ...
I looked up this morning and the sky seems to be right where it needs to be still.

Hi, thanks for your post. It hasn't really clarified anything.

When you get charged by the police, they do not charge with a post from an internet forum. You get charged with a violation of the law. If you can not provide a basis in law for your opinions, then they are of little value in the context of the current discussion.

The magazine restrictions set out in the regulations issued under the authority of the firearms act, apply to all firearms. The definition of 'cartridge magazine', 'ammunition' and 'firearms' under those regulations very easily apply to airsoft firearms. Contrary to what others here have suggested, nothing suggests these regulations apply only to centrefire, as the word is neither defined in law, nor does it appear in the subject regulations.

The term "uncontrolled firearm" does not appear in law, and carries no meaning.

The term "airsoft gun" does not appear in law either, and carries no meaning. There are no rules or regulations that were brought in specifically to handle them.

Would a 308 bolt action modified to look like an m16 be an illegal replica? No, but not because of what you said, but because a 308 bolt action is a FIREARM, and anything that is a firearm can not also be a replica. The definitions are mutually exclusive.

As a side note, Look at the prohibited weapons list. The Tactical Macmillan 50 cal sniper rifle is prohibited AND ALL VARIANTS AND MODIFIED VERSIONS. Based on the case law interpretations, variant means anything with similar function or operation, has common types of components, visually looks similar, etc. regardless of the history of manufacture, actual interchangeability of parts, differences in size or dimensional characteristics, etc. These interpretations have been used to confiscated guns that existed prior to the named prohibited gun, as well as guns that have not a single interchangeable part. This interpretation, correctly applied, prohibits ALL BOLT ACTION RIFLES as variants of the Tac Macmillan 50. For the time being the RCMP is dealing with this inconsistency by ignoring it.

As aside note, in the regulations which prohibit many things already reference, included are prohibitions on certain ammunition. SPecifically is anything that is capable of penetrating body armour and can be fired out of commonly available handguns. There are many types of conventional jacketed ammo that meets this description, and again, the RCMP simply ignores the inconsistency, for now.

What makes a firearm a firearm in the safety act? The ability to cause bodily harm is one part of clarification, and that has been neatly applied to airsoft to exempt them from replica status. So forget the 366 FPS guideline, as long as they can cause severe bodily harm, then they are legal.

On the far, far, far other end you have what makes a firearm a firearm for the sake of the criminal code and other legislation.

What is the safety act?
The ability to cause bodily harm was not applied to airsoft to make them legal. The ability to cause harm has caused airsoft guns to be captured under the regulation of the criminal code and other legislation.
It is because they can cause severe bodily harm that they are FIREARMS, and subject to all of the laws and regulations that affect them.

There is only one definition of firearm as far as the criminal code goes. Many provincial and municipal governments include their own definition in various statutes and by laws, but any judge would easily rule that such definition was intended to reflect, and not diverge, from the entire body of Canadian Legal Jurisprudence regarding firearms.

Sling shots could never be a firearm, because they do not have a barrel.

Lastly, as for your conclusion as to where we are now:

For the instances of commiting a crime with an airsoft gun, you can be charged as if it is a real firearm (1). As an uncontrolled firearm, it isn't subject to the same control laws, hence the title, as a controlled firearm. (2) [U]Things like storage and magazine capacity don't apply here (3).
There are other, non-firearm related crimes, that they could charge you with if they saw fit, but because for the purpose and intent on the gun side of the crime is not there (4), this whole 214 FPS ruling is totally irrelevant and can serve no purpose nor precedent.

1. You can be charged BECAUSE it is a real firearm under the law.
2. This term does not appear to exist in law.
3. Actually, many people on this forum have disagreed with you, and suggested that airsoft IS subject to storage and transportation regulations as airsoft firearms are not exempt from 86 (2) of the criminal code. "(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons." As for magazine limits, no one here has provided a basis for why they don't apply to airsoft, except to requote non legally binding information from the RCMP.
4. I think you need to re-read the legal decision, if you haven't done so already. The Court of Appeal came to the exact opposite conclusion. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...13onca539.html

At para 66. To conclude, in my view, there is no ambiguity in the definition of firearm in s. 2 when regard is had to the legislative history and the context and scheme of the legislation. Barrelled objects that meet the definition of firearm in s. 2 need not also meet the definition in para. (a) or (b) of weapon to be deemed to be firearms and hence weapons for the various weapons offences in the Code.

Therefore, intent to commit a criminal act is no longer required for any of the offences listed in the criminal code. Airsoft guns are ONLY exempt from those sections of the criminal code set out in 84(3), being sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03.

Many people here have indicated quite readily that they dislike my interpretation. Drake caught my error about section 99 applying to airsoft. Asides from that, I have not yet seen anything in law to suggest that you can legally point an airsoft gun at someone (s. 87), or that the regulations for mag limits don't apply.

Simply because the RCMP has not yet decided to enforce these things is not evidence to the contrary. In fact the RCMP routinely does not take action on certain things when they know it is before the supreme court. Now that the supreme court has ruled, you can expect the RCMP is looking at this very closely.

[Skeletor]

Even if the CCC does not contain specific definitions like "airsoft," "uncontrolled firearms," etc, airsoft guns are still not strictly considered firearms.

Section 84(3) Part D of the CCC explicitly states what isn't a firearm.

(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.


Airsoft guns fire no where near 5.7 Joules. Most come in at under 1.4J or so (if that).

There may be a court ruling that states that anything over 214 FPS is a firearm, but the CCC explicitly states that this isn't true. Should there ever be a case where this comes up, we'll see where the government lands on the issue. However, will the law really change based on precedent from one single case? Precedent that would almost certainly be challenged if it came to it?

[lurkingknight]

one court case, one interpretation creating one point of reference for future court cases that may or may not have any or enough similarity to draw from this one established precedent, and that's IF that judge or lawyers can draw parallels between that case and the one they would currently be dealing with.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Danke caught my error about section 99 applying to airsoft.

I think you meant Drake. Similar letters, different name.

Therefore, intent to commit a criminal act is no longer required for any of the offences listed in the criminal code. Airsoft guns are ONLY exempt from those sections of the criminal code set out in 84(3), being sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03.

AND also the Firearms Act.

As for magazine limits, I still don't see how Airsoft/Paintball/Pellet guns with MVs over 214 FPS are exempt. You pointed to the RCMP bulletin, which is not law, and I quote the law which does not specify centrefire/rimfire. You never addressed this. Are there any magazine limits being applied to Airsoft firearms now?

No.

I also don't think 214 fps is meant to be applied broadly. It was quoted in the context of a court case involving a pellet gun and presumably the pig eye test was carried out with a pellet gun and not an airsoft gun. But that's a whole separate topic I've discussed elsewhere. But I don't think the "214 fps" value should be touted as gospel: the currently accepted lower limit for airsoft is 366 fps.

Magazine limits and a bunch of other stuff you referred to...

Mag limits are defined in SOR-98-462, broadly:

PART 4
PROHIBITED DEVICES
[...]

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 [...]

(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.

I presume this is what you're referring to. And taken out of context, that does seem to support your claim. But if we go to the beginning of the document and look at the prescription, we find

5. The components and parts of weapons, accessories, and cartridge magazines listed in Part 4 of the schedule are prohibited devices for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (d) of the definition “prohibited device” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

So we go back to the CC and see what they say about owning such prohinited devices:

Unauthorized possession of firearm
91. (2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, without being the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

But again

(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 firearm

Section 91 doesn't apply.

Every other point you bring up, same thing.

You're reading "firearm" and you're just running with it. Don't. I have no doubt you know the firearms laws, but please take the time to familiarize yourself with airgun laws which you admittedly don't know about, don't just quote parts out of context and assume it applies. You're a firearms instructor, you should be better than this. PLEASE be better than this.