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

[pugs144]

Damn, and I just finished pinning my mags to 5 BBs. Now where's that pin punch....

[Danke]

It is a sad sad world when a shit pump on workers comp for a made up injury can't play "gangsta" with a pellet gun.

What happens next; no more welfare cheques?

What the Fuck indeed.

[Dracheous]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Asides from thinking that someone who is a bit slow to put their hands up when encountering the police after having done nothing illegal needs to a lead injection, I agree with this 100%.

See now you're just digging a grave. Instead of replying with additional facts and information to counter arguments now you're going to twist peoples words into saying something they did not?

Originally Posted by Dracheous

Anyone silly enough to walk down the street with an M60 and NOT put their hands the fuck up when encountering an officers needs a strict injection of lead STAT!

There was no indication of speed, only that the individual did NOT comply with police. The way you've twisted it in response suggests that my comment is stating that cops just just shoot anyone that looks like they have a gun.

Originally Posted by rc_p120

I see alot of comments about how airsoft has been through this before, and airsoft survived this and that and we will be okay, etc... Well, if they are now considered 'firearms' you have to listen to the firearms guys and their knowledge on how the law is applied and the history of dealing with RCMP and the govt on these issues. The wording of this declaration gives me that whole 'we're not in Kansas anymore' type of feeling. Crossing into the legal territory of being a firearm is something that you may mockingly describe as the 'sky falling', but it increases the risks by huge degrees for taking part in the sport, even if you have NO bad intentions! The gun community has been living with this for decades.

This has never changed though. Airsoft has always fallen into a grey area of "non-controlled firearms". They have always been teetering on the edge of "replica firearm" but instead were categorized with other air-guns; which were "non-controlled" firearms. You didn't need a license to own them etc etc. There are air guns that are "controlled" and require licensing.

Nothing changes with this "ruling" on further review because it really is a basic hashing of everything that has let us be "legal" for the last 16 years or so.

[rc_p120]

You don't understand do you? By being declared 'firearms' they fall into a very different category than the previously 'grey areas' that we have been used to, and the interpretation and enforcement of firearms law in this country is very strict. Where there used to be ambiguity and officer discretion for a bb gun on the way to a game, with firearms it's far more rigid and harsh. And I'm not talking about the obviously stupid and dangerous behaviour, I'm talking about basic things like storage, transport, magazine limits, pointing, zoning..

I really really hope that you guys are right and that this is nothing. But it sure don't sound like nothing. But I do hope that in fact nothing changes for us. Fingers crossed. As Solomon Freidman a firearms law expert and lawyer, said on TV the other day; lock up your airsoft guns, transport them like real guns, cross every T and dot every I because there is no previous case law for being charged with a regulatory firearms offence over an airsoft gun yet so who knows what will happen going forward.

[rc_p120]

I will eat my words if I am wrong and I hope I am! Because this sucks!

[RainyEyes]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

At a very basic level, the difference between a weapon, and a firearm, is that any object is a weapon if it is intended by the person who possesses it to be used in a harmful way. Any object can be a weapon, but only if its is used, or intended to be used as such. Without any intent, a kitchen knife can never be a weapon, and therefore can never be a concealed weapon.

Firearms, are markedly different. Despite the absurdity of the statement, "Firearms, by their design, are inherently weapons". Therefore, as soon as you intend to conceal a firearm from view, you run the risk of being in possession of a concealed 'weapon'. Again, this is also an absurd statement, because the transportation regulations specifically mention the requirement, where possible, to conceal things from view.

If the RCMP has simply refused to address or enforce an issue up until this point, nothing is stopping them from starting to enforce it now. In fact, now that the appeals process is complete, is the best time to begin doing so.

Firearms owners have been languishing under nonsensical laws for more than 40 years, and many of the attacks on legitimate activities were predicted well in advance, in the midst of nay-saying and accusations of fear mongering.

Please stop talking.

1. A kitchen knife can be a weapon in the case of concealed weapon when it is proven before the fact that intent to use it as a weapon was present at the time it was concealed. In the even of "i had a knife in my pocket and i used it to defend myself", it would still count as a concealed weapon. This would require one to ask, why did you have the knife in the first place, and why was it concealed. Case by case basis, but you're wrong in general.

2. Please, explain to me the original purpose and design of the device so called "firearm", because clearly 99% of the world is wrong and you are right!

3. Nothing has stopped them before from enforcing it... what makes you think there's an incentive for them to start enforcing it now? If it weren't for people like you who have graced us with your presence and fear mongering, i do not believe the RCMP would be looking into these types of crimes to control. This case law isn't even significant to mention. Try spreading the news that a drug is now legal; that will get the unit commander's attention to spread the word in the parade room.

4. That's gambler's fallacy. Unless this case is similar to the ones you hypothetically referenced, there is little reason to believe this claim.

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Well, first off, thousands of Canadians were affected by the ban on public transportation, despite not being on their way to a crime. It was not limited to only the situation that was brought up at trial, but it was applied across the country and negatively affected lots of people who had done absolutely nothing wrong.

No one here has ever denied that a person using an airsoft to rob a bank should have the book thrown at them. That is not the issue.

The Dunn case was a case of the nonviolent use of a firearm. While under observation for something completely unrelated, he took out a pellet gun, and put it back in his pocket. The people watching him thought he pointed it at some one else, who never complained, and then the observers reported it to Ottawa Police. The charge of pointing was tossed in court due to lack of evidence. That should have been the end of it all right there but it wasn't.

He was charged for three other non violent offences, and was convicted despite any intent to harm anyone. Now, as a result of the ruling, there is no intent of any kind required to be convicted of such an offence. This is a terribly unfair state of affairs, especially for people who think as long as I don't intend to hurt anyone else, I am safe from the law.

1. In a country with a population of almost 45 million, and about 2 million chronic homeless, I think that a few thousand irresponsible people transporting firearms on public transportation is the last of your worries.

2. Interesting you reference a bank robbery. Do you know what a robbery constitutes? Definition: theft with violence. Do i need to discharge my firearm to commit robbery, or is simply pointing at the teller, according to you, non-violent, and therefore only theft? Case law and the majority of cops will interpret and dictate that it is a violent crime. Simply pointing a gun at a person is considered a threat; you are going to shoot and, with all intents and purposes of pointing, intend to shoot. This assumption is not fallacious in anyway because this demeanor is dictated by the inherent nature of a firearm that is a weapon.

3. Citation please. The last SCC ruling of R. v. Dunn 2014 ruled to dismiss the appeal, and to call a retrial on the remaining 3 charges. Furthermore, the charge of assault need not specific intent; only general intent. It is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to do harm.

[Dracheous]

Originally Posted by rc_p120

You don't understand do you? By being declared 'firearms' they fall into a very different category than the previously 'grey areas' that we have been used to, and the interpretation and enforcement of firearms law in this country is very strict. Where there used to be ambiguity and officer discretion for a bb gun on the way to a game, with firearms it's far more rigid and harsh. And I'm not talking about the obviously stupid and dangerous behaviour, I'm talking about basic things like storage, transport, magazine limits, pointing, zoning..

I fully understand. I'm telling you that this changed nothing and only puts your toys into the exact area that made them legal to use for so long. If they're declared a "controlled firearm" or "replica Firearm" then you're up shit creek with out a paddle. Right now they're no different than any other pellet gun you pick up at Crappy Tire. As for the "pointing" you again have little to worry, as the definition is left open so as to not open a new can of legal worms for sports such as paintball or toy nerf guns etc etc.


Zoning is a completely different nightmare from this. Which is what I was hinting toward with the city by-laws.

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by Dracheous

See now you're just digging a grave. Instead of replying with additional facts and information to counter arguments now you're going to twist peoples words into saying something they did not?

There was no indication of speed, only that the individual did NOT comply with police. The way you've twisted it in response suggests that my comment is stating that cops just just shoot anyone that looks like they have a gun.

Sorry but I didn't think your comment was meant to be taken as a serious argument. No, you didn't mention speed, nor did you actually mention 'complying' with police. Just putting your hands up on first encounter.

Anyone silly enough to walk down the street with an M60 and NOT put their hands the fuck up when encountering an officers needs a strict injection of lead STAT!

Your post certainly does not imply that police ACTUALLY shoot just anyone that looks like they have gun, but it certainly implies that YOU think they should.

And lastly, what facts and additional arguments did you think I needed to provide when for the most part, I was agreeing with you?

[Dracheous]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

And lastly, what facts and additional arguments did you think I needed to provide when for the most part, I was agreeing with you?

Changing the tone of my comments is a very odd way to agree with me.

Enough people have told you to quit while you're ahead. It really is time to start listening.

[Danke]

Originally Posted by rc_p120

You don't understand do you? By being declared 'firearms' they fall into a very different category than the previously 'grey areas' that we have been used to, and the interpretation and enforcement of firearms law in this country is very strict. Where there used to be ambiguity and officer discretion for a bb gun on the way to a game, with firearms it's far more rigid and harsh. And I'm not talking about the obviously stupid and dangerous behaviour, I'm talking about basic things like storage, transport, magazine limits, pointing, zoning..

I really really hope that you guys are right and that this is nothing. But it sure don't sound like nothing. But I do hope that in fact nothing changes for us. Fingers crossed. As Solomon Freidman a firearms law expert and lawyer, said on TV the other day; lock up your airsoft guns, transport them like real guns, cross every T and dot every I because there is no previous case law for being charged with a regulatory firearms offence over an airsoft gun yet so who knows what will happen going forward.

For the Nth time in this thread.

They are and always have been firearms.

That's how you could import them yourself by referencing the RCMP FRT; the Firearms Reference Table.

The "shitpump" based his defense on them not being firearms and the current interpretation being wrong.

He was found guilty because he made a lot of poor choices in the past and was led astray by bad actors and he's turning his life around this weekend; oh sorry wrong thread,,,,,,,,,,,,

He was found guilty by the very same law that lets you own airsoft.

Often termed in lay circles as "Poetic Justice".

[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by RainyEyes

Please stop talking.

1. A kitchen knife can be a weapon in the case of concealed weapon when it is proven before the fact that intent to use it as a weapon was present at the time it was concealed. In the even of "i had a knife in my pocket and i used it to defend myself", it would still count as a concealed weapon. This would require one to ask, why did you have the knife in the first place, and why was it concealed. Case by case basis, but you're wrong in general.

2. Please, explain to me the original purpose and design of the device so called "firearm", because clearly 99% of the world is wrong and you are right!

3. Nothing has stopped them before from enforcing it... what makes you think there's an incentive for them to start enforcing it now? If it weren't for people like you who have graced us with your presence and fear mongering, i do not believe the RCMP would be looking into these types of crimes to control. This case law isn't even significant to mention. Try spreading the news that a drug is now legal; that will get the unit commander's attention to spread the word in the parade room.

4. That's gambler's fallacy. Unless this case is similar to the ones you hypothetically referenced, there is little reason to believe this claim.



1. In a country with a population of almost 45 million, and about 2 million chronic homeless, I think that a few thousand irresponsible people transporting firearms on public transportation is the last of your worries.

2. Interesting you reference a bank robbery. Do you know what a robbery constitutes? Definition: theft with violence. Do i need to discharge my firearm to commit robbery, or is simply pointing at the teller, according to you, non-violent, and therefore only theft? Case law and the majority of cops will interpret and dictate that it is a violent crime. Simply pointing a gun at a person is considered a threat; you are going to shoot and, with all intents and purposes of pointing, intend to shoot. This assumption is not fallacious in anyway because this demeanor is dictated by the inherent nature of a firearm that is a weapon.

3. Citation please. The last SCC ruling of R. v. Dunn 2014 ruled to dismiss the appeal, and to call a retrial on the remaining 3 charges. Furthermore, the charge of assault need not specific intent; only general intent. It is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to do harm.

OK so a little hard to follow the way you have laid that out. Apologies in advance if I have misread.

1. Kitchen knives. Seems like we agree. Some form of intent is required for a kitchen knife to be deemed a weapon.

2. As I have yet proposed a definition of firearm, I don't see how you figure I am right and 99% of the world is wrong, sarcastically or otherwise. There are numerous reference points in law, be they the firearms act, the criminal code or case law, that generally reflect the popular notion that firearms are designed to kill. I personally think this is absurd, because there are many firearms, like every airsoft firearm, that in fact were not designed to kill.

3. I don't really follow your point. I never said there was an incentive. How ever pending legal action usually presents a barrier to action, so the RCMP as a federal organization may have refrained from doing anything about the Ontario COurt of Appeal ruling until AFTER the supreme court appeal process wrapped up. No point jumping into action just cause an Ontario Court said something when it can get overturned soon after by the next court up.

Further, I have stated several times now that the RCMP do not have resources to even begin looking in to this, and despite what they MAY want to do with it, they probably can't do a whole lot at this point. Where is the fear mongering?

4. Gamblers Fallacy? Actually, the cases mentioned above are in fact quite similar. Its the same set of laws, down to the very section that were being enforced, the meaning of the same words being debated, and the same law enforcement agency taking an adverse interpretation of law to the detriment of the same class of citizen.

Round 2
1. Population of Canada is 35 million. https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid...%20of%20canada
What exactly is irresponsible about taking the bus to the gun range? I didn't know car ownership was a prerequisite for gun ownership. Absolutely agree that homelessness is a bigger social issue than taking the bus with a gun, but that was our courts and politicians that made that call, not me.

2. Yes I know what a robbery constitutes. No, you do not need to discharge the firearm. Never said pointing a gun was non violent. In fact I've advocated the opposite. Yes, pointing a FIREARM is considered a threat. And guess what, airsoft guns are now FIREARMS. Do you get it now? you've completed the circle for all to see. FIREARMs, which NOW INCLUDES AIRSOFT, are WEAPONS!, regardless of weather or not they meet the intent based definition of weapon in the criminal code.

When I said this was a non violent case, it was because the pointing a firearm charge, the only violent act, resulted in acquittal. The appeal then proceeded on only non violent charges.
Handling a firearm in a careless manner is not violent.
Carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public is non violent, and is used to charge people who the police BELIEVE is up to no good, but can't prove anything else. It is one of the most contentious sections of the code.
Concealing a firearm is non violent.

Don't get me wrong, these are all undesireable behaviours. They simply are not violent the same way pointing or threatening with a gun is.

3. SC of Canada RvDunn 2014. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc...2014scc69.html
Dismissed the appeal, didn't overturn anything or order any new trials. Simply agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal, giving national recognition of the legal reasoning of that court.

Ontario Court of Appeal, R v Dunn 2013 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...13onca539.html
Set aside acquittals of the trial judge, and ordered a new trial, except, and I quote from the last paragraph " I would not interfere with the acquittal on count 2 of pointing a firearm given the trial judge’s finding of fact that the respondent did not point the firearm at his friend."

Here's the take away for airsofters. Guy is accused of pointing a pellet gun at his friend, and despite being acquitted on that charge because in fact he never pointed a gun at anyone, he was convicted of three separate criminal code offences, issued a prohibition order, banned from being in possession of anything resembling a firearm and must surrender any such items.

Welcome to the big boy world of firearms laws. And you think this is a good thing?

[brock0]

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

Welcome to the big boy world of firearms laws. And you think this is a good thing?

Well I for one am just tickled pink to be freed of my childish delusion and into the BIG BOY WORLD OF REAL STEEL FIREARMS LAW.

Airsoft guns have been "firearms" for years, this is not new.

We know, if you do something stupid with your airsoft guns, like commit a crime or wave it around it public, you're f*****. We know.

If you transport your guns loaded and ready in plain view, you're dumb. We know.

If you leave it lying around loaded on your kitchen table and your kid shoots his eye out, you're dumb, we know.

We can all keep an eye on our favourite AS retailers and see if anything else develops, but enough is enough here. Over 9 pages, we've got more than enough of your interpretation of the situation.

[podpharmer]

Originally Posted by ThunderCactus

214fps doesn't mean jack shit. Until they attach a joule limit to it, it's really just an ambiguous number.

while I agree with you that 214 without joule limit is an ambiguous limit let me ask you this

since when did something have to make sense for it to be law?


and anyone that thinks that a supreme court ruling has no affect should try and buy a non restricted firearm in Quebec and not register it. the law states its illegal to have a gun registry but because of the supreme court ruling you will still be charged for being in possession of an unregistered non restricted.

[Memphishills]

Originally Posted by rc_p120

You don't understand do you? By being declared 'firearms' they fall into a very different category than the previously 'grey areas' that we have been used to, and the interpretation and enforcement of firearms law in this country is very strict. .

Originally Posted by Cameron SS

2. Yes I know what a robbery constitutes. No, you do not need to discharge the firearm. Never said pointing a gun was non violent. In fact I've advocated the opposite. Yes, pointing a FIREARM is considered a threat. And guess what, airsoft guns are now FIREARMS. Do you get it now? you've completed the circle for all to see. FIREARMs, which NOW INCLUDES AIRSOFT, are WEAPONS!, regardless of weather or not they meet the intent based definition of weapon in the criminal code.

Welcome to the big boy world of firearms laws. And you think this is a good thing?

I swear to god if I hear "your guns ARE NOW FIREARMS" one more time, I'll turn this forum around and ain't none of you going to disneyland for christmas!

OUR GUNS HAVE BEEN FIREARMS SINCE 2012.

Please stop ignoring this statement when you post your replies about all the "new" rules we have to abide by. We are all abiding by the rules set out 2 years ago, and none of them have changed because our guns ARE STILL the same firearms they were.

*rage subsiding*

[rc_p120]

Originally Posted by Memphishills

I swear to god if I hear "your guns ARE NOW FIREARMS" one more time, I'll turn this forum around and ain't none of you going to disneyland for christmas!

OUR GUNS HAVE BEEN FIREARMS SINCE 2012.

Please stop ignoring this statement when you post your replies about all the "new" rules we have to abide by. We are all abiding by the rules set out 2 years ago, and none of them have changed because our guns ARE STILL the same firearms they were.

*rage subsiding*

Only if they were above 500fps. Now they are all firearms, airguns=firearms fullstop no mention of subcategories or grey areas, the SCC used pretty clear language. Let's hope the enforcement isn't the same as with firearms.