Originally Posted by mmmken
Allow me to play the devil's advocate here for the purpose to understand the legalities of Airsoft more clearly. Quoted below, you made mention of replica firearms specifically.
The main reason why I raised the issue, is because our sport is not 100% black and white legally acceptable as you made mention in your post. We are very much, and still are operating within "the grey area" at the moment. Ruling out more legislation as bad may be a little premature.
While the RCMP fact sheet is not in itself law, it is very much an accurate summary. There is nothing wrong with possessing a replica firearm, but there is a problem with acquiring a firearm that was released after 1998. If you possess a replica firearm that was released after 1998, it is simple to deduce that you were only able to acquire it after 1998 and thus, you have committed an offence.
Whether or not guns shooting below 366FPS (or whatever) are considered replica firearms is another story.
It's only grey if you don't understand the law.
its only a problem if the item acquired is in fact a replica, and this can only be assessed by a court with a side by side comparison with a real firearm of the same model.
The BC lower court decision indicated that just external resemblance was insufficient to meet the test.. the item must also replicate with near precision the internal attributes of a real firearm.. Very very few airsoft guns would meet this test.
Every airsoft gun meets the test of being a imitation Firearm, some are deemed to be unregulated firearms .. but only those that have been entered as evidence in a prosecution have been proven to be replicas. Once Deemed a replica.. such a definition applies only to that specific item.. and not at all to the other identical models that may be possessed by other people.
the UK definition for a replica is broader than that in Canada, and is closer in fact to the Canadian definition for an imitation firearm.
In addition.. in Canada you are innocent until proven guilty. So coming into possession of an item that is not proven to be a replica can not be an offense.
AAAnD all of this has been hashed out countless times.. do we really need to go there again?