Originally Posted by Cameron SS
Section 99 of the Criminal Code.
Originally Posted by Drake
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[/B]
Not according to the CCC.
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).
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.