Originally Posted by Drake
I think you meant Drake. Similar letters, different name.
AND also the Firearms Act.
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:
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
So we go back to the CC and see what they say about owning such prohinited devices:
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.
Thanks for this!
I am familiarizing myself with 'airgun' laws, thats why I am here. Thank you for your patience. While I am a firearms instructor, I certainly don't teach the law, as obviously I shouldn't be.
That said, its becoming fast apparent that for the purposes of the criminal code, there is no such thing as 'airgun' laws. Just laws for what is or isn't a firearm, and what sections of the criminal code apply to which firearms under what circumstances. I think that's mostly semantics though.
As for 214 vs 366. I think your absolutely right that 214 should not be applied broadly. The weight of a .177 air rifle pellet vs the weight of a 0.2g airsoft pellet would likely require different velocities to penetrate a pigs eye. However the judge did not make this distinction, which means no other judge need make this distinction either. The state of the law now is that it COULD be applied broadly, and that's not a good position to be in.
The exemption for airsoft guns under 84(3) does not include accessories for those guns.
Yes, an Airsoft firearm is not a firearm for the purposes of section 91, but nothing in law says that an airsoft magazine which is a prohibited device is also exempt. The magazine itself is obviously NOT a firearm, and there fore the exemption does not apply.
We have seen many instances where prohibited firearms, like converted autos are covered under prohibited licenses and grandfathered, while all the mags were confiscated because you can not hold a license for a prohibited device. The same logic applies here. Without an exemption for the prohibited device itself, section 91 applies, and you can not have it.
And if you think the RCMP won't crack down on it, like at the "high-capacity" magazines for rim fire firearms. The RCMP used to say they weren't concerned with high capacity magazines for rim fires, but then they determined that if a mag fits into a rifle and a pistol, then the pistol limit applies, meaning all ruger 10/22 mags over 10 rds are now prohibited because there is a pistol out there that takes 10/22 mags. Its highly likely that no one will ever have their mag taken from them, but retailers are starting to pull them off the shelves to avoid criminal liability.
I am taking the definition of firearm and running with it, because that is what the law says airsoft, paintball, pellet, and any other barreled object capable of causing serious bodily harm is now considered.
The NFA gets criticized within the gun community as well. Many people don't like their tactics, or they lament their ability to actually effect legislative change. One of their lawyers was personally involved in the Dunn case, so maybe their reaction in this regard is simply sour grapes? I don't know.
Not taking their word for it, and reading into the case law, legislation, and HISTORY of how the RCMP has interpreted and acted on certain rulings in the past, I find this all very concerning.