I still don't believe that follows. The CCC unequivocally states that, for the purpose of the criminal code and the firearms act, weapons firing under 5.7J/500 FPS are not firearms.
Yet this case states that anything firing over 214 FPS (regardless of energy involved) is a firearm for the purposes of the CCC and the firearms act. Which is it? It cannot be both, since one directly contravenes the other.
Suppose you have a barrelled device that propels a projectile at 205 FPS but at 5.9J of energy. The courts would, by the own precedent, have to admit that it is not a firearm (by that bare-bones 214 FPS delineation of firearm/not firearm). Yet the CCC would consider that to be a firearm, since it accounts for the velocity rather than just the speed of the projectile in question. Which is it?
Unless this is all some extreme cognitive dissonance on the part of the government and the court.
Does the court's ruling immediately supersede the previous law? The case law and the legislation on this cannot "work together" on this since they are mutually exclusive of each other in this instance.
Moreover, the RCMP recognizes airsoft guns and their legality, mentioning them specifically with regard to the legislation (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...me_air-eng.htm
). You have used the RCMP for arbiters of what is and isn't legal in the discussion of their acceptance and ban of various types of weapons and their magazines. I guess we'll have to see how they interpret these results.