I just read through both documents.... man what a bunch of over written gibberish...
I see that the Respondents Factum was linked but why not the Appellants? Some of the statements made by the Respondent ("The Queen") are a bit concerning as they definitely are out to lump "medium powered air gun" and "high powered air guns" in to one category (ones that shoot under 5.7j and those that shoot over 5.7j) and apply all of the CCC to both categories. Particularly this statement:
Making automatic firearm: Parliament has wisely seen fit to prohibit the creation of what is colloquially called a "machine gun" either through unlicensed manufacture or alteration. This section makes it an offence to alter a firearm to make it automatic. Medium and high-power airguns would no longer be captured by this section in the absence of a present intention to use the automatic airgun as a weapon.
The assumption on the part of the crown seems to be that it's already an offence to have an automatic medium power airgun. Now as one side in a court battle of course they will interpret as they see fit in order to get the judgement they want so not too worried....
I'm not crying the sky is falling but some of the assumptions made are concerning. Yes, court cases are different from the CCC but courts can and will interpret legislation how they deem it necessary, the whole point to having courts.... so could this impact us? I think it could.... Will it impact us? I don't think it will.