Originally Posted by Skeletor
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.
The consensus so far is that FPS and energy are only two of three things that are being emphasized. According to the Courts, in conjunction with Parliament:
 Crown counsel provided a particularly good example. Section 86 of the Code makes it an offence to, among other things, use, carry or store a firearm in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons. If an airgun that otherwise meets the definition of “firearm” in s. 2 because of its dangerous nature and its capability for causing injury, is not found to be a firearm because it does not also meet the use and intended use requirements in the definition of “weapon”, it escapes regulation under s. 86. It would be lawful to leave such a dangerous object in an area where children might have access to it, or to shoot it in a dangerous manner. Liability would attach only if someone actually was injured or killed. Such an interpretation would not be consistent with the public safety objective of the legislation.
 Both the context of the legislative provisions respecting weapons and firearms and the legislative history set out earlier suggest that Parliament has intended to treat firearms as a special subset of weapons, subject to stricter regulation because of their inherent dangerousness. To require proof that barrelled objects, that are sufficiently dangerous to cause serious injury or death, are also weapons by virtue of either of paras. (a) or (b) in that definition, would frustrate Parliament’s intention.
I predict the courts will have Parliament amend these criminal code provisions. Technically the courts' interpretation of the legislation is consistent with Parliament's intent, but due to other technicalities, some things might change.