Originally Posted by ThunderCactus
They don't always make laws to limit carry or what you can own, most of the laws being made are to add charges to criminal offenses.
When that guy took the bus with his rifle to shoot up York university, lawmakers afterwards made it illegal to carry a firearm on public transportation.
Do you think the firearm community was worried it would lead to a ban on firearms?
It only affected a select few firearm owners, but the point of the law was to add one more criminal charge to anyone using public transport to go commit a firearm related crime.
They lumped in airsoft guns with firearms so they can add more charges to a person pointing an airsoft gun at a police officer.
The ban of airsoft makes no sense what so ever, and even lawmakers must see that. I'm sure anyone would rather be held up by an airsoft gun, in which they're in no actual life threatening situation, instead of a real firearm, or even a knife.
The person committing the crime still gets charged with armed robbery as if it were a real gun, but nobody was in any life threatening danger. It's win/win for everyone.
Well, first off, thousands of Canadians were affected by the ban on public transportation, despite not being on their way to a crime. The law was not a ban on public transportation for criminals with firearms, it was a ban on public transportation with firearms. It was not limited to only the situation that was brought up at trial, but it was applied across the country and negatively affected lots of people who had done absolutely nothing wrong.
No one here has ever denied that a person using an airsoft to rob a bank should have the book thrown at them. That is not the issue.
The Dunn case was a case of the nonviolent use of a firearm. While under observation for something completely unrelated, he took out a pellet gun, and put it back in his pocket. The people watching him thought he pointed it at some one else, who never complained, and then the observers reported it to Ottawa Police. The charge of pointing was tossed in court due to lack of evidence. That should have been the end of it all right there but it wasn't.
He was charged for three other non violent offences, and was convicted despite any intent to harm anyone. Now, as a result of the ruling, there is no intent of any kind required to be convicted of such an offence. This is a terribly unfair state of affairs, especially for people who think as long as I don't intend to hurt anyone else, I am safe from the law.