Originally Posted by mcguyver
There are exceptions to pointing a firearm as a crminal offence. Case in point, film, theatrical and TV production. They often use real guns as well as replicas. They point them, and even discharge blank rounds. You don't see wholesale prosecutions of armourers and actors.
The legislation is the same for them as it is for us. Much of our legislation is intent-driven, or mens rea (guilty mind). Without intent to commit a criminal act, and pointing an airsoft gun at others with the expectation of it and agreement to it, there are no laws broken.
That being said, perhaps to ensure that all parties at games understand this, waivers should be mandatory for all participants (whether armed or not) with informed consent that an airsoft gun will be pointed at you, and you accept that by participating. Also, 18+ only, as you can not get informed consent from a minor. This is to CYA and eliminate questions of intent.
The film industry is an example of inconsistent enforcement, not legality. I have limited experience working with the film industry, but the one film I did work on, all of the firearms were deactivated, and therefore not firearms at all, and not subject to any gun control legislation. Many of the technical staff and assistant directors did complain that that Canadian gun laws made working with replicas and blanks a huge hassle, to the point where they decided not to bother, and edit in all the gun effects during post production.
There are many crimes, referred to as strict liability offences, where there is a limited requirement for intent. True crimes, like murder, require an intent to perform that act that results in death, and an intent to CAUSE the death.
Strict liability offences only require the intent to perform the act. Virtually all charges of recklessness and negligence are strict liability offences, because based on the definition of the crime, you can't have a 'guilty' mind if you just weren't thinking about what you are doing. Most firearms offences are considered quasi-regulatory, and are strict liability offences. The offence of pointing a firearm does not require intent to cause harm or to "commit a criminal act". The only intent the crown needs to prove, is the intent to actually point the firearm. This has been affirmed in dozens of superior court rulings over the last 30 years.
Originally Posted by Latvian291
I'd like to see the response from CameronSS, master troll.
I'm certainly starting to feel like a troll. No real end game. There certainly isn't any prize. As I said at the outset, I came here to inform myself, share my opinion, and gauge the opinions of the airsoft community as they relate to this ruling.
I certainly can understand the replies, well, most of them anyways. While I do not agree with all of them, we can all say that. To the extent that precious few of the comments here demonstrated even a working knowledge of Canadian law, those were the comments I was looking for. After 179 posts I still haven't seen anyone post a relevant legal opinion quoting any law showing what happened in 2012 to create the current understanding of laws relating to airsoft. That's disappointing.
Its only a little bit concerning to see how many people refer to information posted on the internet by the RCMP, an organization with a strong track record for getting it wrong, as legal advice. I've critized these sources repeatedly, quoted actual law that contradicts that opinion, and provided other examples of when the RCMP got it wrong, and no one has responded or seriously challenged that information.
The Airsoft Canada threat on the current status of airsoft guns in Canada says, and I quote "The website reference in question does not accurately reflect the existing Firearms Act and its related regulations." That was posted back in 2003, and while the law has changed, the validity of RCMP news bulletins has not.
I'm not frustrated. Its the internet. I expected disagreement. Not sure what is vague or veiled about my posts. I think I have gone out of my way to be as clear as possible as to the basis of my beliefs.
Are there any groups who fight for airsoft on a political/legal basis? If there isn't, its not a bad idea to start one.
Cards on the table? I am here for personal interest. I have several friends who are airsofters that are completely clueless as to how the law the works and how it relates to airsoft, and have no clue the significance of anything except for what they read on that highly trust worthy news source: the internet.
I guess after all this, if I had to have a purpose, it would be to issue a warning that would largely fall on deaf ears. I've already said as much in previous posts, so I won't bother to repeat it.
Originally Posted by podpharmer
police let people go all the time for minor crimes (small amount of weed for example) so by your reasoning weed is legal.
just because they don't charge someone does not mean it is not a crime, it just means its not enforced
and no i don't believe they will enforce anything against airsoft/paintball
and several people have screamed repeatedly that the new ruling has changed nothing airsoft has been firearms since 2012 (later verified as 2009). so it would be a crime to point it at someone regardless if its enforced or not. you cant have it both ways. either it was a firearm since 2012 and a crime to point, or it isnt.....so pick one
I agree with this post 110%.
I still haven't really seen what happened to make airsoft firearms since 2012, or 2009. Someone writing a masters thesis, does not a law make.
Originally Posted by Ricochet
They are regarded as unregulated, not under the restrictions of firearms legislation and parts of the criminal code. The only way an airsoft gun can be considered a regulated firearm is it has a muzzle velocity exceeding 500 FPS and a kinetic force greater than 5.7 joules (that's around 700 FPS with a 0.25g round), or, it is used in a firearms related offense. If it was a fully regulated firearm then you'd need a license to buy one, not to mention all of the other regulations. If you take a piece of wood and carve it to look very similar to a firearm and give it a convincing paint job, and then rob a store with it, they may and can charge you with a firearm related offense, it doesn't have to be an airsoft gun. Do restricted and unrestricted firearms have all the same laws? No they don't, they only share the word firearm, it doesn't make them exactly the same.
"Unregulated firearm" is not a term found anywhere in law. This is a discussion about law. I'm not sure why you keep using this term. All objects, once they have been determined to meet the legal definition of firearm, are subject to regulation under the law. Of course not all firearms are treated the same, but that has never been disputed.
Several people here have pointed out that there are exceptions in the criminal code which apply to certain firearms, including airsoft guns, that exempts them from licensing and a few other requirements, but has them treated as firearms at all other times.
The belief that its only a firearm if its used in a crime would be circular reasoning, and is expressly what the Ontario Court of appeal ruled against. Things that aren't inherently firearms BECOME firearms when used as such in an offence. Things that ARE inherently firearms, as the 2013 ONCA ruling said included anything shooting over 214 fps, is a firearm all the time, and subject to the full body of laws for weapons and firearms. S 84(3) lists the exemptions for airsoft guns. Transportation, Magazines, pointing, concealing, etc are not among the things airsoft guns APPEAR to be exempted from.
Bottom line: Ontario Court of appeal said an airsoft gun is always a firearm.
After reviewing all your posts, you have been pretty consistent in indicating that there are no storage or transportation requirements for airsoft, yet there seems to be some disagreement on that from other members here. Can you clarify if airsoft guns are subject to storage/transportation rules?
Originally Posted by Cliffradical
No, I'm fine with this. Every time Mr. Schutzstaffle comes in here and loses an argument, another droog comes out of the woodwork to back him, and it's both entertaining and sweet.
Schutzstaffle? That only took 179 posts. I guess Godwin was right.