Originally Posted by Ricochet
As airsoft guns are firearms for the purpose of the act and all parts of the criminal code we now have to buy them with a PAL. L-O-FUCKIN'-L NOPE!. Argument....shattered!
Suggestion: Retry research and interpretation for a more educated and logical conclusion, based on facts.
Addendum: Your mom!
Nope! Airsoft guns is firearms!
With respect, I think you are being a bit disingenuous.
Yes, Airsoft guns, as Firearms, are subject to the entire body of Canadian law relating to firearms. Part of that law, is an exemption for low powered firearms which makes them exempt from the Firearms Act and certain sections of the criminal code, which include licensing, and others.
It has been quoted here many times, by myself and others.
To think that I have suggested in any way that you need a PAL to own an airsoft gun reveals that you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and not really engaging in honest discussion.
Addendum: Mother insults?
Originally Posted by Dracheous
So let me get this straight, you have no legal background except for reading a lawyers blog? You have no formal training or education in legal practice, nor experience in street or judicial levels of application. Your primary source of information is a single lawyer?
Your second point is to bring up a case that did not clarify the status of a deact being replica or not, but instead a case where the process of deactivation was questioned? That still does not let you slide from your own interpretation of law. You're saying that there are no "non-regulated firearm". A case that also occurred in 2006.
Now you've created several holes in your own position of legal barter with your own example. You stance has been that the most recent ruling from the SC has changed the stances of firearms in Canada; that would put new precedent and make any previous precedents to being changed. As you're now suggesting there is no longer such a thing as "unregulated". That said, this would now mean that like Airguns, dewat's would be open to new scrutiny. By application of YOUR understanding, dewat's now no longer fall under non-regulated; by view of it not existing. Seeing as very few dewat's were restricted, and most likely to be prohib items or at least restricted in some cases; the dewat would be reclassified. Because you're stating that this ruling has changed the entire classification system and application of laws regarding them. Did you or any other point this dewat at a fellow cast member? Were they properly secured in locked cases with action or trigger locks in addition?
And you still haven't answered to antique firearms, these are non-regulated as well provided they were manufactured prior to a certain date.
TBH I vote for userban.
- Profile created Nov 2014 ((How convenient to hide))
- Consistently shows disregard towards individuals who spend a great deal more time researching the INDIVIDUAL laws that apply to their hobby/business.
- Makes a claim to legal background but can't back it, and the response is pitifully lacking in ability to own up to not having said background.
- Tries to strawman his way out with a case reference that has no relation to the argument trying to even make?
- Because everything you're spouting is false flagged. You're reading ONE lawyer; where the CSSA consults PLENTY of them and I've yet to receive or hear anyone receiving from them that my airguns are now firearms. That my airsoft and/or paintball guns are now firearms. Also as stated before in previous arguments it covers any "airguns" so there goes a MASSIVE part of my pneumatic tools; many of them have barrels less than 4.25" so I gotta get me a Prohib license now!
Yeah, so I'm not even sure if I should take this post seriously, but here goes.
Unless you think I spent three years in university reading a lawyers blog, no that's not what I said. Actually just read his blog for the first time just now, and it doesn't even look like he has posted anything on this issue. Could you please point me to the blog you are talking about. As I said, my concern comes from reading the case, and siding with his reasoning, as well as quoting for you the verbatim decision of the TRIAL JUDGES.
As for education or training in legal practice, what exactly do you think people do in university, watch re-runs of law and order?
What is a street or judicial level of application?
No, my primary source of information is not a single lawyer. I've quote for your several statues, several regulations, half a dozen or so court cases, and considered many more. In addition to parliamentary debate, non binding legal papers, and my dictionary.
Yes I know that lawyers construct legal reasonings with the purpose of getting their clients acquitted. Often times as well, and certainly in Solomon's case, they work to get courts to rule on issues that have a much broader impact than just the case at hand. Usually that is referred to as legal activism, and not acting in bad faith. As I am not representing any client, and this is merely a court of public opinion, what ulterior motives do you wish to accuse me of? From what I can tell the one thing that I have actually done that you don't like is continue to express my opinion.
No, the Sinclair case does not expressly clarify the case of a deactivated firearm being a replica, except to show that if deactivated firearms WERE replicas, then the guy that the judge agreed was clearly guilty of SOME wrongdoing, would have been convicted as such. Yes the case is from 2006. That is the most recent case I could find on the issue,has never been overturned, and in the grand scheme of the law, is not very old.
You clearly don't have a lot of experience with the law, otherwise it wouldn't be so surprising to you to realize that legal reasoning applied in one sense can have application in completely unrelated situations if there are legal similarities. The supreme court decision in Morgentaler, for example, which dealt with a guy operating illegal abortion clinics has been cited over 400 times, and despite being more than 20 years old, is considered as having applicability in many issues relating to human rights, Charter of Rights Violations, drug enforcement, jury selection, workplace harassment, etc, simply because the word "reasonableness" and "justifiable" were issues considered in that trial. Every single case where the word "reasonableness" is considered, there is a very good chance someone will invoke Morgentaler. Likewise, you asked about dewats, so I provided a case about dewats. One of the very few in fact.
And yes, I am saying there are no "non-regulated firearms". It is an oxymoron. Firearms are regulated under firearms law, things that aren't firearms are not, although they MAY be subject to other regulations in a given set of circumstances.
My initial stance was the SC ruling changed the status of things that weren't previously firearms, although I conceded that point about a hundred posts ago that the SCC merely affirmed what the Ontario Court of Appeal said, and it is the 2013 ONCA ruling that made the change. The only previous rulings that are affected by that new one are ones that specifically contradict it. No, we don't throw out thousands of court cases unrelated to the issue because of a single new issue, but all previous rulings that said an airsoft gun has to be used in a crime to be considered a firearm are now, in Ontario at least, no longer of any force or effect.
I am not suggesting that there is NOW no such thing as an unregulated firearm. Not since the Firearms Act was implemented in 1995 has there been such thing as an unregulated firearm. Previous to now, airsoft guns were not regulated under firearms law because they were previously not deemed to be firearms.
I understand that you don't agree with my opinion, or the Ontario Court of Appeal, but that doesn't mean you have to misquote me.
Dewats never fell under "non-regulated (firearm)", because there is no such thing. I Think I've made that pretty clear. Dewats WERE firearms, right up until they are permanently modified so that they can not fire any shot, at which time they become paper weights, or ornaments, and become like almost any inanimate object: not regulated by the criminal code until used as a WEAPON. The way dewats were treated in the Sinclair case supports this view.
As for the history of dewats, yes, most of them were prohibited. There was never really any need to dewat a restricted as there was a mechanism under law to legally own them as FIREARMS. Most people who were dewating firearms were doing so because it was the only legal means for them to keep them, and preferred dewating over the other options of putting a longer barrel on it, or surrendering it for destruction. Guns properly dewatted were not REclassified, they were DEclassified, meaning they were no longer considered firearms at all.
I've never stated that anything about the 2013 ONCA ruling affected dewats in the slightest. Where did you get that from?
Yes, several cast members routinely pointed dewatted and other inert objects at each other in the making of the film, under the supervision of the technical director who was a former police officer, and the head of security who was a current police officer. Perhaps you'd care to accuse them of running a protection racket or some other corruption? All the props were secured against theft, which did not include trigger locks for triggers that were welded in place and could not move.
As for antiques: Antiques ARE firearms, and ARE regulated under Canadian Firearms laws. The very same section of the code which exempts airsoft guns from licensing and registration, etc, 84(3) exempts antiques as well, except 84(3.1) leaves them subject to storage and transportation regulations.
They've been quoted many times here in this thread, and I'll provide them again in their entirety, and hope that it resolves this whole issue of a firearm subject to all the law, a firearm subject to some of the law, and things that would appear to be a firearm, but aren't meant to be.
From the criminal code. Section 84(3) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-42.html#h-38
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
(a) any antique firearm;
(b) any device that is
(i) designed exclusively for signalling, for notifying of distress, for firing blank cartridges or for firing stud cartridges, explosive-driven rivets or other industrial projectiles, and
(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed;
(c) any shooting device that is
(i) designed exclusively for the slaughtering of domestic animals, the tranquillizing of animals or the discharging of projectiles with lines attached to them, and
(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed; and
(d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge
(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or
(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.
(3.1) Notwithstanding subsection (3), an antique firearm is a firearm for the purposes of regulations made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act and subsection 86(2) of this Act.
While we don't need to take this thread down the rabbit hole of discussing the law as it applies to antiques, you're assertion that they are "non-regulated" provided they were made prior to a certain date is also inaccurate, for a couple of reasons. First, antiques are still regulated. Second, there are many firearms made prior to 1898 that are still considered to be not antiques, and there are other guns made AFTER that date that either meet the definition of antique, or have been prescribed as an antique by an Order in Council.
The laws for antiques are probably the most complex and convoluted of all the firearms laws, especially when you look at the practical issues associated to applying them to firearms with no serial numbers, no manufacturing or maintenance info, and an incomplete ownership history. But back to the point...
Yes, I created a new profile. Everyone does at some point. That's a crime? How do you hide/unhide your profile creation date. You seemed to find it so it can't be that well hidden?
What disregard have I shown for anyone? Disagreement alone doesn't qualify for disregard does it? I've been subject to name calling, accusations, ad hominem attacks, misquoting and all kinds of comments showing disregard, and have been pretty tolerant.
Several times you have accused me of twisting words or meanings, while you consistently do the same. The public record is here for all to see.
I've never made a claim to having a legal background that I couldn't back. You asked what my background was and I provided it. It took you no less than 45 minutes to make all kinds of fallacious assumptions about that background, and what I may or may not have claimed to be. I have repeatedly indicated that I am NOT a lawyer. Would you like to see a copy of my degree? Would you even believe it was mine? You've already indirectly accused me of bad faith, so given that, you wouldn't believe me no matter what I told you. While we are on the topic, in the interest of good faith, whats YOUR legal background?
Strawman my way out? You asked about dewats, and I provided a case about dewats. If your position was correct, it WOULD have been an issue at trial, but it wasn't, and he was acquitted. No, it doesn't black and white say that dewats aren't replicas. But you also won't find the phrase banana's aren't replicas either. You have to apply the law as it is written, and rely on legal rulings when they exist. Bananas: hows that for a strawman?
You're pneumatic tools are safe, and I doubt you are entitled to have a prohibited license. You previously indicated that you think its illegal to discharge them in Ottawa, so why do you even still have them?
Interesting, one of the lawyers that the CSSA consults on a regular basis is the very lawyer in question...
You are claiming that everything I am saying is false. This is very objective and gracious of you, especially because on several points I have agreed with you.
In life, you are going to encounter people that both disagree with you, and will refuse to be bullied into silence. Its the internet. You could have stopped reading at anytime if you didn't like what I was saying. Instead, for whatever reason, and I respect it,
you chose to engage in debate and try and convince me of your views. Thank you for that, its the open and honest debate that I came here for.
However, when it has become apparent that you have failed to convince me to abandon my position, you call for a user ban. If that's not a bad faith way to try and win an argument, I don't know what is.
I think the mods can close the thread now.