View Single Post
Old March 3rd, 2007, 12:19   #147
frankiet's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Originally Posted by mcguyver View Post
I'll clue you guys into something: The CBSA doesn't give a rats ass about FPS anymore. Peter Kang played that card and it's no longer valid. Everything is a replica, will be seized and you will have to appeal it all the way to CITT before FPS becomes a valid defense. Peter Kang's appeal took 6 years and 3 months from seizure until CITT appeal.
Actually, they did care about fps. Kang was contesting that the two guns in question, a baretta and M11 I believe, did cause bodily harm. The following is straight from the decision ...

9. The CBSA submitted that the guns in issue are not firearms since the projectiles that they discharge are unlikely to cause serious bodily injury or death to a person, as required by the definition of a “firearm” pursuant to section 2 of the Criminal Code. The Tribunal agrees with the CBSA that, to be considered a firearm, an airsoft pistol must have a muzzle velocity that exceeds 124 metres per second (407 feet per second). Because the guns in issue all have muzzle velocities that are below this threshold,6 the Tribunal agrees with the CBSA that they are not firearms. Based on the definition of “firearm” found in section 2 of the Criminal Code, the Tribunal is satisfied that the second condition of the definition of a “replica firearm” is fulfilled, i.e. each pistol in issue itself is not a firearm. As for Asia Pacific’s reference to an article in the May 2001 issue of the American Journal of Ophthalmology that documented an eye injury caused by an airsoft pistol, the Tribunal agrees with the CBSA that this matter is not relevant to this appeal because this incident did not involve the guns in issue.

They decision didn't go Kang's way because those two guns didn't fire over 407 fps. It seems to me that above 407 fps would be allowed by this decision.

Over 407 but below 500 = firearm not requiring registration and able to import.

On a side note, the last part about the Tribunal dismissing the Ophthalmology findings seems a little ignorant. At question was not which gun is firing, but the ballistics behind injury. An M4 firing a 280 fps bb will be the same as any other gun firing a 280 fps bb.

Bottom line is that the Tribunal seems to be under the impression that over 407 fps is not a replica.
frankiet is offline   Reply With Quote