View Single Post
Old May 22nd, 2007, 00:51   #49
Brian McIlmoyle
Brian McIlmoyle's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto
Originally Posted by ancorp View Post
Brian there is one thing missing - it also must not be able to cause serious bodily harm to be considered a replica, thus replica pellet guns, like Umarex pistols, are perfectly fine (infact I have a couple), even though under 500fps/5.7fpe (or 4.3fpe? not sure of the exact number).

Some airsoft guns can do a reasonable amount of "harm" when compared to some airguns, so technically its a gray area as I see it.

That is a common fallacy, there is no mention of that in the current law, although some branches of the judiciary seem to still be clinging to these old definitions they are not part of the law as it stands.

If something is not a firearm but looks like a real firearm it is a replica. There is no mention of being able to fire anything, and certainly no mention of being able to cause bodily harm... this is part of the old definition of what a firearm is that has been removed from the criminal code some time ago.

as it stands now in the current criminal code any object that is not capable of firing a shot or projectile at greater than 500 fps but looks like a firearm is a replica firearm, unless it is easily determined by inspection to not resemble any existing weapon...or is constructed of materials that make it clear that is is a harmless toy then it would be an imitation firearm.
This is why "clearsoft" exists, and why Canadian tire can import them and sell them without restrictions. Imitation firearms are not prohibited...Whereas replica firearms are.

You know... this has all been hashed out before... there has to be a dozen threads on this exact topic....

but my recomendation is to read the criminal code... its all there in black and white.
Brian McIlmoyle
TTAC3 Director
CAPS Range Officer
Toronto Downtown Age Verifier


If the tongue could cut as the sword does, the dead would be infinite
Brian McIlmoyle is offline   Reply With Quote