Originally Posted by mcguyver
Doess the CCC arrest you for performing an illegal act? No. The RCMP does. The copy/paste portion of the CFC fact sheet (their published official interpretation) says "NO" to possession and "NO" to acquisition.
If it went to court and you said "Your honor, the law is clear that I can possess it, but I couldn't acquire after 1998" his question is going to be "Well, when did you get it?". If your response is anything after 1998, your goose is cooked. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
My point is, acquisition comes first, possession comes second. You can't possess it if you didn't first acquire it. And there has been a time limit on legal acquisition, irregardless what the CCC specifically says on simple possession only. Our laws get altered by judges all the time, and unfortunately their interpretation can and does trump Parliament if they feel it necessary.
I don't dissagree with you... but the issue is not that I posses it.. as that is legal.. the issue is ... when did I get it.. because if the transfer was after 1998.. then that act ( but not the object of that act ) was illegal.
So on conviction.. I am guilty of illegal transfer of a prohibited device.. and I will likely loose my right to possession as a result of that conviction..
The gun's status does not change.. it is still a replica.. and can still be possesed legally... unfortunalty there is no legal way for it to come into your possession.
So if you interprit the intent of the laws.. they are disigned to limit proliferation of replicas...and the trade in them.. the law is not intended to make everyone who has a replica a criminal.
In the absence of evidence of illegal transfer ( eye witness, Video, or fornesic accounting evidence ) no one would enter a charge of illegal transfer.. even if circumstansial evidence clearly indicates an offense was committed...
In the case of the last big retailer clamp down.. when the national reseller network was taken down.. the RCMP took the trouble to video "trunk sales" of guns from retailer to individuals... even then they only threatened to charge.. and issued cease and desist orders on threats of charges...
right after that the retailers got the hint and many of them stopped trade..and the intent of the law was achieved.