Originally Posted by The Saint
Do you know that for a fact? It'd be really interesting if it were true, definitely affects any legal challenge we'd make. 407fps thing aside, is the permissibility of replica firearm that are also pellet guns AND capable of inflicting bodily harm a RCMP position?
Look at the CITT appeals. They use that as one of their benchmarks for determining a gun to be a replica or not. They use it to either refute the claim of the appellant or enhance the CBSA claim. Nobody has yet fought on that basis at a CITT appeal and won, although Kang did with a couple of studies he introduced, which were rejected out-of-hand as they did not use the particular models of gun he had siezed to do the tests. Pretty ridiculous to stick to a point of legality over evidence when they use a non-published pseudo-fact that the RCMP 100% refuses (I've talked on the phone with Deryk Penk at the RCMP Firearms Forensics Lab about this years ago) to put in writing and will not make it available to the public.
Here. read the decisions:
That's how Kang managed to use the CBSA's own policies against it for over a year when he had all manuals removed from G&P guns and had PDI 190% springs installed to get them to shoot over 407 fps. Then he had G&P write on bonded paper that these guns did in fact shoot that hot. Then, when he got lazy and stopped doing that, they nailed him again. I know, I bought a couple of those guns, and many are still floating around where I am.
This was the whole issue with the 407 fps (124.5m/s) that popped up a few years ago. And it's still an issue today, but we can't (or rather aren't allowed) to use it in our favour.