View Single Post
Old February 24th, 2008, 20:15   #121
Dog Face Killer
Dog Face Killer's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Originally Posted by mcguyver View Post
Perhaps, but look at who is on the tribunal. It is more likely that they would have dropped the 407 fps requirement and denied your appeal just the same.

I have a hard time believing that they would....or could...on the fly arbitrarily just "drop" the 407 rating considering they have used it time and time again in thier hearings as a qualifier!

Furthermore, and "i believe" and would argue that the key is that the RCMP have already determined that serious injury occurred at 407 FPS, hence the classification of BB and pellet guns.

If they tried to backtrack, thats when you take it to court. They would have a challenge on their hands if they tried to backtrack and say that they were wrong in their first study, and now the FPS danger zone is lets say 480FPS (as an example).

The CITT is not a court of law, they don't have to follow the law nor the rules of evidence at all. In fact, nowhere in the law is 407 fps ever mentioned. That should tell you something right there.

Again, i would challenge that at the tribunal first...failing that i would take it to court with their own expert testimony and soebpena the exact same RCMP officers that gave their expert testimony initially. I would be willing to bet that a judge would take the testimony of a RCMP firearms expert over any non law enforcement expert any day of the week and all day long.

The point is that the RCMP have already qualified the elusive "407" rating with their own testimony at the CITT.

When you have unelected civil servants working against you at every turn, you aren't going to use their policies against them. They'll just change them to come out on top.

Oh wait, was she a great big fat person?

Last edited by Dog Face Killer; February 24th, 2008 at 20:18..
Dog Face Killer is offline   Reply With Quote