Originally Posted by Nik12
Isn't the entire definition of Airsoft a grey-area under the law? Not quite a replica, mostly an airgun, bit of both worlds, bit of neither. Thus lacking a stone cold definition and making it a grey-area and completely open to somewhat-subjective interpretations (until proved to be a replica on a case by case basis in a court of law, blah blah)?
First of all, betting on the whole "It's not a Replica Firearm until the court says so" is a bad bet. Airsoft guns fit the description of Replica Firearm to a T, that is their purpose. Also, there is no reason why the courts would go out of their way to interpret the definition to exclude airsoft guns, so getting a non-literal interpretation is extremely unlikely. If one wants to be realistic about the situation, assume that airsoft guns are Replica Firearms for all intent and purpose under law.
Secondly, it does not matter to the Firearms Act whether a replica can shoot or not. It only matters whether something shoots over the line between real Firearm and Imitation Firearm.