View Single Post
Old August 13th, 2008, 12:14   #60
The Saint
The Saint's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Capt. T/O View Post
Just to clarify things, it your opinion that Parliament meant to define a firearm as having a muzzle velocity greater than 500 fps AND 5.7 joules.

I must respectfully disagree.

Firstly, the amendment being referred to here is the provision of the Firearms Act, and the definition of a firearm, under the Firearms Act, "in order for there to be registration" (on page 2 statement by Mr. Lanctot).
The amendment is part of a bill that applies to BOTH the Firearms Act and Criminal Code for purpose of modernizing the definition of what are not considered to be firearms, as per the summary of the bill itself.

This legislative history is not relevant to the definition of a firearm under the Canada Criminal Code. This legislative history is relevant to the definition of a firearm for REGISTRATION purposes.
I think you meant to say, "it is relevant to the definition of a firearm specifically for sections 91-95, 99-101, 103-107 and 117.03 of the Criminal Code", as the Criminal Code itself indicates. That happens to be most of Possession Offences (the original purpose of this thread), Trafficking Offences, Export and Import Offences, Offences relating to Lost, Destroyed or Defaced Weapons, etc. and part of Search and Seizure. That's a good chunk of the Criminal Code, so I would not consider it limited to the purpose definition of a firearm for registration purposes.

Secondly, as stated by Mr. Smith (cheif scientist, firearms, for the RCMP) on page 4 "the intention of this amendment is to provide for an exemption from registration IF either the velocity is inferior to 152.4 m/s OR the energy is inferior to 5.7 joules. The text of the draft does say that, and I suppose any clarification on that is even better..... So its my opinion that as written, it does in fact mean that the firearm need be under only one of the two limits in order to be exempt from the registration and lisencing provisions."
As I've demonstrated above, the amendment intends to address registration, but is not limited to registration.

Thirdly, as stated by Ms. Kathleen Roussel (legal counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre) on page 6... "The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m/s OR energy exceeding the limits in the provision will ablso be subject to registration"
I looked up your quote of Ms. Roussel on page 6 (closest link to it here), but it does not match to the actual document. Here's what I'm seeing, underlining is added by me.

Originally Posted by Ms. Kathleen Roussel (Legal Counsel, Canadian Firearm Centre):
With respect to the amendment moved by Mr. Lanct�t, what Mr. Paradis is saying is true. The expression �ni con�ue ni adapt�e� has been in the Criminal Code for a number of years. As far as I know, it has never caused any problems of interpretation. In French, it is normal to use �ni� twice when you want to exclude two different things. The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 metres per second are subject to registration. In addition, those that are adapted to have a muzzle velocity or energy exceeding the limits in the provision will also be subject to registration.

These things have never caused any problems. I see no reason to deal with this issue rather than a substantive issue.
I'm not going to address point-by-point the remainder of your previous post, because I feel I've provided adequate rebuttle on the core of your argument.
"The Bird of Hermes is My Name, Eating My Wings to Make Me Tame."
The Saint is offline   Reply With Quote