Airsoft Canada
AirsoftParts.ca

Go Back   Airsoft Canada > General > General
Home Forums Register Gallery FAQ Calendar
Retailers Community News/Info International Retailers IRC Today's Posts

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULES. Is this is new news and how this affects us?

:

General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 26th, 2014, 11:45   #196
Cameron SS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricochet View Post
As airsoft guns are firearms for the purpose of the act and all parts of the criminal code we now have to buy them with a PAL. L-O-FUCKIN'-L NOPE!. Argument....shattered!

Suggestion: Retry research and interpretation for a more educated and logical conclusion, based on facts.

Addendum: Your mom!

Nope! Airsoft guns is firearms!
With respect, I think you are being a bit disingenuous.

Yes, Airsoft guns, as Firearms, are subject to the entire body of Canadian law relating to firearms. Part of that law, is an exemption for low powered firearms which makes them exempt from the Firearms Act and certain sections of the criminal code, which include licensing, and others.
It has been quoted here many times, by myself and others. To think that I have suggested in any way that you need a PAL to own an airsoft gun reveals that you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and not really engaging in honest discussion.

Addendum: Mother insults?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracheous View Post
So let me get this straight, you have no legal background except for reading a lawyers blog? You have no formal training or education in legal practice, nor experience in street or judicial levels of application. Your primary source of information is a single lawyer?
Your second point is to bring up a case that did not clarify the status of a deact being replica or not, but instead a case where the process of deactivation was questioned? That still does not let you slide from your own interpretation of law. You're saying that there are no "non-regulated firearm". A case that also occurred in 2006.

Now you've created several holes in your own position of legal barter with your own example. You stance has been that the most recent ruling from the SC has changed the stances of firearms in Canada; that would put new precedent and make any previous precedents to being changed. As you're now suggesting there is no longer such a thing as "unregulated". That said, this would now mean that like Airguns, dewat's would be open to new scrutiny. By application of YOUR understanding, dewat's now no longer fall under non-regulated; by view of it not existing. Seeing as very few dewat's were restricted, and most likely to be prohib items or at least restricted in some cases; the dewat would be reclassified. Because you're stating that this ruling has changed the entire classification system and application of laws regarding them. Did you or any other point this dewat at a fellow cast member? Were they properly secured in locked cases with action or trigger locks in addition?

And you still haven't answered to antique firearms, these are non-regulated as well provided they were manufactured prior to a certain date.

TBH I vote for userban.

- Profile created Nov 2014 ((How convenient to hide))
- Consistently shows disregard towards individuals who spend a great deal more time researching the INDIVIDUAL laws that apply to their hobby/business.
- Makes a claim to legal background but can't back it, and the response is pitifully lacking in ability to own up to not having said background.
- Tries to strawman his way out with a case reference that has no relation to the argument trying to even make?
- Because everything you're spouting is false flagged. You're reading ONE lawyer; where the CSSA consults PLENTY of them and I've yet to receive or hear anyone receiving from them that my airguns are now firearms. That my airsoft and/or paintball guns are now firearms. Also as stated before in previous arguments it covers any "airguns" so there goes a MASSIVE part of my pneumatic tools; many of them have barrels less than 4.25" so I gotta get me a Prohib license now!
Yeah, so I'm not even sure if I should take this post seriously, but here goes.

Unless you think I spent three years in university reading a lawyers blog, no that's not what I said. Actually just read his blog for the first time just now, and it doesn't even look like he has posted anything on this issue. Could you please point me to the blog you are talking about. As I said, my concern comes from reading the case, and siding with his reasoning, as well as quoting for you the verbatim decision of the TRIAL JUDGES.

As for education or training in legal practice, what exactly do you think people do in university, watch re-runs of law and order?

What is a street or judicial level of application?

No, my primary source of information is not a single lawyer. I've quote for your several statues, several regulations, half a dozen or so court cases, and considered many more. In addition to parliamentary debate, non binding legal papers, and my dictionary.

Yes I know that lawyers construct legal reasonings with the purpose of getting their clients acquitted. Often times as well, and certainly in Solomon's case, they work to get courts to rule on issues that have a much broader impact than just the case at hand. Usually that is referred to as legal activism, and not acting in bad faith. As I am not representing any client, and this is merely a court of public opinion, what ulterior motives do you wish to accuse me of? From what I can tell the one thing that I have actually done that you don't like is continue to express my opinion.

No, the Sinclair case does not expressly clarify the case of a deactivated firearm being a replica, except to show that if deactivated firearms WERE replicas, then the guy that the judge agreed was clearly guilty of SOME wrongdoing, would have been convicted as such. Yes the case is from 2006. That is the most recent case I could find on the issue,has never been overturned, and in the grand scheme of the law, is not very old.

You clearly don't have a lot of experience with the law, otherwise it wouldn't be so surprising to you to realize that legal reasoning applied in one sense can have application in completely unrelated situations if there are legal similarities. The supreme court decision in Morgentaler, for example, which dealt with a guy operating illegal abortion clinics has been cited over 400 times, and despite being more than 20 years old, is considered as having applicability in many issues relating to human rights, Charter of Rights Violations, drug enforcement, jury selection, workplace harassment, etc, simply because the word "reasonableness" and "justifiable" were issues considered in that trial. Every single case where the word "reasonableness" is considered, there is a very good chance someone will invoke Morgentaler. Likewise, you asked about dewats, so I provided a case about dewats. One of the very few in fact.

And yes, I am saying there are no "non-regulated firearms". It is an oxymoron. Firearms are regulated under firearms law, things that aren't firearms are not, although they MAY be subject to other regulations in a given set of circumstances.

My initial stance was the SC ruling changed the status of things that weren't previously firearms, although I conceded that point about a hundred posts ago that the SCC merely affirmed what the Ontario Court of Appeal said, and it is the 2013 ONCA ruling that made the change. The only previous rulings that are affected by that new one are ones that specifically contradict it. No, we don't throw out thousands of court cases unrelated to the issue because of a single new issue, but all previous rulings that said an airsoft gun has to be used in a crime to be considered a firearm are now, in Ontario at least, no longer of any force or effect.

I am not suggesting that there is NOW no such thing as an unregulated firearm. Not since the Firearms Act was implemented in 1995 has there been such thing as an unregulated firearm. Previous to now, airsoft guns were not regulated under firearms law because they were previously not deemed to be firearms.

I understand that you don't agree with my opinion, or the Ontario Court of Appeal, but that doesn't mean you have to misquote me.

Dewats never fell under "non-regulated (firearm)", because there is no such thing. I Think I've made that pretty clear. Dewats WERE firearms, right up until they are permanently modified so that they can not fire any shot, at which time they become paper weights, or ornaments, and become like almost any inanimate object: not regulated by the criminal code until used as a WEAPON. The way dewats were treated in the Sinclair case supports this view.

As for the history of dewats, yes, most of them were prohibited. There was never really any need to dewat a restricted as there was a mechanism under law to legally own them as FIREARMS. Most people who were dewating firearms were doing so because it was the only legal means for them to keep them, and preferred dewating over the other options of putting a longer barrel on it, or surrendering it for destruction. Guns properly dewatted were not REclassified, they were DEclassified, meaning they were no longer considered firearms at all.

I've never stated that anything about the 2013 ONCA ruling affected dewats in the slightest. Where did you get that from?
Yes, several cast members routinely pointed dewatted and other inert objects at each other in the making of the film, under the supervision of the technical director who was a former police officer, and the head of security who was a current police officer. Perhaps you'd care to accuse them of running a protection racket or some other corruption? All the props were secured against theft, which did not include trigger locks for triggers that were welded in place and could not move.

As for antiques: Antiques ARE firearms, and ARE regulated under Canadian Firearms laws. The very same section of the code which exempts airsoft guns from licensing and registration, etc, 84(3) exempts antiques as well, except 84(3.1) leaves them subject to storage and transportation regulations.

They've been quoted many times here in this thread, and I'll provide them again in their entirety, and hope that it resolves this whole issue of a firearm subject to all the law, a firearm subject to some of the law, and things that would appear to be a firearm, but aren't meant to be.

From the criminal code. Section 84(3) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-42.html#h-38
Quote:
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
(a) any antique firearm;
(b) any device that is
(i) designed exclusively for signalling, for notifying of distress, for firing blank cartridges or for firing stud cartridges, explosive-driven rivets or other industrial projectiles, and
(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed;
(c) any shooting device that is
(i) designed exclusively for the slaughtering of domestic animals, the tranquillizing of animals or the discharging of projectiles with lines attached to them, and
(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed; and
(d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge
(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or
(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.

(3.1) Notwithstanding subsection (3), an antique firearm is a firearm for the purposes of regulations made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act and subsection 86(2) of this Act.
While we don't need to take this thread down the rabbit hole of discussing the law as it applies to antiques, you're assertion that they are "non-regulated" provided they were made prior to a certain date is also inaccurate, for a couple of reasons. First, antiques are still regulated. Second, there are many firearms made prior to 1898 that are still considered to be not antiques, and there are other guns made AFTER that date that either meet the definition of antique, or have been prescribed as an antique by an Order in Council.

The laws for antiques are probably the most complex and convoluted of all the firearms laws, especially when you look at the practical issues associated to applying them to firearms with no serial numbers, no manufacturing or maintenance info, and an incomplete ownership history. But back to the point...

User ban?
Yes, I created a new profile. Everyone does at some point. That's a crime? How do you hide/unhide your profile creation date. You seemed to find it so it can't be that well hidden?

What disregard have I shown for anyone? Disagreement alone doesn't qualify for disregard does it? I've been subject to name calling, accusations, ad hominem attacks, misquoting and all kinds of comments showing disregard, and have been pretty tolerant.

Several times you have accused me of twisting words or meanings, while you consistently do the same. The public record is here for all to see.

I've never made a claim to having a legal background that I couldn't back. You asked what my background was and I provided it. It took you no less than 45 minutes to make all kinds of fallacious assumptions about that background, and what I may or may not have claimed to be. I have repeatedly indicated that I am NOT a lawyer. Would you like to see a copy of my degree? Would you even believe it was mine? You've already indirectly accused me of bad faith, so given that, you wouldn't believe me no matter what I told you. While we are on the topic, in the interest of good faith, whats YOUR legal background?

Strawman my way out? You asked about dewats, and I provided a case about dewats. If your position was correct, it WOULD have been an issue at trial, but it wasn't, and he was acquitted. No, it doesn't black and white say that dewats aren't replicas. But you also won't find the phrase banana's aren't replicas either. You have to apply the law as it is written, and rely on legal rulings when they exist. Bananas: hows that for a strawman?

You're pneumatic tools are safe, and I doubt you are entitled to have a prohibited license. You previously indicated that you think its illegal to discharge them in Ottawa, so why do you even still have them?

Interesting, one of the lawyers that the CSSA consults on a regular basis is the very lawyer in question...

You are claiming that everything I am saying is false. This is very objective and gracious of you, especially because on several points I have agreed with you.

In life, you are going to encounter people that both disagree with you, and will refuse to be bullied into silence. Its the internet. You could have stopped reading at anytime if you didn't like what I was saying. Instead, for whatever reason, and I respect it, you chose to engage in debate and try and convince me of your views. Thank you for that, its the open and honest debate that I came here for.

However, when it has become apparent that you have failed to convince me to abandon my position, you call for a user ban. If that's not a bad faith way to try and win an argument, I don't know what is.

I think the mods can close the thread now.

Last edited by Cameron SS; November 26th, 2014 at 12:12..
Cameron SS is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 13:31   #197
Skeletor
 
Skeletor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thorold, Ontario
Why should an admin close the thread now? So that you can have the last word? You'd like that, I bet.

You're getting so much hostility because you're coming in here and trying to tell us our business, despite having zero experience with it yourself.

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen?

CameronSS: "Welp, all your airsoft guns are illegal now because *reasons,* lol. Sucks for you."

Airsoft Community: "Really? Thanks for telling us! Guess we'll go start pinning our mags now!"

Is that what you expected?

If everything is suddenly illegal, why have none of the many Ontarian retailers who post here said anything about raids or court orders, or even that they are worried? Why haven't the RCMP said anything about new enforcement rules, or the CBSA for that matter?

I have to hand it to you, this is a great troll. But until something actually happens (like any of the above from the agencies that actually enforce the law) it appears that you are wrong.
Skeletor is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 14:20   #198
Cameron SS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeletor View Post
Why should an admin close the thread now? So that you can have the last word? You'd like that, I bet.

You're getting so much hostility because you're coming in here and trying to tell us our business, despite having zero experience with it yourself.

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen?

CameronSS: "Welp, all your airsoft guns are illegal now because *reasons,* lol. Sucks for you."

Airsoft Community: "Really? Thanks for telling us! Guess we'll go start pinning our mags now!"

Is that what you expected?

If everything is suddenly illegal, why have none of the many Ontarian retailers who post here said anything about raids or court orders, or even that they are worried? Why haven't the RCMP said anything about new enforcement rules, or the CBSA for that matter?

I have to hand it to you, this is a great troll. But until something actually happens (like any of the above from the agencies that actually enforce the law) it appears that you are wrong.
I could care less who has the last word, and it seems to be common practice that the mod who locks the thread gets the last word anyways, so I have no expectation that it wouldn't be the case here.

I think this conversation has run its course. Everyone has stated their opinion, no one seems particularly willing to change their mind, and there doesn't seem to be anyone providing any new information. Several others have already suggested as much, I was just finally agreeing with them.

Also, the airsoft community has not been nearly as unanimous in their response as you suggest.

I also never said sucks for you or anything of the sort. Its also a bit of a stretch to read that I am new to the forum, and at the time, not owning any airsoft guns, and yet somehow have zero experience.

I fully admit that I could be wrong. I hope I am, but hope is not a reasonable course of action. Asides from the lack of enforcement that you correctly point out, no one has convincingly articulated a legal basis for WHY I am wrong.

Several times now people have indicated that the law remains unchanged since 2012, yet no one has even been able to substantiate what DID change in 2012.

As for the lack of enforcement, there are lots of possible reasons for why no one has enforced anything yet, that have nothing to do with having a different understanding of the law. Perhaps they are merely waiting for their own internal legal departments to conduct their own review before deciding how to act. Its been three weeks since the appeal process concluded with the SCC ruling, meaning the law set down in 2013 will not change until the issue comes before another court, on a different set of facts, and is modified or overturned. In some cases it has taken the RCMP years to decide how to enforce a particular issue that comes to their attention.

Also, all of the agencies you have listed have finite resources for enforcement, and often set priorities based on what they think is most important, and may feel as though they have bigger fish to fry than airsoft owners. If you want an example, look at the rampant speeding on our highways.

Even IF I am right, I hope they never apply the law in the way that I have interpreted, and wish no ill will to the airsoft community, of which I am now a member.

I certainly didn't expect to be welcomed with open arms while being a new member expressing controversial opinions. Most of the 'reactions' are also pretty consistent with what I've seen on other forums, and the internets generally.

The only thing I really expected was that there would be a number of people who could quote some actual law to support their views, instead of conjecture, unreliable sources and faulty logic, and asides from a very few notable exceptions, I've been disappointed.

Drake is really the only one who I've seen that has provided any consistent legal basis for his views, and we've found more than a few points of agreement on certain matters.

Notably, that the retailers will likely be the first victims of any shot across the bow. Until then, we will just have to wait and see.
Cameron SS is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 14:56   #199
Skeletor
 
Skeletor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thorold, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron SS
I could care less who has the last word, and it seems to be common practice that the mod who locks the thread gets the last word anyways, so I have no expectation that it wouldn't be the case here.
I'd ask you to forgive me for being a pedant, but since you are being an unapologetic pedant here, I won't. It's couldn't care less; could care less means that you do care, at least a little.

Quote:
I think this conversation has run its course. Everyone has stated their opinion, no one seems particularly willing to change their mind, and there doesn't seem to be anyone providing any new information. Several others have already suggested as much, I was just finally agreeing with them.
If the conversation has run its course and you no longer wish to continue it, why are you still replying? Your actions belie your words.

Quote:
Also, the airsoft community has not been nearly as unanimous in their response as you suggest.
True, there are a few dissenters here or there. However, the people most would consider pillars of the community (aka the people who know the most about the sport and its legal issues) are unanimously against you.

Quote:
I also never said sucks for you or anything of the sort. Its also a bit of a stretch to read that I am new to the forum, and at the time, not owning any airsoft guns, and yet somehow have zero experience.
This is nothing of a stretch. New user. Doesn't even own the product in question. You are green, a newbie, inexperienced. Your knowledge of airsoft is second hand, which you readily admitted when you stated that you own no guns, but have a few friends who do.

Moreover, you may not have stated specifically that it sucks for us, but that is definitely the subtext of many of your posts, which is another example of your pedantic arguments.

Here is an example:

Quote:
Many things that have real uses are regulated under law, up to and including being restricted or prohibited all together. Many things and sports that were at one point in time considered legitimate, and sometimes still are considered legitimate, are regulated. Airsoft is now one of those things. Unfortunately, it is now regulated by the most oppressive and onerous section of Canadian law, being the Criminal Code.
If that doesn't say "sucks to be you" then I guess I'd better return my BA in English to WLU and get rid of my word processor since I'm clearly too stupid to understand subtext and therefore can't be a reader or writer.

There is also another post where you specifically welcome airsoft to the "Big Boy" world of firearms law. Also a "sucks to be you" moment, as well as incredibly patronizing and condescending.


Quote:
I fully admit that I could be wrong. I hope I am, but hope is not a reasonable course of action. Asides from the lack of enforcement that you correctly point out, no one has convincingly articulated a legal basis for WHY I am wrong.
Who said anything about hope? If this is such a landmark case as you suggest it is, why aren't any of the authorities responding to it with a call to action? Oh wait, the people who are at least in part responsible for it have responded and said that this ruling changes nothing. If only because it would be, as the good Sgt. replied, a nightmare to enforce.

You are making a mountain out a molehill.

Quote:
Several times now people have indicated that the law remains unchanged since 2012, yet no one has even been able to substantiate what DID change in 2012.
This I unfortunately cannot reply to with any sort of authority. Deductive reasoning would show that the user who goes by "The Saint" on here used his Master's thesis to convince the RCMP and the CBSA to change the way they viewed airsoft guns. That's about as much as I can infer.

Quote:
As for the lack of enforcement, there are lots of possible reasons for why no one has enforced anything yet, that have nothing to do with having a different understanding of the law. Perhaps they are merely waiting for their own internal legal departments to conduct their own review before deciding how to act. Its been three weeks since the appeal process concluded with the SCC ruling, meaning the law set down in 2013 will not change until the issue comes before another court, on a different set of facts, and is modified or overturned. In some cases it has taken the RCMP years to decide how to enforce a particular issue that comes to their attention.

Also, all of the agencies you have listed have finite resources for enforcement, and often set priorities based on what they think is most important, and may feel as though they have bigger fish to fry than airsoft owners. If you want an example, look at the rampant speeding on our highways.
It's not being enforced because it is unenforceable. The legal authorities who would be responsible for its enforcement have said as much. Could this change? Possibly. But until they do somehow manage to wrangle up the resources to enforce it, any of the repercussions of this latest ruling which you have perceived are moot. The final arbiters of a law are its enforcers. If they do not choose to enforce it, the law may as well not exist.


Quote:
Even IF I am right, I hope they never apply the law in the way that I have interpreted, and wish no ill will to the airsoft community, of which I am now a member.

I certainly didn't expect to be welcomed with open arms while being a new member expressing controversial opinions. Most of the 'reactions' are also pretty consistent with what I've seen on other forums, and the internets generally.

The only thing I really expected was that there would be a number of people who could quote some actual law to support their views, instead of conjecture, unreliable sources and faulty logic, and asides from a very few notable exceptions, I've been disappointed.

Drake is really the only one who I've seen that has provided any consistent legal basis for his views, and we've found more than a few points of agreement on certain matters.

Notably, that the retailers will likely be the first victims of any shot across the bow. Until then, we will just have to wait and see.
Yes, we will have to wait and see.

People have reasoned with you, and the more unreasonable you became, the more unreasonable and hostile we have become in response.

Your reasoning has not been perfect. Three years of (what? undergrad?) level law education does not a lawyer make.

To not look like a total asshole here, I will say that I hope you do find a place in our community. If the time ever does come that airsoft lands within the crosshairs of the government, I hope you'll argue as long and loudly for its continued legality there as you've argued for its illegality here.

It's a fun hobby. Even more fun with friends, provided you don't manage to alienate them all.

Last edited by Skeletor; November 26th, 2014 at 15:39..
Skeletor is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 17:15   #200
Cameron SS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeletor View Post
I'd ask you to forgive me for being a pedant, but since you are being an unapologetic pedant here, I won't. It's couldn't care less; could care less means that you do care, at least a little.

I can always forgive pendantry, if only because I DO care, at least a little. And while a certain degree of pedantry is necessary in a debate about law and the meaning of words, it would seem that the brand of pendantry YOU have resorted to is against the forum rules, but I digress...

If the conversation has run its course and you no longer wish to continue it, why are you still replying? Your actions belie your words.

Because you have asked new questions, re enforcement.

This is nothing of a stretch. New user. Doesn't even own the product in question. You are green, a newbie, inexperienced. Your knowledge of airsoft is second hand, which you readily admitted when you stated that you own no guns, but have a few friends who do.

Moreover, you may not have stated specifically that it sucks for us, but that is definitely the subtext of many of your posts, which is another example of your pedantic arguments.

Here is an example:

If that doesn't say "sucks to be you" then I guess I'd better return my BA in English to WLU and get rid of my word processor since I'm clearly too stupid to understand subtext and therefore can't be a reader or writer.

There is also another post where you specifically welcome airsoft to the "Big Boy" world of firearms law. Also a "sucks to be you" moment, as well as incredibly patronizing and condescending.

I concede your second point, and apologize to anyone offended by it. It was patronizing, a bit condescending, and certainly uncalled for, albeit the accusations of trolling and flaming began well before then.

As for the first point, re the oppressive and onerous nature of the criminal code, which I have been living under for more than a decade, if there is any sucks to be... implied here, it sucks to be US.


Who said anything about hope? If this is such a landmark case as you suggest it is, why aren't any of the authorities responding to it with a call to action? Oh wait, the people who are at least in part responsible for it have responded and said that this ruling changes nothing. If only because it would be, as the good Sgt. replied, a nightmare to enforce.

You are making a mountain out a molehill.

It seems that we agree on the enforceability issue as being problematic to say the least. Using it as evidence to support an understanding of the law that is otherwise (in my opinion) unsupported, I consider somewhat hopeful.

Alternatively, living under bad law in the hopes that the RCMP continue to not enforce it isn't exactly an ideal situation for anyone.


This I unfortunately cannot reply to with any sort of authority. Deductive reasoning would show that the user who goes by "The Saint" on here used his Master's thesis to convince the RCMP and the CBSA to change the way they viewed airsoft guns. That's about as much as I can infer.

I am inclined to agree with your inference, and hope that you can understand that such an inference isn't really close to the answer I was looking for.

It's not being enforced because it is unenforceable. The legal authorities who would be responsible for its enforcement have said as much. Could this change? Possibly. But until they do somehow manage to wrangle up the resources to enforce it, any of the repercussions of this latest ruling which you have perceived are moot. The final arbiters of a law are its enforcers. If they do not choose to enforce it, the law may as well not exist.

This I agree with 100%

Yes, we will have to wait and see.

People have reasoned with you, and the more unreasonable you became, the more unreasonable and hostile we have become in response.

Your reasoning has not been perfect. Three years of (what? undergrad?) level law education does not a lawyer make.

To not look like a total asshole here, I will say that I hope you do find a place in our community. If the time ever does come that airsoft lands within the crosshairs of the government, I hope you'll argue as long and loudly for its continued legality there as you've argued for its illegality here.

It's a fun hobby. Even more fun with friends, provided you don't manage to alienate them all.
With respect, not very many people have offered anything approaching an attempt to reason, let alone reasoning supported in law, which was the whole point of the thread.

No, my reasoning has not been perfect, and I've admitted mistakes wherever they have been identified. I guess you missed the several times where I have stated quite clearly that I am not lawyer. No big deal.

At the end of the day, you can rest assured, friends or no friends, I will argue in favour of the legality of airsoft guns as you suggest, and as I already AM doing in other ways, including petitioning certain members of government to amend Bill C-42 to include a clarification that Airsoft guns need to be exempt from certain firearms offences, like pointing, and that their magazines need to be included in the stated exemptions in S. 84(3).

I'm sure I'll eventually find a place in the flesh and blood world of airsoft. As for internet forums, I'm pretty sure I'm burnt, and I already have another one I intend to continue using in order to submit my opinions to the fiery crucible of scrutiny.

As this is starting to feel more like a trial than debate, I think I'm going to sit back for a bit and default to popcorn mode. I'm sure many will race to be the first to claim a moral victory. To each their own. All the best.

Cam.
Cameron SS is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 18:52   #201
knightkyun
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Markham
This issue is not to be taken lightly, but ICE CREAM SANDWICH!! Just have fun everyone. This wont be the last we hear of this. The only thing this ruling changes is that the idiots of the community can now harm what we(not me i"m newbie) built. So we all need to be responsible for each other. Don;t let your friends do stupid things and get us all in hot water.
knightkyun is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 21:01   #202
podpharmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
At the end of the day, you can rest assured, friends or no friends, I will argue in favour of the legality of airsoft guns as you suggest, and as I already AM doing in other ways, including petitioning certain members of government to amend Bill C-42 to include a clarification that Airsoft guns need to be exempt from certain firearms offences, like pointing, and that their magazines need to be included in the stated exemptions in S. 84(3).

Cam.
How many of the people arguing with cam have bothered to contact members of government to amend bill C-42????. I will bet you not one. so while they cry for a user ban he is the only one doing anything to help the airsoft community in any meaningful way
podpharmer is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 21:28   #203
kalnaren
 
kalnaren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by podpharmer View Post
is the only one doing anything to help the airsoft community in any meaningful way
Are you fucking shitting me?

Airsoft is in a better legal position now than it ever has been, and is has zero to do with self-righteous twats who randomly show up here with a plan to "save" airsoft, talking down to the people here like we don't have a fucking clue about the legalities surrounding our hobby.

Airsoft is in the position its in now because of actions of members of this community.

You know jack shit.

Shut up.
__________________

Quote:
"Someone in a Prius tried to race me at a stop sign the other day. I couldn't believe it. I had him for the first 100 feet or so but I can only walk so fast."

Last edited by kalnaren; November 26th, 2014 at 22:11..
kalnaren is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 21:30   #204
mcguyver
 
mcguyver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by podpharmer View Post
How many of the people arguing with cam have bothered to contact members of government to amend bill C-42????. I will bet you not one. so while they cry for a user ban he is the only one doing anything to help the airsoft community in any meaningful way
You have no idea who is here and what they do.
__________________
Age verifier Northern Alberta

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Freedom is the wolves limping away while the sheep reloads.

Never confuse freedom with democracy.
mcguyver is offline  
Old November 26th, 2014, 23:27   #205
Cliffradical
butthurt for not having a user title
 
Cliffradical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Yeah. Wow.
Cliffradical is offline  
Closed ThreadTop


Go Back   Airsoft Canada > General > General

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Airsoft Canada
AirsoftParts.ca

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.