I thought my explanation was simple enough but I guess I have to clarify.
Pellet guns are perfectly fine to buy, you can buy them at Canadian tire. However not good to use in an airsoft game. If you show up and try and play with one of those they wont even let you on the field with it. If you have more questions about airguns or pellet guns, I suggest you go to here: http://www.airgunforum.ca/forum/index.php
I could tell you where to find reviews about buyairsoft. But I wont. I will however tell you how to find reviews about buyairsoft. Near the upper right hand corner is a search button, click it to open a tab and type in buyairsoft click search and it should yield a fair amount of threads, read through them and eventually you will find a few threads thats will tell you what you need to know.
Now you have stated that you have read and reread the faqs, and you may have learned some info but I suggest maybe you take the time to go through some of the FAQS threads again. Theres alot of info in there, and you can learn it all at once, it takes time.
can I do this?
oops sorry, I was new to this site (I still am but at least know what I'm doing) and I posted late at night so I wasn't thinking clearly. I just picked a random thread and posted in it. I couldn't find the thread for a while so I couldn't delete it. I will delete this post in a day or two. just a sorry to you guys. and to tycho:
I like your sense of humour.
yeah, go for it. I'm sure if you read any of the stickied threads (like the one you're posting in) you'll find that importing airsoft guns is easy.
Can somebody explain to me why pellet guns that are fully replicas or even made by the genuine gun manufacturers or liscensed by them are legal in Canada whereas airsoft is not? When Pellet guns are much more dangerous in fact and many of them are just as realistic? And those same pellet guns are legally sold to people without and special liscenses, etc. also as long as they fall under 500FPS. Why does airsoft recieve such scrutiny when pellet and metal bb guns do not have to be clearsoft?
The classification of whether any one object is a Replica is a matter of Fact not a matter of Law. To be a replica an object must be proven to be a replica in a court of law. This does not define a class of objects as replicas.
"airsoft" is a meaningless term that has zero legal relevance.
Airsoft guns and airguns that look like real guns are sold under an unspecified condition as they are not classifed as replicas until proven so. This is the so-called "grey area" of the classification of airsoft guns. In every case that I have researched where airsoft guns are material to a crime they have successfuly been proven to be replica firearms and proven as prohibited devices.
So your aursoft gun is "technically" not a replica until you do something stupid with it and get arrested and are convicted. Then it likely will be proven to be a replica and you will face all relevant charges pertaining to the miss use of prohibited devices.
agreed- however the fact remains that the government was pushing to have a whole section of airguns classified as firearms because they felt they looked 'close enough'- the opposition party was able to stop them by pointing out the definition of replica already covers an airgun that looks like a real gun (replica), that they were NOT firearms legally, and that to try to make nonreplica airguns classified as replicas or firearms would muddy the waters and turn citizens who purchased the guns legally into criminals after the fact:
November 19, 2001
For Immediate Re lease
WHY DID RCMP AND JUSTICE OFFICIALS SAY THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGE IN POLICY?
"Access documents prove the RCMP had changed the airgun registration policy
on March 6, 2000!"
Ottawa - Today, Garry Breitkreuz, the Official Opposition's gun control
critic, released documents proving officials in the Department of Justice
and the RCMP misled the media and the public during and following last
year's election. "I won't impugn the motives of these officials but their
public statements are now clearly at odds with the documents and no doubt
their comments helped the Liberals win a few key seats, particularly in
Ontario," claimed the Saskatchewan MP.
On November 17th, 2000, acting on complaints of firearms dealers and tips
received from officers working inside the RCMP's Firearms Registry,
Breitkreuz exposed the fact that a number of airguns and pellet rifles had
been reclassified as firearms and some had even been registered in
accordance with the law. Breitkreuz maintained that the Liberals were
trying to keep this quiet until after the election so as not to provoke
approximately two million airgun owners in Canada.
When Breitkreuz broke the story, officials from both the RCMP and Department
of Justice were quoted in the following newspapers:
(1) "But the head of the Canadian Firearms Registry, Mike Buisson, denied
the claims and insisted there has been no change in policy." - The Edmonton
Sun - November 18, 2000, Page 6
(2) "There's been no policy change," he [David Austin, Canadian Firearms
Centre spokesperson] said. - The Moncton Times and Transcript - November 23,
2000, Page A1
(3) "However, [RCMP] registry spokesperson Joan Oliver said she believed no
decision had been made about classing the pellet guns as firearms." - The
Moncton Times and Transcript - November 23, 2000, Page A1
(4) "No policy decision has been made yet on airguns," Mr. Austin said. "No
changes have been made to the list that would make them firearms." - New
Brunswick Telegraph Journal, November 11, 2000, Page C1
These statements were contradicted by RCMP documents obtained by Breitkreuz
after a year and a half investigation by the Information Commissioner's
office [RCMP File: 00ATIP-16792].
DOCUMENT #1 dated March 6, 2000 showing the airgun policy was changed - RCMP
Firearms Standards Committee, Records of Decisions Made, Approved Signature
J.A.J. Buisson, Superintendent, Registrar, RCMP Canadian Firearms Registry,
Dated 2000-03-06, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY #14.
DOCUMENT #2 dated April 13, 2000 showing how officials in the RCMP's
Firearms Registry would implement the ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY #14 - Memorandum
from Cpl. L. Cyr, NCO i/c Correspondence Unit to S/Sgt. A. Drouin, NCO i/c
Legislation and Regulations.
DOCUMENT #3 dated May 8, 2000 shows the RCMP advising the Department of
Justice about ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY #14 - Letter from Superintendent J.A.J.
(Mike) Buisson, Registrar, Canadian Firearms Centre to Mr. William Bartlett,
Council, Canadian Firearms Centre with copies to Maryantonett Flumian, Chief
Executive Officer, DOJ, et al. QUOTE: "In other words, airguns will be
tested to determine whether they are in fact firearms. If so, the licencing
and registration requirements set out in the Firearms Act are applicable.
As you can well imagine, this will result in a substantially increased
number of firearms requiring registration. Certain short-barreled airguns
will change status from 'deemed non-firearm' to prohibited firearms."
DOCUMENT #4 shows hundreds of airguns listed as firearms on the RCMP's FRT
(Firearms Reference Table) as of 17 November 2000 - Non-Restricted = 377,
Restricted = 50, Prohibited = 5.
"Now, all we don't know is why the RCMP and Justice Department officials
misled the media and the public," concluded Breitkreuz.
ahh found the actual page: http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breit...nControl59.htm
edit- all of this is exactly as Brian says it is btw- I am not disagreeing but rather trying to explain what I was saying better ;)
The method of defining what is a firearm was simplified in 2000.
If it fires a shot or projectile over 500 FPS its a firearm regardless of what propels the projectile.
So overnight people who thought they owned airguns now owned firearms.. subject to registration.
You have to be careful about pulling up old documents. Things can change and they do.
Of course the police can't seem to keep up so no reason to think anyone else would.
That controversy is what lead to the inclusion of an energy requirement to the law, to "fix" the interpretation of what 500 fps really means, especially with various pellets used.
I've been reading those threads for a few hours now and I just have to ask to make sure since I didn't find a clear answer, though from all this I would think the answer is no...
If I were to use a air gun, or any kind of replica as an accessory to a costume (ex. soldier), I could not walk around with it even if it were not loaded. Unless this costume was for theatre or movies?
You could not walk around in public, but on a stage or at a private costume party at your house, you probably could. Being on stage with a gun might cause a bit of a stir though, so best check local ordinances as well.
Thanks for your help; That's what I thought...
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.