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.