|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 00:44
|
#106 |
|
"DECISION
14. In order to determine whether the rifles in issue are properly classified under tariff item No. 9898.00.00, the Tribunal must determine if they meet the definition of “replica firearm” under subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code. For the rifles in issue to meet this definition, each one must fulfil three conditions: (1) it must be designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm; (2) it must not itself be a firearm; and (3) it must not be designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm. 15. The CBSA submitted that the rifles in issue resemble the M4A1 carbine assault rifle with near precision. The M4A1 is used by U.S. military forces, such as the Delta Force, the Navy SEALs and the Marine Corps. The M4 family follows the M16. The sale of M4 rifles made by Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC is restricted to military forces and to the police. The rifles in issue are equipped with the same accessories as the authentic M4A1. 16. The CBSA submitted that the rifles in issue are not firearms, since the projectiles that they discharge are unlikely to cause serious bodily injury or death to a person, as required by the definition of “firearm” pursuant to section 2 of the Criminal Code. The Tribunal agrees with the CBSA that, to be considered a firearm, an airsoft rifle must have a muzzle velocity that exceeds 124 metres (407 feet) per second. Because the rifles in issue have muzzle velocities that are below this threshold,6 the Tribunal agrees with the CBSA that they are not firearms. Based on the definition of “firearm” found in section 2, the Tribunal is satisfied that the second condition of the definition of “replica firearm” is fulfilled, i.e. each rifle in issue itself is not a firearm. 17. The CBSA submitted that the rifles in issue replicate the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, which is derived from the M16 rifle, manufactured between 1958 and 1964. Therefore, the M4A1 was not manufactured prior to 1898, the year before which a firearm must have been manufactured to be considered an antique firearm, pursuant to the Criminal Code. Thus, the Tribunal is satisfied that the third condition of the definition of “replica firearm” is fulfilled, i.e. each rifle in issue was not designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm. 18. Accordingly, because the rifles in issue fulfil the three conditions that make them replica firearms under the Criminal Code, the Tribunal finds that they are prohibited devices. Consequently, it finds that the rifles in issue are properly classified under tariff item No. 9898.00.00 and, as such, prohibited from importation into Canada under subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code and subsection 136(1) of the Customs Tariff. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 1 . R.S.C. 1985 (2d Supp.), c. 1 [Act]. 2 . S.C. 1997, c. 36. 3 . S.O.R./91-499. 4 . C. Gaz. 2006.I.3701. 5 . R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. 6 . Ms. Hind’s report indicated that the Neonfire Delta Force M4A1 RIS spring airsoft rifle and the Neonfire M733 Commando RIS spring airsoft rifle have maximum velocities of 72 and 77 metres per second respectively." If the tribunal would have found in this case that the gun only met two of the three criteria, it would have been released! http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/appeals/d.../ap2g012_e.asp
__________________
Oh wait, was she a great big fat person? |
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 01:02
|
#107 |
|
Mr. D.F.K., I can tell you that when the CITT (not a judicial but rather an administrative tribunal) wants to hit you over the head with the 407 fps qualifier, it is to use as physical, measurable proof that your gun is prohibited. There has not been a successful appeal yet that the CITT has allowed that uses this same number to disqualify a gun.
When I spoke with Deryk Penk at the RCMP a number of years ago, I was told that they have done testing on animals (pigs to be exact). There was a case in Ontario where a man was killed by an LTL beanbag shot from a police 12ga. shotgun. As part of the testing to determine harm and lethality from BBs used in those bean bags, they shot at various parts of the pig, from torso to eyes. Their results do not bear out 407fps from this testing at all, but they say they have conducted other "tests", none of which are published for peer review or even substantiated at all. The pig test was a scientific test and was published, so that data is available. Basically, the 407 fps is a fictitious number, conjured up by the RCMP. This number would not hold up in an actual court because there is no actual published test data. There is a multitude of test data on BB guns and injury going back to DiMaio, et al. in 1982, and there's one from Florida in 1997 that does use the 407 fps number. If you goolge "BB + eye + injury", you will get alot of results. The number the RCMP use is for their purposes, and not for ours. You're welcome to challenge them on it, but I promise you that number will disappear before you even get to court and it won't help you at all. If you want to challenge them in court, go in armed with at least 8-10 other studies from around the world (there's a really good one from Finland) and call their experts on it in court. But don't expect that the airgun industry would be willing to help you, in fact, they may side with the RCMP against you, to protect the umbrella of policy-led (rather than legal) protection they currently enjoy (as most of their guns would be considered replicas as well).
__________________
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. |
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 01:12
|
#108 |
|
|
Email to the RCMP:
"To whom it may concern, I would like to get some clarification on the legal status and stance of the CFC and the RCMP on BB guns also known as “Airsoft” guns in Canada, specifically, only those models that have a maximum muzzle velocity not exceeding that of 152.4 meters or 500 feet per second, yet are over 124 meters or 407 feet per second. The questions are these: A: Are they considered to be “replica” firearms if they meet the above outlined criteria or are they considered to be “BB” or “pellet guns”? B: Do they need to be registered with the CFC/RCMP C: What is the legal age to own and poses ether a “replica” and or a “BB/pellet gun” in Canada? D: Is it legal to import a BB, pellet or Airsoft gun into Canada if it meets the muzzle velocities outlined above? E: Is there a permit or any other necessary “special” documentation in order to import said guns? I look forward to your response and clarification on the above outlined items and appreciate your time and attention in the matter. P.S. please send response via email to this email address." Now we wait...i will post the response once i receive it...if they try to avoid me...I will be heading over to Ottawa to get some answers from head office in person...if that fails...ill lodge a complaint with my member of Parliament!
__________________
Oh wait, was she a great big fat person? |
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 02:06
|
#109 |
|
Official ASC Bladesmith
|
Holy fucking argument Batman!!!!!
I gave up posting a while back, now I'm giving up reading this thread. You won't win if siezed. Quit while you have cash in your pocket. Don't fuck the rest of us by being a cheap bastard looking for a sweet cheap deal then going to court over it after it gets seized. EDIT: Oh, by the way, you didn't even need to send that to the RCMP via e-mail, you could have simply posted it here and they would have read it. |
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 02:28
|
#110 | |
|
|
Quote:
Tomorrows letter is to the CITT to get clarification on the past few rulings they have made...and one to the CBSA as well! GET ER DONE! P.S. I don't give a shit who in the RCMP reads this....I WANT SOLID ANSWERS from a qualified person in a position of power to answer my questions...period. And if you think they wont answer me...watch me work my magic...remember that all these agencies work for the "People of Canada"...we elect the policy makers into power...they have accountability to us weather they like it or not. It's whether or not your willing to do what it takes to shake the tree and get them down off their perches....i am! And before anyone starts saying "your gonna ruin the sport for all of us" WAKE UP.....if anything its a step forward...not backwards! :banghead: Furthermore, its attitudes like yours thats the reason the select few of us are leaders...and the majority are followers. I plan on posting all my results for the community to see...because all i have seen up until this point is pure fucking conjecture and not one document form anyone from the RCMP/CITT or CBSA. If I'm wrong...ill be getting a case of beer..we can all meet up at TTAC3....and get drunk on me....until then...good night!
__________________
Oh wait, was she a great big fat person? Last edited by Dog Face Killer; February 24th, 2008 at 02:31.. |
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 02:33
|
#111 |
|
Can someone keep track of all these attempts per month?
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 02:41
|
#112 |
|
man do i ever sense an epic fail coming on
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 05:40
|
#113 | |
|
Red Wine & Adderall
|
Quote:
Allow me to be the first to say, fuck you and your select few.
__________________
 "Its only a little bit on fire" |
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 09:31
|
#114 | |
|
kos
|
Quote:
lmao. In my 2 years of being on this site, I've seen like 7 of these ... please. Quit effin' trying. People much, much, MUCH more knowledgeable than yourself have tried, and failed. Again, I'm not trying to bash you, but your attempt seems pretty futile. |
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 09:50
|
#115 |
|
|
If you bang your head against a brick wall :banghead: made of shit, in the end all that happens is you end up smelling.
__________________
Oh wait, was she a great big fat person? |
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 10:54
|
#116 |
|
I'm not a legal expert by far but in those cases posted by DFK. I see the decision was "The appeal is dismissed" and doesn't that mean that it was essentially thrown out and the initial decision FOR the CBSA was upheld?
These three: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...nlii11266.html http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...nlii11265.html http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...anlii2725.html Therefore...Fail, by the appellant.
__________________
Various BB throwers Last edited by LyquidFyre; February 24th, 2008 at 10:55.. Reason: Edited URLs |
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 11:07
|
#117 | |
|
|
Quote:
lol...you sound like my 1 year old son!
__________________
Oh wait, was she a great big fat person? |
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 11:14
|
#118 | |
|
|
Quote:
That is not the issue here...the issue is why it was dismissed...reason is that the guns in question met all three criteria to be considered a "replica". If the guns had only met 2 of the three criteria, then the person appealing the CBSA would have won the appeal!
__________________
Oh wait, was she a great big fat person? |
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 11:19
|
#119 | |
|
|
Quote:
When you have unelected civil servants working against you at every turn, you aren't going to use their policies against them. They'll just change them to come out on top.
__________________
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2008, 18:06
|
#120 | ||
|
Quote:
Here's some free advice: 1) don't send e-mail. Every twelve year old wanker sends e-mail and everybody in government more or less ignores it. Send it by registered mail or courier, well typed, no spelling errors, addressed to a specific individual with a specific title on the most impressive letterhead you can get your hands on. "To whom it may concern" e-mails are about the most least effective way to communicate with a large organization I can imagine. 2) don't bother writing the RCMP, they are an enforcement arm, not an arm tasked with giving legal advise or rulings. For someone who quacks alot about his power and legal knowlege it surprises me you did not figure this out. 3) If you want to write to anyone you could well consider Customs, or Crown Law Criminal (part of the AG's office). You may get a faster response on some on your questions by writing to the provincial AG than the feds. 4) Don't expect an answer that applies to some of your questions across Canada, as some of your questions are provincial jurisdiction, some are federal. 5) In fact don't expect a good answer at all. The government does not have an obligation to explain the law to you, or to make advance rulings on specific issues. You can, however bring a reference case to deal with the matter. You seem to like to go to court, go for it on this one. 6) Please do post you results when you get them. Until then giving yourself the self-appointed title of leader and dumping on everyone else as a "follower" is about as arrogant as Cdn Stalker seems to find me, and that's bad man, not good. Ld
__________________
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
  |
|
||||||
| Bookmarks |
|
|
 |
|
