Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron SS
Many people probably don't care about what that means to them. And maybe nothing bad will ever come of it. Many gun owners said the same about the firearms act twenty years ago. Try and find one who hasn't changed his tune.
But yeah, the RCMP, who hold the reins on what is or isn't legal in Canada, despite being in a constitutional conflict of interest, IS what I'm concerned about.
|
Heh. If you're trying to suggest I'm ignoring what or how the RCMP does things, or that I'm burying my head in the sand, you're sorely mistaken.
Context, I spent two years working on an academic paper covering the
exact current issue: how is firearm defined in Canada, what are the implications for airsoft.
Literally, everything here and more, possession, acquisition, use, abuse, modification, high capacity magazine, automatic function, barrel length, etc was thoroughly broken down and examined, with the help of the RCMP and their legal folks. Why? Because at the time, airsoft was generally treated as replica firearms/prohibited devices in Canada and we were getting crushed.
After I clued in how firearms are defined in Canada and realized where airsoft guns truly fell (and that RCMP wasn't out to get us), I had to make sure that that didn't actually make things worse for us. It didn't and it won't. I didn't just take the RCMP's words for it, I went forwards and backwards over the CC and anything else official I could find. Everything corroborates the RCMP's position, because in this case it's set out in law and jurisprudence, and there's not a lot for the RCMP to have a position on other than to provide a scientific figure for serious bodily harm.
Maybe some day airsoft guns will require licensing, registration, semi-only, 5 round magazine limit, whatever. But that's not feasible under the current wording of the law.
Your major issue remains that you think Dunn v. SCC actually changed something. You're in a panic and trying to interpret the CC as if things changed. But Dunn v. SCC changed absolutely nothing, it simply reaffirmed what was already a fact of life.
If you had a time machine, and you went back and asked me what the decision of Dunn v. SCC would be back 2009, I'd have told you exactly what the decision would be. In fact, that was one of my recommendations at the end of my paper.
Quote:
7.2.8 Better prosecution of non-controlled firearms misuse
I recommend that the prosecution of the misuse of non-controlled firearms be improved through a more consistent application of criminal charges together with a more accurate classification of the barrelled weapons being used. The ballistic power of the barrelled weapons use should be accorded greater significance. There should be an official "rule of thumb", with regards to the type of non-conventional firearms used, that allows prosecutors to quickly but generally reliably determine whether the barrelled weapon involved in a firearm, non-controlled firearm, or imitation firearm.
For example, there is already a common layman understanding that if a barrelled weapon shoots cartridge ammunition, it is most likely a firearm. The layman understanding should be broadened to include "if it shoots a BB, pellet, or paintball, it is most likely a non-controlled firearm and NOT an imitation firearm." This would lead to the use of non-conventional, non-controlled firearms being properly prosecuted on the basis of the danger they pose to victims.
|
And the above is from 2009. Yeah, I'm in the camp that if you maliciously use any toy gun, you should get nailed for it.