Cameron SS tell us exactly what you "legal background" is. You brought this up as a coin to lend merit to your arguments. However your position teeters on being very precarious now that you claim "unregulated firearm" doesn't exist as a legal standard. Such a claim shows very little exposure to the firearms act. Particularly the section dealing with prohib items (not all items here are firearms at all, but magazines or specific parts). How would you classify an Antique firearm that requires no license to purchase, own, or discharge? There are plenty of these. What about flare guns?


So what IS your legal background?



P.S. the application of your understanding of this ruling would make the deact firearms you used now be considered "replica firearms" as opposed to "unregulated." Meaning you are in full admission of the use of prohibited items.

Thanks for the answer.

You must have missed this post.

Hah!

That is funny, but I genuinely want an answer out of him on this :).

Just testing. For every ten people on the internet known as 'USERNAME88', nine of them were born in 1988, but the last one loves Screwdriver.


In the interest of promoting love and harmony, I'll offer that your patience and willingness to go through this argument point by point has seen it last longer than any other hot topic thread that I can remember.

I'm going to side with my cohorts in thinking you're ultrawrong, but you've earned a beer and a fair bit of respect for sticking with it this long.

I'm sure he won't post a 9 paragraph post that ignores a direct question.

I mean odds are he has to change sometime soon not being a troll and all.

If you don't like it then why do you keep coming back other then to complain?


I had posted

and he completely jumped over the part where I clearly stated FOR EXAMPLE because it is a real world example that happens every day that counters his logic

and he responded with

He was just butthurt because his argument got shot down in flames
all I did was counter his argument with logic.

the Supreme court of Canada said they are (over 214fps) and if you think that the scc ruling does not matter and only the letter of the law does then why do Quebec citizens still have to register non restricted firearms even though the law clearly says they dont have to? that's where the difference between the real world and the letter of the law differ. and I just laid out real world examples that happen every day.

Three years of university law at a university not known for its legal studies program. Not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I'm sure I'd get flamed no matter what my qualifications are, but there it is. In this regard, my concerns derive from reading and generally agreeing with the legal reasonings of Dunn's defense lawyer, Solomon Friedman. Solomon is widely regarded as one of Canada's foremost experts in firearms law, and has been called before parliament and senate hearings as an expert witness in gun laws and implications of proposed changes to legislation. He is frequently quoted in the media to provide clarification on the importance of several key rulings, and his take on this issue is pretty clear.

The ruling raises issues of the nature we are discussing, and does not provide clear answers, and more airsoft owners will wind up before judges having been charged with crimes that no one ever imagined or intended to be applied to airsoft and other airguns.

As for replica vs deactivated firearm.

Criminal Code.
A gun that WAS a firearm, but has been deactivated in accordance with Canadian Firearms Program Guidelines, was not designed or intended to exactly resemble a firearm, but was designed to BE a firearm, and then modified so that it wasn't.

R v Sinclair, 2006 ABQB 438. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...06abqb438.html

Sinclair was caught in an undercover sting operation selling formerly prohibited, recently deactivated handguns. The issue was whether or not they had been deactivated properly, and were 'readily convertible' back into functioning firearms. An extensive and expensive technical investigation was conducted into determining the process for deactivation and potential for convertibility. If deactivated firearms were replicas as you suggest, then the transactions would have been illegal regardless of the deactivation status and the crown and RCMP could have saved themselves a lot of time and money by simply charging him with trafficking in prohibited devices.

Despite the fact that the judge believed that Sinclair was guilty of deliberately trafficking in items while believing that Sinclair knew the firearms were easily convertible back into prohibited firearms, the judge was forced to admit that the items WERE deactivated according to industry standards (which changed very quickly after this trial), and therefore there were no laws prohibiting their sale or possession, and he was acquitted.

I did. Apologies. See above.

Cheers, and I'd be happy to reciprocate, but its a long commute to Winnipeg...

Its because I am willing to go through this point by point, and patiently engage in the debate as best I can that I'm hoping I can ward off at least a few accusations of trolling.

Change what? I Don't follow. Apologies again for missing those posts.

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? You do realize that lawyers often tend to cut their own objectives with law for personal gain via success in court right? Or at the very least in making documents that can twist and suggest many legal things to ward off people from "suspecting" what they say? This is why I've suggested you brush up on your "Bad Faith".


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!

well, yesterday when I went to walmart to spy on the airsoft toys, there was a notice stickered onto the pane saying that "ammunition purchases must be validated with a PAL license." I though that was a little extreme for grenade pellets.

Can someone link the thread going on in CGN in relation to this? Can't seem to find it.

You overestimate the value of your example.

Shot down in flames? Sorry, dude, I forgot more about the nuances of airguns and law since this morning than you know. I fought the CBSA on this issue a decade ago, when the law was much less clear, and procedure and law didn't meet.

Just another Johnny Comr Lately telling us his opinion.



News flash.

Bill C-19 applies to all of Canada, including Quebec. The SCC enjoined Ottawa from implementation in Quebec until arguments are heard and a ruling is made. That is all. It does not mean it is not law in Quebec. It means the law is suspended for now.

I also laid out real world examples that happen everyday. If you actually knew anything about airsoft guns, what they are, how they work, what we do with them, you might understand.

If you had bothered to read the law, it is quite clear.

It's about 9 pages in; the legalities subform.

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!