[Cameron SS]

Originally Posted by Dracheous

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.

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.

“replica firearm” means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm;

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.

Originally Posted by Danke

You must have missed this post.

I did. Apologies. See above.

Originally Posted by Cliffradical

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Danke

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.

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