This MAY change airsoft as we know it

[Cassius]

Bong my friend, as I said in my PM, I'll take a P229 off your hands.

[ColtFarmer]

CYMA makes the 552 for sig, it's in all thier little catalogues. It's a TM clone.

[Andres]

If they're less than a x2 markup price in country, I don't see any problem with the 552... upgrade the shit out of it!

[MadMax]

I met a Sig rep at Shotshow in Febuary. They licensed their trademark for the 226 to KJW and the 552 to TM.

Importing through proper channels for law enforcement training is not a new thing. Many Canadian law enforcement suppliers have been doing this for some time. The sticky issue is when prohibited devices are taken from a law enforcement channel and sold to non LE.

The Firearms act classifies airsoft transfer as a prohibited activity, but it's been exempted from penalty on some strange wording. While this makes conviction messy, it would not convince a magistrate that no laws have been broken. I rather doubt that your employer really wants to risk their trust agreements to broker actual destructive devices to bring in some toy guns for wider sale. Tread very carefully.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by MadMax

The Firearms act classifies airsoft transfer as a prohibited activity, but it's been exempted from penalty on some strange wording. While this makes conviction messy, it would not convince a magistrate that no laws have been broken.

The Firearms Act classifies the purchase of Replica Firearm by individuals as legal. There is nothing strange about the wording, nor is it some oversight on the part of Parliament when the Act was written.

The issue is that businesses may only sell Replica Firearm according to the Prescribed Purpose that they imported the devices under, and there are no "recreational" Prescribed Purpose at this time.

[MadMax]

The last time I looked into it, the logical interpretation I understood was:

Replica firearms = prohibited devices

transfer of prohibited devices is a offense with an exception to penalty for replica firearms for some reason)

So transfer of replica firearms is listed as an offense but somehow exempted from penalty which is kind of goofy.

It seemed to me that the legislation needed some fleshing out still.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by MadMax

The last time I looked into it, the logical interpretation I understood was:

Replica firearms = prohibited devices

True.

transfer of prohibited devices is a offense with an exception to penalty for replica firearms for some reason)

False.

Individuals are afforded the full spectrum of legal protection for acquiring, possessing, transporting and responsibly using Replica Firearm. The language of the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code is one of inclusion and exclusion, so there is nothing unusual about the exception.

And had they not included it, they would have been faced with a situation where Canadian public agencies crushed by the sheer scale of a ban on everything that looked convincingly gun-like. They could've grandfathered all existing Replica Firearms in Canada to ease the aforementioned scenario, but they didn't. They did not grandfather and they did not ban. In fact, the Firearms Act makes completely banning Replica Firearm impossible.

So transfer of replica firearms is listed as an offense but somehow exempted from penalty which is kind of goofy.

Transfer has a very specific meaning under the Firearms Act and Criminal Code. Transfer for the purpose of this topic is always the point of origin. The seller, giver, (originating) barterer is the transferer. Individuals may only transfer Prohibited Devices to businesses, that's what the Act says.

However, when it comes to the recipient, the buyer, there are no laws against that portion of an exchange. The key is to understand that the Act relies on possession to control acquisition. Because Replica Firearm is not illegal in any way for individuals to possess (provided no other laws are broken, like stolen goods or smuggling), it is not illegal for individuals to acquire.

It seemed to me that the legislation needed some fleshing out still.

The legislation is not the problem.

[Nik12]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Because Replica Firearm is not illegal in any way for individuals to possess (provided no other laws are broken, like stolen goods or smuggling), it is not illegal for individuals to acquire.

Interesting.

I was always under the impression it was legal to possess a replica, but illegal to transfer ownership of it (ie selling/buying, giving/recieving, etc).

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets...replicas_e.asp
(I know it's just a fact sheet)
"December 1, 1998 the import, manufacture and sale of replica firearms is illegal (except under certain regulated circumstances)."
"You can keep any replica firearms that you owned on December 1, 1998, when the Firearms Act came into effect."

So I would think that all sales of these devices is illegal (even using our classifieds), yet it gets by since an Airsoft gun isn't considered a replica under the law until proven to be a replica by a court. Also, I'm sure the legal system isn't going to go to all the trouble of trying to prove you haven't owned your gun since December 1st, 1998.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying this is why I've always thought of it that way. I'm sure we aquire our new airsoft guns through "Regulated circumstances".

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Nik12

I was always under the impression it was legal to possess a replica, but illegal to transfer ownership of it (ie selling/buying, giving/recieving, etc).

According to the CFC's Fact Sheets, your impression would be correct. However, understand that the CFC points out that Fact Sheet is not a proper legal reference, and that the CFC cannot "grandfather" anything.

[Nik12]

Originally Posted by The Saint

According to the CFC's Fact Sheets, your impression would be correct. However, understand that the CFC points out that Fact Sheet is not a proper legal reference, and that the CFC cannot "grandfather" anything.

Oh, I realise that. I've just never been able to find the appropriates laws and legislation surrounding airsoft (or as close as it gets) to gain a deeper understanding.

[demco11]

1) Airsoft is LEGAL to own/use/posses in Canada.
However, if you break any law or commit a crime or have the police called then it is illegal, and you can be charged as if it were a real gun.
Dont believe? well thats what my local police station had told me when I asked about the legality's revolving around airsoft guns, so ask your local cop shop.


2) The only "grey area" in Airsoft is the CBSA. They are the ones that make airsoft guns difficult to import, and they give retailers trouble if they find out the airsoft guns are being sold to the public...

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by demco11

1) Airsoft is LEGAL to own/use/posses in Canada.
However, if you break any law or commit a crime or have the police called then it is illegal, and you can be charged as if it were a real gun.
Dont believe? well thats what my local police station had told me when I asked about the legality's revolving around airsoft guns, so ask your local cop shop.

That is actually true for any Imitation Firearm, whether it's a replica or an airgun of any sort. The language of the Firearms Act is open enough to support charging someone using a paintball marker in a robbery.

2) The only "grey area" in Airsoft is the CBSA. They are the ones that make airsoft guns difficult to import, and they give retailers trouble if they find out the airsoft guns are being sold to the public...

That's not really a grey area. The CBSA is doing their job exactly as they should when they restrict import of replicas in accordance to the Act.

[Nik12]

Originally Posted by demco11

2) The only "grey area" in Airsoft is the CBSA. They are the ones that make airsoft guns difficult to import, and they give retailers trouble if they find out the airsoft guns are being sold to the public...

Isn't the entire definition of Airsoft a grey-area under the law? Not quite a replica, mostly an airgun, bit of both worlds, bit of neither. Thus lacking a stone cold definition and making it a grey-area and completely open to somewhat-subjective interpretations (until proved to be a replica on a case by case basis in a court of law, blah blah)?

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Nik12

Isn't the entire definition of Airsoft a grey-area under the law? Not quite a replica, mostly an airgun, bit of both worlds, bit of neither. Thus lacking a stone cold definition and making it a grey-area and completely open to somewhat-subjective interpretations (until proved to be a replica on a case by case basis in a court of law, blah blah)?

No.

First of all, betting on the whole "It's not a Replica Firearm until the court says so" is a bad bet. Airsoft guns fit the description of Replica Firearm to a T, that is their purpose. Also, there is no reason why the courts would go out of their way to interpret the definition to exclude airsoft guns, so getting a non-literal interpretation is extremely unlikely. If one wants to be realistic about the situation, assume that airsoft guns are Replica Firearms for all intent and purpose under law.

Secondly, it does not matter to the Firearms Act whether a replica can shoot or not. It only matters whether something shoots over the line between real Firearm and Imitation Firearm.

[Nik12]

Originally Posted by The Saint

No.

First of all, betting on the whole "It's not a Replica Firearm until the court says so" is a bad bet. Airsoft guns fit the description of Replica Firearm to a T, that is their purpose. Also, there is no reason why the courts would go out of their way to interpret the definition to exclude airsoft guns, so getting a non-literal interpretation is extremely unlikely. If one wants to be realistic about the situation, assume that airsoft guns are Replica Firearms for all intent and purpose under law.

Secondly, it does not matter to the Firearms Act whether a replica can shoot or not. It only matters whether something shoots over the line between real Firearm and Imitation Firearm.

Thank you for clearing that up.