Trouble with Police

[Capt. T/O]

Originally Posted by Drache

Actually I've got an email from Canada Firearms Center and be classified AS a firearm it must meet or pass BOTH fps and joules to be classified. Meaning if you airsoft gun is 600fps but say 2.2 joules, its not a firearm.

For a .2g BB to reach 5.7 joules, that BB needs to be going around 790fps I think it is? a .23g BB would need to reach about 730fps.

The Canada Firearms Center was established to implement the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act defines a firearm as having it shoot 500 fps AND 5.7 joules, as you correctly stated.

The local LE and local prosecutors implement/enforce the Canada Criminal Code, which defines a firearm as being able to shoot greater than 500 fps OR have a muzzle velocity greater than 5.7 joules.

The CFC actually defines this very well in their article defining airguns and airsoft guns on their website, defining firearms for the purposes of the Criminal Code and for the purposes of the Firearms Act.

In short, if you have a AEG or bolt action airsoft gun that shoots greater than 500 fps, and you point it at someone in public, you CAN be charged with pointing a firearm. Once that stigma applies, the prosecutors CAN charge you with all sorts of other nasty CRIMES related to firearms (because they have already defined your gun as a firearm in the first criminal charge).

BUT... this only applies when you commit a CRIME with your airsoft gun and not before. Everything before the crime, should be regulated by the Firearms Act (ie transportation, import/export, selling, owning, etc.)

[ShelledPants]

Originally Posted by Capt. T/O

The Canada Firearms Center was established to implement the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act defines a firearm as having it shoot 500 fps AND 5.7 joules, as you correctly stated.

The local LE and local prosecutors implement/enforce the Canada Criminal Code, which defines a firearm as being able to shoot greater than 500 fps OR have a muzzle velocity greater than 5.7 joules.

The CFC actually defines this very well in their article defining airguns and airsoft guns on their website, defining firearms for the purposes of the Criminal Code and for the purposes of the Firearms Act.

In short, if you have a AEG or bolt action airsoft gun that shoots greater than 500 fps, and you point it at someone in public, you CAN be charged with pointing a firearm. Once that stigma applies, the prosecutors CAN charge you with all sorts of other nasty CRIMES related to firearms (because they have already defined your gun as a firearm in the first criminal charge).

BUT... this only applies when you commit a CRIME with your airsoft gun and not before. Everything before the crime, should be regulated by the Firearms Act (ie transportation, import/export, selling, owning, etc.)

I was under the impression that threatening a person with a replica firearm, regardless of it's ability to operate, was considered brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to harm and can stack firearm charges against you.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Capt. T/O

The Canada Firearms Center was established to implement the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act defines a firearm as having it shoot 500 fps AND 5.7 joules, as you correctly stated.

The local LE and local prosecutors implement/enforce the Canada Criminal Code, which defines a firearm as being able to shoot greater than 500 fps OR have a muzzle velocity greater than 5.7 joules.

No.

It's 500fps AND 5.7J, period, there is no such distinction between CFC and RCMP. C-10A applies to both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code in the exact same way.

I understand the wording is rather confusing, but Parliament wrote the section to mean AND, and there aren't two interpretations on it.

Originally Posted by ShelledPants

I was under the impression that threatening a person with a replica firearm, regardless of it's ability to operate, was considered brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to harm and can stack firearm charges against you.

If you threaten a person in the course of committing certain indictable offences with even a paintball gun, you can be punished with firearm offences. It isn't limited to replicas.

[Capt. T/O]

Originally Posted by The Saint

No.

It's 500fps AND 5.7J, period, there is no such distinction between CFC and RCMP. C-10A applies to both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code in the exact same way.

I understand the wording is rather confusing, but Parliament wrote the section to mean AND, and there aren't two interpretations on it.

Show me the legislative history that states that Parliament wrote the section to mean AND.

You're right though, there is no distinction between the CFC and the RCMP.
The distinction lies in the scope of the laws. The two laws here (the FA and the CCC) each serve their own purpose, and they are exclusive of each other. One does not take precedent over the other.
The CFC and de facto the RCMP implement/interpret the FA.
Your local prosecutors/interpret will implement the CCC.
The CCC will only come into play after a crime has been commited and not before. The FA governs until such time.

Like I said, check out the CFC website... it states that there are two definitions for a firearm... one under the FA and one under the CCC.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by The Saint

If you threaten a person in the course of committing certain indictable offences with even a paintball gun, you can be punished with firearm offences. It isn't limited to replicas.

If you have your hand inside your coat pocket and tell someone it's a gun you can also be charged with a firearms offense. There was a gun in kamloops who robbed a store with a banana and was charged with multiple firearms offenses.

[Capt. T/O]

Originally Posted by ShelledPants

I was under the impression that threatening a person with a replica firearm, regardless of it's ability to operate, was considered brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to harm and can stack firearm charges against you.

Sure. Thats probably true.
The point I wanted to make is that our airsoft guns, when shooting greater than 500 fps, is defined as a real steel firearm when used in a CRIME and CAN result in CRIMINAL firearm charges against you.

A replica firearm (if not operational) cannot cross that line and become a real firearm under the CCC, and thus the charge will likely be limited to a deadly weapon, as you say.

But if the replica firearm is operational (thus shooting greater than 500 fps) then it crosses that line to become a real steel firearm in the eyes of the law, regardless of it having 5.7 joules of muzzle energy or not.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Capt. T/O

Show me the legislative history that states that Parliament wrote the section to mean AND.

Done.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Mr.Hitman

Math Wizards!
Ding!

Not really, I just have an airsoft energy conversion program... I just played with numbers and decimals until it stopped giving me "5.7J"

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Amos

Not really, I just have an airsoft energy conversion program... I just played with numbers and decimals until it stopped giving me "5.7J"

mine allows me to enter FPS, BB weight, or Joules and gives me the rest of the info

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Capt. T/O

Show me the legislative history that states that Parliament wrote the section to mean AND.

You're right though, there is no distinction between the CFC and the RCMP.
The distinction lies in the scope of the laws. The two laws here (the FA and the CCC) each serve their own purpose, and they are exclusive of each other. One does not take precedent over the other.
The CFC and de facto the RCMP implement/interpret the FA.
Your local prosecutors/interpret will implement the CCC.
The CCC will only come into play after a crime has been commited and not before. The FA governs until such time.

Like I said, check out the CFC website... it states that there are two definitions for a firearm... one under the FA and one under the CCC.

1. Air guns that are firearms for purposes of both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.

These are air guns with both a high muzzle velocity (greater than 152.4 meters or 500 feet per second) and a high muzzle energy (greater than 5.7 joules or 4.2 foot-pounds). The “muzzle velocity” is the speed of a projectile at the instant it leaves the muzzle of a gun, normally expressed in metres per second or feet per second. The “muzzle energy” is the energy of a projectile at the instant it leaves the muzzle of a gun, expressed in joules or foot-pounds. Air guns need to meet both standards to be classified as firearms for purposes of the Firearms Act.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/airguns_e.asp

[Capt. T/O]

Wow Saint.
Quite impressive of you to post that link.
I must say it was an interesting read, although only the first six pages were really relevant to this discussion.

Just to clarify things, it your opinion that Parliament meant to define a firearm as having a muzzle velocity greater than 500 fps AND 5.7 joules.

I must respectfully disagree.

Firstly, the amendment being referred to here is the provision of the Firearms Act, and the definition of a firearm, under the Firearms Act, "in order for there to be registration" (on page 2 statement by Mr. Lanctot).

This legislative history is not relevant to the definition of a firearm under the Canada Criminal Code. This legislative history is relevant to the definition of a firearm for REGISTRATION purposes.

Secondly, as stated by Mr. Smith (cheif scientist, firearms, for the RCMP) on page 4 "the intention of this amendment is to provide for an exemption from registration IF either the velocity is inferior to 152.4 m/s OR the energy is inferior to 5.7 joules. The text of the draft does say that, and I suppose any clarification on that is even better..... So its my opinion that as written, it does in fact mean that the firearm need be under only one of the two limits in order to be exempt from the registration and lisencing provisions."

Thirdly, as stated by Ms. Kathleen Roussel (legal counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre) on page 6... "The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m/s OR energy exceeding the limits in the provision will ablso be subject to registration"

It seems to me that the amendments were designed to define a firearm, for the purposes of registration, having a 500 fps (152.4 m/s) OR 5.7 joules of energy.

On a different note, what Ms. Roussel mentioned also raises certain questions. She said that it was their intention to require registration of air guns or paintball guns that shoot greater than 500 fps OR 5.7 joules of energy. So then, a PTW Max with a M150 cylinder must be registered?

And finally, there have been several questions as to the weight of the projectile used to measure the muzzle velocity and energy to determine if an AEG meets the definition of a firearm.

Mr Smith, on page 5 states "the purpose of the 5.7 joules, which is the energy equivalent of a standard-weight pellet at 152.4 m/s, is to make it abundantly clear that those air guns that were previously unregulated continue to be unregulated and that those air guns that preivously were regulated will continue to be regulated."

So they measure velocity and energy using standard weight pellets... which is 0.177 grams (am I correct? If not, then please correct me. What is the weight of a standard Crossman BB/pellet?)
Assuming 0.177 g, then our 0.2 g measurements may mean that we are all shooting HOT (although this is highly doubtful as there is a slight difference in weight, but may put some of our guns over the fps limits to become firearms)
Just a thought.

[Capt. T/O]

Originally Posted by Drache

1. Air guns that are firearms for purposes of both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.

These are air guns with both a high muzzle velocity (greater than 152.4 meters or 500 feet per second) and a high muzzle energy (greater than 5.7 joules or 4.2 foot-pounds). The “muzzle velocity” is the speed of a projectile at the instant it leaves the muzzle of a gun, normally expressed in metres per second or feet per second. The “muzzle energy” is the energy of a projectile at the instant it leaves the muzzle of a gun, expressed in joules or foot-pounds. Air guns need to meet both standards to be classified as firearms for purposes of the Firearms Act.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/airguns_e.asp

You forgot the quote the section below that define airguns for the purposes of the CCC and NOT the Firearms Act... which was the entire point of this discussion.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Capt. T/O

So they measure velocity and energy using standard weight pellets... which is 0.177 grams (am I correct? If not, then please correct me. What is the weight of a standard Crossman BB/pellet?)

.177 is the caliber not the weight. The pellets I was shooting weren't lead though but they were .39g each

[Capt. T/O]

Originally Posted by Drache

.177 is the caliber not the weight. The pellets I was shooting weren't lead though but they were .39g each

i stand corrected.
thanks drache

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Capt. T/O

Just to clarify things, it your opinion that Parliament meant to define a firearm as having a muzzle velocity greater than 500 fps AND 5.7 joules.

I must respectfully disagree.

Firstly, the amendment being referred to here is the provision of the Firearms Act, and the definition of a firearm, under the Firearms Act, "in order for there to be registration" (on page 2 statement by Mr. Lanctot).

The amendment is part of a bill that applies to BOTH the Firearms Act and Criminal Code for purpose of modernizing the definition of what are not considered to be firearms, as per the summary of the bill itself.

This legislative history is not relevant to the definition of a firearm under the Canada Criminal Code. This legislative history is relevant to the definition of a firearm for REGISTRATION purposes.

I think you meant to say, "it is relevant to the definition of a firearm specifically for sections 91-95, 99-101, 103-107 and 117.03 of the Criminal Code", as the Criminal Code itself indicates. That happens to be most of Possession Offences (the original purpose of this thread), Trafficking Offences, Export and Import Offences, Offences relating to Lost, Destroyed or Defaced Weapons, etc. and part of Search and Seizure. That's a good chunk of the Criminal Code, so I would not consider it limited to the purpose definition of a firearm for registration purposes.

Secondly, as stated by Mr. Smith (cheif scientist, firearms, for the RCMP) on page 4 "the intention of this amendment is to provide for an exemption from registration IF either the velocity is inferior to 152.4 m/s OR the energy is inferior to 5.7 joules. The text of the draft does say that, and I suppose any clarification on that is even better..... So its my opinion that as written, it does in fact mean that the firearm need be under only one of the two limits in order to be exempt from the registration and lisencing provisions."

As I've demonstrated above, the amendment intends to address registration, but is not limited to registration.

Thirdly, as stated by Ms. Kathleen Roussel (legal counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre) on page 6... "The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m/s OR energy exceeding the limits in the provision will ablso be subject to registration"

I looked up your quote of Ms. Roussel on page 6 (closest link to it here), but it does not match to the actual document. Here's what I'm seeing, underlining is added by me.

Originally Posted by Ms. Kathleen Roussel (Legal Counsel, Canadian Firearm Centre):

With respect to the amendment moved by Mr. Lanct�t, what Mr. Paradis is saying is true. The expression �ni con�ue ni adapt�e� has been in the Criminal Code for a number of years. As far as I know, it has never caused any problems of interpretation. In French, it is normal to use �ni� twice when you want to exclude two different things. The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 metres per second are subject to registration. In addition, those that are adapted to have a muzzle velocity or energy exceeding the limits in the provision will also be subject to registration.

These things have never caused any problems. I see no reason to deal with this issue rather than a substantive issue.

I'm not going to address point-by-point the remainder of your previous post, because I feel I've provided adequate rebuttle on the core of your argument.