City police ask public force to register replica firearms

[Shrike]

Carl let me shoot his guns; and that ain't a gay joke.

[pusangani]

keep your guns out of sight and you won't have any worries about nosey ass neighbours calling the babylon on you, and fuck this registration shit, canada needs less gun laws not more.

[kaiu]

Originally Posted by Drache

Ok let's get things straight here.

If Im in my window holding my Bushmaster and someone sees me the RCMP will most likely come knocking on my door and not break it down. That's not saying some might not, especially if that eye witness stated you were pointing said gun out the window at people which is a federal crime.

Now if you're pointing a "firearm" at people Police can believe the public is in danger so that gives Police the right to enter your home without a warrant.

The Police will need a warrant to search your home (although they can still search only with their eyes while conducting their duties).

Just like that LEGO Gun in Toronto where someone called police because they saw a guy holding a gun in the window, they knocked on the door, not stormed in.

[Juke16]

I propose a 10 year plan where members of ASC start working for the CBSA and various political parties and agencies as sleeper agents, when the pieces are all in place, they go active and repel and rewrite the gun laws.

[Korunos]

NVM

[Jimski]

if it's prohibited, you can't have it.
which means that if it's prohibited and you want to register it, you need to have a derogation or authorisation of some sort; afaik there is no such administrative solution available right now.
also I'm pretty sure the bylaw concerns pellet guns, and not replicas.

[Panzerfaust]

Originally Posted by CARL

Wow the naivety and fail here is astonishing........You guys need to read u on Canadian civilian ownership of firearms in this country , get some history in you before you make such stupid decisions.....Talk to people that were there in 79 and throughout the 80's and the dreadful 90's......

+1 ....people have short memory

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by TechSeller

I'm guessing the same side as me. I am participating in this thread vicariously thorugh Carl.

Yeah, he is kinda fun sometimes.

I think he must get a throbbing vein pop out of his skull at the shit thst gets posted here.

I know I do, and I get an eye twitch too.

Originally Posted by kaiu

Just like that LEGO Gun in Toronto where someone called police because they saw a guy holding a gun in the window, they knocked on the door, not stormed in.

They could be nice and knock on the door, but legally, they are under no obligation to. If they are responding to a "gun call", there is sufficient reason to beleive you are either committing a crime, going to commit a crime or have committed a crime. That means they can kick your door in, arrest you and make your life hell for a time. You can protest, but your are either going downtown the easy way or the hard way.

The only time they need a warrant is for a search, and the reasons needed can be as little as your refused consent, or they have reason to believe you will refuse. They do not need to ask you. That is black-letter law.

[Wayne0188]

Originally Posted by Asteroth33

NVM

Even though you changed your post, I still made the effort to find this, so I will post it anyways.

Q4. What is considered to be a firearm for purposes of the Firearms Act and for offences related to the Firearms Act in the Criminal Code?

A4. As set out in the Firearms Act, "firearm" means:

* a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes
* any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon, as well as
* anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm.

Following are some weapons and devices that meet the definition of a firearm but that are deemed not to be firearms for purposes of the Firearms Act and related offences in the Criminal Code. Some of these items are exempted from the definition only if they were designed exclusively for a specific purpose and are intended to be used exclusively for that purpose by the person who possesses it. However, all of the items listed below are considered to be firearms if used in a criminal or negligent manner.

* Antique firearms;
* Devices designed exclusively for signalling, for notifying of distress, for firing blank cartridges or for firing stud cartridges, explosive-driven rivets or other industrial projectiles;
* Shooting devices designed exclusively forslaughtering domestic animals, tranquilizing animals, or discharging projectiles with lines attached to them;
* Air guns and other barreled weapons designed to have:
o A muzzle velocity of 152.4 meters per second (500fps) or less and/or
o A muzzle energy of 5.7 joules or less.

elsewhere on this forum it has been pointed out that 407 fps and higher qualifies for capable of causing serious bodily injury (Pointed out in a reply to a letter sent to the cfo iirc).

therefore any airgun (airsoft, pellet gun, etc.) that is capable of 407fps to 500fps (aka capable of causing serious bodily injury), is considered a firearm, but because they have a muzzle velocity of 152.4 meters per second (500fps) or less and/or a muzzle energy of 5.7 joules or less, they do not require a license (as is the case with pellet guns).

http://pub.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a4

Another fun fact is that an airsoft gun is not deemed a replica until proven in court to be a replica.

for all of these reasons, all airsoft guns purchased by legal means, and/or brought into the country by legal means, are perfectly legal to own (even if we have them configured to operate at a safe fps (ie 400 fps and less).

If anyone finds a flaw in my logic, please tell me.

[Lakonian]

Originally Posted by Rooster

It's a discussion about a city by-law and you gotta start tossing names around? Not once did I call anyone an idiot in this thread (unlike a few who referred to me as such) nor called anyone a TOOL.

Now you can happily go fuck yourself.

You have spat in the face of many men much greater, and more noble than yourself. On their behalf, go eat a pile of your own slag.

Or, better yet, go read a fucking history book, you prole.

[Grudge]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

The only time they need a warrant is for a search, and the reasons needed can be as little as your refused consent, or they have reason to believe you will refuse. They do not need to ask you. That is black-letter law.

Can you quote me the articles in the law that allow that, or can you quote current police practice to do this? Or is this your own opinion on how the police react to these calls?

[SteelToe]

The only time they need a warrant is for a search, and the reasons needed can be as little as your refused consent, or they have reason to believe you will refuse. They do not need to ask you. That is black-letter law.

That may not be entirely true. The judge will still have to decide on what those reasons are so its not a slam dunk on that warrant. There has to be more than just refusal....imagine how much power that is and how much it can be abused otherwise.

Would they really go out of their way and spend this much time just purely on a neigbour who happens to be walking by who may have seen something that appear to be a gun? They may send someone to check it out but not immediately banging in with a warrant.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by multitech

Can you quote me the articles in the law that allow that, or can you quote current police practice to do this? Or is this your own opinion on how the police react to these calls?

I wish this was just an opinion. The use and challenges to this are unknown to me at this time. We will see.

From Bill C-6 passed last year:

21. (1) If the place mentioned in subsection 20(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter it without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2).

Authority to issue warrant

(2) A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to the conditions specified in the warrant, the person who is named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that

(a) the dwelling-house is a place described in subsection 20(1);

(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for the purposes referred to in subsection 20(1); and

(c) entry to the dwelling-house was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused or to believe that consent to entry cannot be obtained from the occupant.

Use of force

(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection (2), the inspector may not use force unless they are accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.


Telewarrant

(4) If an inspector believes that it would not be practical to appear personally to make an application for a warrant under subsection (2), a warrant may be issued by telephone or other means of telecommunication on application submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and section 487.1 of the Criminal Code applies for that purpose with any necessary modifications.

However, some of the items in schedule 1 are interesting.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...C-6_3&File=130


Quote:
11. Firearms within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code.
12. Ammunition within the meaning of subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.
13. Cartridge magazines within the meaning of subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.
14. Cross-bows within the meaning of subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.
15. Prohibited devices within the meaning of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition “prohibited device” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

I looked through the revision done in the Senate, and they removed the use of force component of the Bill.

Here's the updated link, it was harder to find as it was relabelled Bill-C36:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEG...Language=e#a12

[Grudge]

Authority to issue warrant, not they can come into your house at the initial complaint call without your permission.

Thank you for proving my point!

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by multitech

Authority to issue warrant, not they can come into your house at the initial complaint call without your permission.

Thank you for proving my point!

No, quite the contrary. As per the Firearm's Act, they do not need a warrant for all but a dwelling. The conditions are quite clear on that.

Frome here:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/C...II-gb:s_117_02

Search and seizure without warrant where offence committed

117.02 (1) Where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds
(a) that a weapon, an imitation firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance was used in the commission of an offence, or
(b) that an offence is being committed, or has been committed, under any provision of this Act that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, an imitation firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance,
and evidence of the offence is likely to be found on a person, in a vehicle or in any place or premises other than a dwelling-house, the peace officer may, where the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search, without warrant, the person, vehicle, place or premises, and seize any thing by means of or in relation to which that peace officer believes on reasonable grounds the offence is being committed or has been committed.

The dwelling house excluded by the Firearms Act is now covered in Bill C-36 as noted above.