Goodbye Anderson and Anderson

[ThunderCactus]

BB guns are a matter of energy, not ammunition. Thats why Mark enjoyed importing the rare and few super high FPS gas guns (570 on .2 or something, anyway damned high), because they're technically BB guns. Unfortunately we airsofters don't enjoy the thought of having plastic in the blood stream lol

[The Saint]

BB guns don't exist as a classification in the CCC. You're either at/over the fps and muzzle energy limit, which made you a firearm, or under the limit, which made you an imitation firearm. If you're under the limit, what matters is your appearance. Replica firearm classification ignores the device's ability to fire projectiles, unless the device meets the required fps and ME to be a firearm. Then the device is straight up a firearm.

[LeapingLizard]

That can't be. Many BB guns appear to be real. My dad just bought a CX4 Storm (.177 CO2) It's not a firearm, and looks just like the real thing.

I had in mind those really weak CO2 pistols, but I guess since it's lead, the energy is high enough that it reaches that "can cause bodily harm" area. I've never seen that "can cause bodily harm" point in the CFC iteself, but I heard it somewhere.

My grandpa had a BB gun it was lever action. and fired copper BBs extremely slow. Biggest game I could kill was a catapillar. That was a long time ago though.

Hey so if systema comes out with an M170 PTW that might come accross the border, even from a gun retailer? Just need to sell the cylinder after, or exchange it with the retailer after it's in the country.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Replica firearm classification ignores the device's ability to fire projectiles, unless the device meets the required fps and ME to be a firearm. Then the device is straight up a firearm.

In theory only, the practice as you are aware is quite different. The old "bodily injury" idea is the only reason that Crosman can legally sell their products in Canada without having those pesky registrations for a firearm to worry about. That's the division between an airsoft replica and a BB/pellet gun non-replica, even though they have a Beretta or Colt gun that would easily meet the definition of a replica.

It's not written in law, but is applied in practice, and has upheld an over 100 year tradition of BB guns not being considered firearms, or having any federal regulation at all, except to set an absolute limit on their performance. Even then, in 1995 when the last act was drafted and the 500 fps limit was established, it didn't address all the lightweight ammo available for these guns, and the OIC had to go in and add the energy requirement explicitly to continue to exempt airguns.

This has been the thorn in my side over this for years, why the RCMP insist on their 407 fps, beats you with in CITT proceedings, allows airgun manufacturers to use it to sell and import product, but won't give us that same benefit.

[The Saint]

It can be and it is, because past and current enforcement is inconsistent. The law is written without discriminating between .177 or 6mm, but the people enforcing the law does so through the lens of their own pre/misconceptions and circumstances.

In order for an airsoft gun to pass as a firearm in terms of fps and muzzle energy, it would have to discharge a 0.20g BB at 786fps. Remember, it might be written as 500 fps or 5.7J ME, but it's meant to be and enforced as fps and ME.

[mcguyver]

Right, again to explicitly exempt the airguns, but not something that we can use, or at least, they won't seem to let us use.

The standard they use is manufacturer's info, not actual testing. So, when you see the 495 fps label on a Crosman gun, that's good enough. Any bets what they would say about a semi-auto only PTW that says 150 m/s (490 fps) on the box? I guarantee it would never cross the border, but the Crosman would. That's the issue, the double-standard I refer to.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

In theory only, the practice as you are aware is quite different. The old "bodily injury" idea is the only reason that Crosman can legally sell their products in Canada without having those pesky registrations for a firearm to worry about. That's the division between an airsoft replica and a BB/pellet gun non-replica, even though they have a Beretta or Colt gun that would easily meet the definition of a replica.

Do you know that for a fact? It'd be really interesting if it were true, definitely affects any legal challenge we'd make. 407fps thing aside, is the permissibility of replica firearm that are also pellet guns AND capable of inflicting bodily harm a RCMP position?

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Do you know that for a fact? It'd be really interesting if it were true, definitely affects any legal challenge we'd make. 407fps thing aside, is the permissibility of replica firearm that are also pellet guns AND capable of inflicting bodily harm a RCMP position?

Look at the CITT appeals. They use that as one of their benchmarks for determining a gun to be a replica or not. They use it to either refute the claim of the appellant or enhance the CBSA claim. Nobody has yet fought on that basis at a CITT appeal and won, although Kang did with a couple of studies he introduced, which were rejected out-of-hand as they did not use the particular models of gun he had siezed to do the tests. Pretty ridiculous to stick to a point of legality over evidence when they use a non-published pseudo-fact that the RCMP 100% refuses (I've talked on the phone with Deryk Penk at the RCMP Firearms Forensics Lab about this years ago) to put in writing and will not make it available to the public.

Here. read the decisions:

http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/appeals/d.../ap2g012_e.asp

http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/appeals/d.../ap99080_e.asp

And Kang's:

http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/appeals/d.../ap2a014_e.asp

That's how Kang managed to use the CBSA's own policies against it for over a year when he had all manuals removed from G&P guns and had PDI 190% springs installed to get them to shoot over 407 fps. Then he had G&P write on bonded paper that these guns did in fact shoot that hot. Then, when he got lazy and stopped doing that, they nailed him again. I know, I bought a couple of those guns, and many are still floating around where I am.

This was the whole issue with the 407 fps (124.5m/s) that popped up a few years ago. And it's still an issue today, but we can't (or rather aren't allowed) to use it in our favour.

[The Saint]

If I get a bit incoherent or miss something in this post, it's because I'm getting really groggy. I apologize in advance.

Refusal to put the 407fps rule into writing aside, I've always considered RCMP's presence at CITT appeals to be very restricted. They provide what is asked of them, not to present any other information despite potential revelance, even if they were so inclined to do so (evidentally not). CITT's cookie-cutter approach to rejecting appeals would seem to support that they are also not looking for new or voluntary information from the RCMP experts, or any other experts for that matter, considering their rejection of academic studies on the physical dangers of projectiles traveling around 1J or less.

As such, I'm not sure if the acceptance of pellet guns that are replica firearm is because of the positive or negative factors. Positive factor would be intentional discrimination by the enforcement agencies (CITT and RCMP) against airsoft guns. Negative factor would be sheer ignorance on the part of the enforcement agency (CITT), such as the misconception that pellet guns were somehow exempt because they're considered more 'native' and/or 'historical' to Canada. It could even be a mix of both. Although functionally the result is the same, yes to pellet guns and no to airsoft guns, it matters that we're sure of which one (or both) it is for the purpose of formulating a countermeasure.

[ThunderCactus]

Stop using big words, I'm a machinist not a dictionary lol
So I was kinda hoping this post would get to 28 pages by the end of my shift, but 22 pages has to be right up there with the fastest growing threads lol
I feel sorry for anyone who didn't log in today!!

[mcguyver]

The RCMP's job was to determine if a gun could cause bodily injury. If it could, then it could not be considered a replica because it was considered a firearm, which a replica can not be. Therefore, if it's a firearm, what kind is it? If it shoots over the 500fps and 5.7 J limit, it must be registered, and as such could be non-restricted, restricted or prohibited depending on other factors. If it doesn't shoot over the limit, it's not subject to much regulation at all.

So, the RCMP was involved to determine whether this gun could be classed as a replica based on performance.Had all the other factors such as size, colour and configuration been met to consider a gun a replica, they could refute that claim simply with performance figures for the gun in question, or seal it's fate.

So, what if a gun that could in fact meet those performance benchmarks? By the standards of all the decisions rendered by the CITT, those guns would not be replicas and the CBSA's seizure would be overturned. But so far, this has not happened. And if a gun is proscribed in appeal by the CITT as not being a replica, it's pretty tough for the CBSA to knowingly enforce a seizure on it and get away with it.

[Primus]

Originally Posted by Yuxi

Dibs on Hojo, since he is 90% manbeef.

What's the other 10%? mangravy to go with the manbeef?

[MMMiles!]

Everyone needs to scroll back and read the last 10 or so posts by The Saint and mcguyver, it's something we don't discuss too often but is the basis for most of the problems we have in understanding the legality of airsoft.

I think it's time to put together another Q&A and I will be sure to include that

[yanhchan]

Pssft lets all just move to Hong Kong

[CadetCatastrophe]

we'll still all be dead anyway