Interesting BC Judgment on Airsoft

[Flashman]

A recent BC Supreme Court judgment has made some comment on Airsoft guns vs replicas that is of some interest.

The judgment can be found at:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...12BCSC0034.htm

[kalnaren]

That was actually a pretty good read. A judge with common fucking sense.

It doesn't really mean anything for the replica vs. not replica though, just that Walsh was not a) part of any potential criminal activity committed by the importer, and b) Walsh felt airsoft guns were legally imported and legal to sell, and thus did not form any intent to circumvent the law in selling airsoft guns.

[Tex]

Bout time 4-5 years is a long time to be wondering what is going to happen to you.

This is the results from a bust that took down Will from Specarms, Matt from wargames, peter kang from XP blue seas and a half dozen other names he used for his store. Few threads on here from 2008 about the bust and Wills case.

[Pinard]

interresting read nonetheless, so is the conclusion!

[CR0M]

I was hoping that this was going to take airsoft guns a little less out of the grey area... not really... still a bit grey... i think

[Flashman]

The interesting part, to my mind, is the judges analysis of replica in the context of the criminal code. Although he doesn't come to a definitive conclusion his analysis and comments will be of great assistance for the next time this matter is before the courts.

[Styrak]

Originally Posted by CR0M

I was hoping that this was going to take airsoft guns a little less out of the grey area... not really... still a bit grey... i think

This had.....nothing to do with changing the legality or definition of airsoft guns.

[McKee]

Interesting, but they don't ever really define if an airsoft gun is a replica or not. The defense makes some good points for them not being replicas, the crown makes some good points for them being replicas. Ultimately the judge acquitted Walsh based on his ignorance of Tickells actions and the circumstances he imported the guns under. The true case that would set a precedent regarding Airsoft would be Tickell's judgement (assuming he was charged.)

[Death March]

I belive they said it is a replica in part 36-37 "Evidence to establish whether the devices are replica firearms" in the terms of the Criminal code no? Still alot of smoke around this issue and it just kinda seems the Judge was having a goodday

[Brian McIlmoyle]

A large portion of this decision turns on the definition of "Replica Firearm"

This judge has clearly handed down a decision that airsoft guns in general do not in his opinion meet that test.

Prior decisions have not to my knowledge brought into contention the requirement that in order for an object to be a replica firearm, it must also replicate the internal mechanism of a firearm.

The transfer of prohibited devices charges turn specifically on the defining of airsoft guns as Replica Firearms.

These charges were thrown out because in this judges opinion airsoft guns "fail miserably" to be replicas of firearms.

This is a very important decision.. and if not appealed could substantially change the status of airsoft guns in Canada.

[MaciekA]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

These charges were thrown out because in this judges opinion airsoft guns "fail miserably" to be replicas of firearms.

This is a very important decision.. and if not appealed could substantially change the status of airsoft guns in Canada.

Would you be able to speculate on what the necessary mechanism would be for this decision (if, as you say, not appealed) to actually go about changing the status of airsoft guns in Canada? Would it be other cases of litigation using this case as a precedent? Bills being written? etc?

I guess what I am asking is... Should the outcome of this case serve to embolden various participants in the airsoft ecosystem to push the envelope further and "bring on the heat" to test where the limits of the law lie now, or is that crazy talk? Since it sounds crazy to me, how does one get laws actually written/edited/removed without stirring up trouble or unwanted attention?

As an example of one outcome I'd like to see if the replica designation was dropped: At the moment one of the biggest pain points for businesses and players alike in Canada is the legal document that often gets posted around here as a PDF link which serves to make airsoft importation so difficult and makes some "game legal" guns into not-precisely-legal-in-the-eyes-of-the-law (opaque guns, velocity minimums, etc). I think it would improve matters somewhat if even that one aspect was revised, due to airsoft rifles not being considered replicas anymore and potentially not being subject to the velocity minimums. This would have good effects on the importation pipeline -- no more custom homologation for Canadian specs on the exporter's side -- potentially bringing down costs and improving import times for retailers, allowing some retailers to ramp up their imports through their US partners, realizing some economies of scale.. etc.

Crazy talk?

[Flashman]

We are a common law jurisdiction which means that court judgments in addition to the statutes and regulations form the law

[Death March]

I know the laws are different,but this might have some relation to them banning the WE M4's in the U.S.? Kinda fits as to what the Judge was saying in regaurds to the inernals and would make some sense about there worries of being able to fire a live round??

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

These charges were thrown out because in this judges opinion airsoft guns "fail miserably" to be replicas of firearms.

This is a very important decision.. and if not appealed could substantially change the status of airsoft guns in Canada.

Actually, the charges were thrown out because the Crown failed to establish the requisite mental element required for the criminal code offenses.

Despite a lengthy discussion of whether airsoft guns are replicas, the judge ultimately avoided making a decision in this regard and relied upon the mental aspect, "intent".

The is a lower court decision in BC. Courts do not have to follow this decision. It is mildy pursuasive in BC and less so in other provinces. For this reason it may better for Airsoft if the crown tried to appeal this case. A win (for airsoft) in the court of appeal will carry much more weight.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by MaciekA

Would you be able to speculate on what the necessary mechanism would be for this decision (if, as you say, not appealed) to actually go about changing the status of airsoft guns in Canada? Would it be other cases of litigation using this case as a precedent? Bills being written? etc?

I guess what I am asking is... Should the outcome of this case serve to embolden various participants in the airsoft ecosystem to push the envelope further and "bring on the heat" to test where the limits of the law lie now, or is that crazy talk? Since it sounds crazy to me, how does one get laws actually written/edited/removed without stirring up trouble or unwanted attention?

You are asking how the codified laws (statutes and regulations) can be changed based on court decisions.

Short answer is they don't. Court decisions are the court interpretation of the laws to a particular fact scenario. They basically give meaning to the statute. As stated by a previous poster, the case law will together with statutes and regulation form the body of law in Canada.

The statute would only change if parliament was really not happy with a court decision (ie different policy) or if the statute was unconstitutional.

A third option (and the only option for you) would be to contact your MP and see if they would proceed with a private members bill to change the firearms act to specifically exclude airsoft guns. Firearms are touchy subjects so it may be difficult to find someone willing to go to bat for you. Private members bills are also rarely passed.