[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by bubblewhip

Real Guns: At least afik from the US, you simply import your firearm either through airport security (by you physically crossing the border) and with the required paperwork. So long as everything is under legal requirements you are clear. (paperwork may have changed from killing the long gun registry)

Careful, that is illegal you need export paperwork from the State Department to export firearms from the US.

If you get caught doing that on the American side of the boarder, well we'll see you in 20 years.

Originally Posted by bubblewhip

Is Airsoft this messed up that it be better to own real guns instead?

I owned real firearms first, now airsoft as well, both have their place, one for the range and hunting, one to play with.

Most of the airsoft regulations are more about import then anything, but then again I have no intention of doing that, the retailers/distributors can do that for me.

Originally Posted by Hectic

500fps AND 5.7j is a firearm not just 500fps but its just beter (read easyer less hassels) to stay below 500

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...0.html#docCont

Certain weapons deemed not to be firearms

• (3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
  • (a) any antique firearm;
  • (b) any device that is
    • (d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge
      • (i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or
      • (ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.

See the RCMP website uses "and", the law says "or", which are two very different things.

The way the RCMP lists it you could go up to 775fps and be legal.

The way the law says it, you already exceeded 500fps to get to 775fps and therefore it's illegal.

But apparently the law makers need to write better laws ...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...ent#bairgunstx

b. Airguns

Clause 2(2) modifies section 84(3) of the Criminal Code which sets out regulated items that are excluded from requirements of the Firearms Act, and certain listed Criminal Code provisions in Part III.(26) Pursuant to current section 84(3)(d), a weapon is deemed not to be a firearm (for the above listed purposes) if it is not designed or adapted to discharge:

• (i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second; or
• (ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second.

This exemption generally applies to many airguns and other similar types of weapons that are found in Canada. There has been concern lately with respect to lightweight pellets which can be discharged by certain airguns at a speed exceeding the maximum set out in the exemption. Some people were concerned that these airguns would no longer be exempt from the licensing and registration provisions. The goal of the amendment is to clarify the exemption by adding a muzzle energy standard to the existing muzzle velocity standard.

Under new section 84(3)(d)(i), a weapon not designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules is deemed not to be a firearm (for the listed purposes). The intention was to exempt a weapon if it satisfies one of the two standards.

Thus, even if the weapon discharges lightweight pellets at a speed exceeding the maximum set out in the exemption, it may still be exempted if it does not exceed the new muzzle energy standard. There has been some debate regarding whether the new provision does what it intended. Some argue that both standards will have to be satisfied for the weapon to be exempt.

Because of the use of a double negative, the section seems to contradict itself when it is turned into a positive. As written, it appears that the weapon only needs to satisfy one of the two standards to be exempted. The new muzzle energy standard is also added to section 84(3)(d)(ii).

All I can say, is I don't want to be that person in the courtroom where the governments intent, or the way it's read comes into play.

Dimitri