Is it Illegal for a Minor to POSSESS an Airsoft Gun in Canada?

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

The object of the transfer is not in its self illegal... but it is proscribed under the law so that it's status is clear.. That status is as a prohibited device.. that is legal to possess.

It's legal to possess only if you possessed it prior to Jan 1/98. The onus is on you to prove that you bought it before this date. That's the kicker. How many people on here who do in fact own one and have done so since before this date still have the receipt to prove it?

You can not acquire (which is possession immediately after ther act of acquisition) one after this date. People seem to think that it's illegal to buy, but if they dodge that bullet, they are in the clear because it's legal once you have it in your hands. Not so at all. It's pretty black letter as I posted above.

But this is all moot until the item in question is 100% proscribed as a prohibited replica. Only a handful of guns have this distinction, one being the Western Arms Beretta M92.

[Zeonprime]

Originally Posted by [DI]DeathSniper

*shakes his head sadly*

lol...you shake your head, I reached for an advil.

I'd love to see lawdog pop in on this and do a nice little break down of the laws, both provincial and federal.

as for one minor posting in here about well if it's legal for a minor that means it negates the 18+ policy the hosts have. *Thanks to whomever pointed out how very wrong his interpertation was*. The community impossed a do not sell to minors policy. I agree with the policy.

Greylocks, I think what people are asking of you when you refer to cases and the court is a link to documentation that supports what you say.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

I already got a legal opinion on this issue...

which is exactly that.. an opinion.. That opinion supported my statements.

The CCC states clearly that it is not an offense to posses replicas..any replica.. it does not mention ANYTHING about when or how you got them..

Therefore... posession of replica firearms is legal... full stop

the act of transfering replicas has been illegal from 1998..performing an illegal act does not make an object Illegal... that is also from the legal opinion.

the policy statements of the CFC are not law..they do not modify the CCC

I got a legal opinion before I "aquired" my first airsoft gun... if I thought for a second that possession was illegal in any way... I would not have any..

Having a criminal code conviction would end my career..

[Kedirkin]

The quality of the legal advice and understanding of how Canadian federal and provincial law works in this thread is utterly deplorable.

There's far too many erroneous statements in everyone's replies to point out one by one, but to answer Illusion's question, "Is it Illegal for a Minor to POSSESS an Airsoft Gun in Canada?" the answer is "no."

I have based this answer on the premise that the hypothetical minor in question resides in Ontario and have also ignored any considerations as to how the minor many have acquired the airsoft gun in question.

Of course, Illusion's question can be answered with a simple yes/no since he's asked a very simple question that gets at a very small subset of law. Many of the points about transfers are quite correct.

In what I read here, The Saint and Brian McIlmoyle are the most accurate in their statements; you can get pretty near the state of law in Canada if you combine parts of their various answers, add a few qualifiers and clarifications and discard some of the minor points that aren't quite right in the way that they've been positioned.

KD

[Oberst39]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

... if I thought for a second that possession was illegal in any way... I would not have any..

Having a criminal code conviction would end my career..

I can totally relate and am in the same situation.....

[toadhound]

Ever wonder what it's like to live in a free country?

[Greylocks]

Originally Posted by GOD

Sorry I'm still unclear.

CO2 Pellet guns that are widely sold fall under the replica umbrella or are they something different entirely.

What is the absolute best ruling/classification that this community is looking for?

The laws for pellet guns, however, are very clear. Airsoft are not classified as pellet guns. So the pellet gun laws dont apply.

The only laws I've seen applied refer to Replica or Prohibited Devices, depending on the mood of the officials.

I'm siding with Brian. Read his few recent posts.

No, I have not found that court case that was posted here (I think last year) because I dont remember enough of the title or subject to do a proper Search. I'll return the same question he has: show me where it's written that a minor CAN possess a Replica or Prohibited item without the supervision of the owner when it's obvious that you must be over 18 to acquire one (if we use the Replica definitions).

By the way: Buying, Giving, Trading = Acquiring. It comes in your possession in a permanent manner. Loaning under supervision is not possession.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

The CCC states clearly that it is not an offense to posses replicas..any replica.. it does not mention ANYTHING about when or how you got them..

Therefore... posession of replica firearms is legal... full stop

the act of transfering replicas has been illegal from 1998..performing an illegal act does not make an object Illegal... that is also from the legal opinion.

Doess the CCC arrest you for performing an illegal act? No. The RCMP does. The copy/paste portion of the CFC fact sheet (their published official interpretation) says "NO" to possession and "NO" to acquisition.

If it went to court and you said "Your honor, the law is clear that I can possess it, but I couldn't acquire after 1998" his question is going to be "Well, when did you get it?". If your response is anything after 1998, your goose is cooked. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

My point is, acquisition comes first, possession comes second. You can't possess it if you didn't first acquire it. And there has been a time limit on legal acquisition, irregardless what the CCC specifically says on simple possession only. Our laws get altered by judges all the time, and unfortunately their interpretation can and does trump Parliament if they feel it necessary.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

Doess the CCC arrest you for performing an illegal act? No. The RCMP does. The copy/paste portion of the CFC fact sheet (their published official interpretation) says "NO" to possession and "NO" to acquisition.

If it went to court and you said "Your honor, the law is clear that I can possess it, but I couldn't acquire after 1998" his question is going to be "Well, when did you get it?". If your response is anything after 1998, your goose is cooked. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

My point is, acquisition comes first, possession comes second. You can't possess it if you didn't first acquire it. And there has been a time limit on legal acquisition, irregardless what the CCC specifically says on simple possession only. Our laws get altered by judges all the time, and unfortunately their interpretation can and does trump Parliament if they feel it necessary.

I don't dissagree with you... but the issue is not that I posses it.. as that is legal.. the issue is ... when did I get it.. because if the transfer was after 1998.. then that act ( but not the object of that act ) was illegal.

So on conviction.. I am guilty of illegal transfer of a prohibited device.. and I will likely loose my right to possession as a result of that conviction..

The gun's status does not change.. it is still a replica.. and can still be possesed legally... unfortunalty there is no legal way for it to come into your possession.

So if you interprit the intent of the laws.. they are disigned to limit proliferation of replicas...and the trade in them.. the law is not intended to make everyone who has a replica a criminal.

In the absence of evidence of illegal transfer ( eye witness, Video, or fornesic accounting evidence ) no one would enter a charge of illegal transfer.. even if circumstansial evidence clearly indicates an offense was committed...

In the case of the last big retailer clamp down.. when the national reseller network was taken down.. the RCMP took the trouble to video "trunk sales" of guns from retailer to individuals... even then they only threatened to charge.. and issued cease and desist orders on threats of charges...

right after that the retailers got the hint and many of them stopped trade..and the intent of the law was achieved.

[Oberst39]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

In the absence of evidence of illegal transfer ( eye witness, Video, or fornesic accounting evidence ) no one would enter a charge of illegal transfer.. even if circumstansial evidence clearly indicates an offense was committed...

So, what you are saying is that the authorities must prove that the object was acquired after 1998 however they will not persue individual owners to do this but rather go after the retailers?

Has anyone been harassed by the authorities for having a replica in his/her possesion at a game or at any other time?

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Oberst39

So, what you are saying is that the authorities must prove that the object was acquired after 1998 however they will not persue individual owners to do this but rather go after the retailers?

No. I think in that case, they were covering their butts to ensure a conviction. The act seems to be structured to place the onus for proof on the accused.

[Ronan]

Originally Posted by Oberst39

Has anyone been harassed by the authorities for having a replica in his/her possesion at a game or at any other time?

Id love to know about that please.

[ILLusion]

Because the CCC has NEVER classified airsoft guns as replicas, hence, the confusion and why airsoft remains "grey." Although law enforcement knows about these guns, they are kept in the grey zone because they know the guns are primarily used as tools. As usual, there are aways idiots who use these tools as weapons just like idiots use scissors, pencils and screwdrivers as weapons. Are they prescribed as weapons by law? No... because they're primarily tools and not weapons.

The CCC prescribes replicas as a NON-FIRING replica of a real world firearm. Airsoft does not fall under this category as far as law enforcement goes (NOTE: CBSA IS *NOT* THE LAW!) Law enforcement is more likely to handle airsoft guns as airguns rather than as replicas.

Because airsoft guns aren't clearly defined as replica firearms, they do not clearly fall under the same rules as (replica) firearms laws.

The only exception is when an airsoft gun is used to commit a crime - in which case, the offender is now charged with weapons charges. This is a fact that I think everybody agrees on.

So the challenge still stands: make me a believer, and I'll enforce it across the board. Until then, I won't be banning minors for saying they own an airsoft gun. That's just stupid in my eyes if they're treating it with respect.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying I'm for minors owning airsoft guns.
Minors do seem to be more likely to cause trouble with the guns and act irresponsibly with them, but I am more for educated and responsible ownership and handling of airsoft guns than I am of banning the guns from a minors hands altogether. There's always a bad apple in the bunch, but don't let that one bad apple spoil it for everybody.




Regarding the argument about airsoft guns being ruled as "replicas": If this argument holds true, then why hasn't law enforcement shut down AirsoftCanada's private sales forum? I think 99.9% of the sales that go on through there are made by people who don't own the paperwork to transfer replica firearms. AirsoftCanada advertises its buy & sell as Canada's largest. It's open and out there. It's not a secret. Law enforcement officers even participate in that area.

Just like Greylocks says that many laws regarding airguns that have been quoted don't apply to airsoft, likewise, many of the laws that have been quoted regarding replica guns also don't apply to airsoft.

I do recall the Pacific Mall shop case (Kuramae was the shop name) and I recall something about the charges being related to replica firearms, however, the final ruling and conviction information has never been mentioned as far as I can recall, and I don't even know if the case has even gone that far, yet. Do you, Greylocks?

Originally Posted by The Saint

The definition of replica firearm fits airsoft to a T. It'd be extraordinarily difficult to argue airsoft as anything else.

Except for the glaring fact that replicas are classified as NON-FIRING replicas whereas airsoft guns can fire? This is why it's not so clear-cut.



Ultimately, the point of this thread isn't to argue the existing 18+ rules for buying & selling on our board, nor is it to argue a game hosts' right to restrict their games to players. The purpose of this thread is to get people to stop harassing moderators to ban or slap down minors who ask or talk about owning airsoft guns and to also get these same people to stop providing false information and belittling minors who talk about airsoft.

[Ronan]

Illusion, we know that airsoft guns are not replica, but the court system rules them as replica's...

Problem we have is they are replica's but aren't at the same time. But since the couple times airsoft was brought to court, they were rule as replica's and dealt with the law that concerns replica's. Thats the problem.

If we could get Airsoft its own category like airguns, we could start importing them etc etc, but this won't happen since if they are rule to be 'legal' to import, a lot of people will be piss, and if they are rule as 'illegal' then the airsofters will be piss. Canada prefers to leave it in the 'grey' area and keeps us in the shadow's.

Personally i prefer being in the shadow's than being 100% denied my sport/hobby/love.

[ILLusion]

My main issue with everything here is:

It's one thing to have an opinion on who you think should own airsoft and who shouldn't... it's another to push that personal opinion on people when you don't have the authority to.