Indians For Guns

Came across this news article.

Apparently a man was caught with an air gun and tried in court. A jury of 5 judges decided that all airguns shall hence be treated as firearms. Here's a link to the new item :

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/air- ... 9342827001

There is nothing unusual about this. Canada has no limit on muzzle energy of air guns. So a person could have an airgun that is as powerful as a firearm in Canada. In India and over vast areas of Europe, the difference between air guns and firearms is the legal limit on muzzle energy.

In the UK there is a 12 fpe power limit

In India the power limit is determined by the deal wood test.

There has been no proper legislation yet. It doesn't appear its going to go as far as registering the serial number. Lets see how they work this out.

Hi Bennedose,

Your statement re "no limit on muzzle energy in Canada" is incorrect. Historically (since 1978) According to the Criminal Code a pellet gun is a firearm for most purposes of the Firearms Act only if it is designed or adapted to discharge: Airgun Lead Pellet

- a pellet at a muzzle velocity of more than 152.4 metres per second (about 500 feet per second); or
- a pellet which itself is designed or adapted to attain a velocity of more than 152.4 metres per second.
Airguns shooting pellets at lower velocities are standard procurement though anything above the 500FPS is deemed a handgun and all necessary endorsements need to be applied for.

Regards,

Oggie

Thanks for the info.Using muzzle velocity seems an odd way of defining power because muzzle veocity demends on the mass of the pellet.

> While Air Guns could be deemed as potentially harmful weapons - I fail to understand as to how it can be classified as a "Firearm"

> The word 'Fire' is totally a misnomer as far as "Air Guns" are concerned....the judiciary must be put on the mat for this

> Limitations on power out-put of an Air Gun is understandable - but to classify it as a "Fire Arm" is nothing short of, sheer ignorance, lack of understanding & foolish

> The flip-side of this draconian edict is that other countries may tow the line & implement it....
Briha

I agree Bennedose. For example NZ has no limit on FPS but if you wish to buy a PCP over .25 then you require a firearms licence.

brihacharan wrote:> While Air Guns could be deemed as potentially harmful weapons - I fail to understand as to how it can be classified as a "Firearm"

Briha, you obviously fail to comprehend government. Government is all powerful, and can define anything anyway it wants to. Common sense and physical laws be damned. The US state of Pennsylvania includes (or did) slingshots under the definition of "firearms". Anything that projects a projectile.

TwoRivers wrote:

brihacharan wrote:> While Air Guns could be deemed as potentially harmful weapons - I fail to understand as to how it can be classified as a "Firearm"

Briha, you obviously fail to comprehend government. Government is all powerful, and can define anything anyway it wants to. Common sense and physical laws be damned. The US state of Pennsylvania includes (or did) slingshots under the definition of "firearms". Anything that projects a projectile.

Goodness Gracious!!!
The guys responsible for passing this abominable statute must have had a depraved childhood
Briha

Who else would go into politics?

TwoRivers wrote:Who else would go into politics?

The FPS restrictions on airguns in Canada is the one reason that I decided to dispose off my collection of Co2 airguns before landing here!

You are all welcome !!!

Most of the politician here are firearm experts, trust me !!!

Couple years ago, we banned pitbull dogs and some people show the dog pictures to
the politicians, the one were banning dogs , you guess what ?

The problem with airguns deemed as firearms are not that they may injure or hurt
any one or not. The problem is rules and regulation that surrounds real firearms
and in case the 12 year kids got arrested with. Canadian courts be sending the
school shooting teams to maximum security prisons for possession of a firearm.

Hammerhead wrote: You are all welcome !!!
Most of the politician here are firearm experts, trust me !!!
Couple years ago, we banned pitbull dogs and some people show the dog pictures to
the politicians, the one were banning dogs , you guess what ?

The problem with airguns deemed as firearms are not that they may injure or hurt
any one or not. The problem is rules and regulation that surrounds real firearms
and in case the 12 year kids got arrested with. Canadian courts be sending the
school shooting teams to maximum security prisons for possession of a firearm.

> That's a good one paaji
> Mao said "Power comes from the end of the barrel of a Gun"....But in this case a sense of "Lopsided Wisdom" seems to come from it
Briha

Definition of any term in enactments do not necessarily mean that they should have dictionary meaning. That firearms should be emitting fire etc.

I would like to explain with example from computer programming. For example when defining constants or variables in many programming languages, any letter or word is used. Like below:

abc = 10
bat = 10
cat = 10

In above abc, bat and cat have no meaning for computer program. All carry the same meaning(value) for computer program i.e. 10.

Similarly in Arms Act 1959, we have an expression called "prohibited arms" to define automatic firearms. Legally they are not prohibited. There exists legal procedure and licensing authority for issuing license for prohibited arms. But laymen think that automatic firearms are prohibited. Thus probably 99.99% of the population does not even apply or fight to get the licenses for prohibited arms in the very first place. Able to see the clever legal trickery?

goodboy_mentor" wrote:
Similarly in Arms Act 1959, we have an expression called "prohibited arms" to define automatic firearms. Legally they are not prohibited. There exists legal procedure and licensing authority for issuing license for prohibited arms. But laymen think that automatic firearms are prohibited. Thus probably 99.99% of the population does not even apply or fight to get the licenses for prohibited arms in the very first place. Able to see the clever legal trickery?

Seems like = Do you mean what you say or Do you say what you mean?
Either way - Air Guns are Firearms
I don't know whether I standing or sitting
Briha