Trouble with Police
 

I'm currently overseas..

I got a call from my family today that my apartment was searched by the police under a warrant for possessing firearms, magazine, etc.

At no point did I take the airsofts outside of the apartment.. I wasn't even in the country. And I don't share my apartment with anyone. The apartment I'm in is still under construction on the upper floors, and contractors sometimes enter the unit... however, my unit is listed as do not enter unless owner is present, so I did not worry about it. I think some contractor ignored the notice, went in while I was away, saw an airsoft, and called the cops.

Anyways, they told me that the apartment was a mess, they turned everything upside down and inside out. The statement of what happened is available, but can only be obtained in person under oath.. and I am not even in the country.

It is legal to own airsoft, right?.. because I would think that the police would know it's a toy gun after just picking it up.. not sure why they did so much. Just to confirm, the airsofts has not left my apartment, and there's no neighbours that have a view into the unit.

Thoughts & advices?

You should've stored them in a protective case locked up.
Who knows what would happen..

But that really sucks..

I'm not even sure they were in plain view..

No clue how the original person saw it, unless they were going through my stuff..

That is weird...

Yeah, I'm confused.. my family member was asking me whether there was more information than I was giving them, but that's as much as I know.

I'm overseas for work, so I don't have the liberty to fly back and deal with this, either.

So how much stuff did you lose?

A KJW P14.45 and a ICS MP5A4, I think, unless they skipped one of them. But considering what a mess my apartment was, I don't think it's likely?

To answer your question though, yes it is legal to own an airsoft gun. Hopefully you're not out of country for too long so you can get this all figured out. Keep us posted. Until you know more details it'll be hard to get any advice. Couldn't someone represent you to obtain the details?

I would just go to the station and explain the situation in a mature matter. You may hopefully get them back.

I would like to send someone, but the notice said it has to be under oath.. can I transfer my oath-rights to someone?

Not sure how this works.

I will actually not be back in the country until mid next year, working on a high profile project at the moment.

Depending on how serious this is, I might have to book some vacation time to fly back.. but this is a bad timing..

If you don't get back soon, your guns will probably get destroyed. A buddy of mine got his legally owned and registered shotgun seized while he was out of town. Luckily he arrived home in time to get it back since it was scheduled for destruction...

Call a lawyer local to where you live in Canada, speak to them about what you can do under the current situation, explain to them exactly what you said to us.

Edited as per Lawdog's response on page 2.

I don't know much about law but could a lawyer do it?

Bad timing indeed man, I would doubt that you could transfer your oath. Is it a 'swear on the Bible' sort of thing?
Have you personally spoken with the authorities down in your home town?

PM Lawdog as he will know for sure. To my knowledge a written statement with your signature faxed to the police should be sufficient. OR you can retain a lawyer to deal with the issue.

I really hope you raise hell with the contractors about this too, someone should be punished for this mess, and I hope it is the one who called the cops, if the contractors were responsible that is.

They have nothing against you. They should return them.

The airsoft situation in Canada isn't as lax as the US... Technically, airsoft is considered a "prohibited device" so the police aren't obligated to return it...

It is prohibited only according to the CBSA. Understand that the CBSA is NOT the law, and they do have their own rules and regulations outside of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Airsoft is NOT a prohibited device under the CCC, nor is it a replica. It can only be classified as a weapon when used in a crime, but otherwise, it remains in a "grey area" with no official classification and open to interpretation.

Dude,

if the police have obtained a warrent to search your apartment for anything your first call should be to a lawyer, not the police.

Ld

Er.... No, the above is not really true.

If Lawdog says to call a lawyer, it's probably time to call a lawyer.

Long story short, they have sent them in for ballistics testing.. they said if they clock above a certain speed, the criminal charges will be applied. Otherwise, they can be returned in a week.

Luckily I haven't modified them in any way, so they should be safe.

In all likelihood, it should be fine, but this incident still leaves a bad taste in my mouth in how it played out.

All's well that ends well, I guess.

Wtf?
You can be charged for the speed it shoots?

Probably to check if it shoots over 500 fps but don't quote me on that.

Or whatever the fps limit before it classifies as can cause damage.

Over 500fps and a certain amount of joules if I'm not mistaken

if they shoot over 500 fps and the maximum prescribed energy (can't remember the number offhand), then that classifies the weapon as a firearm. Since they're fully automatic, if they get classified as a firearm, more than likely it would results in a charge of possession of a restricted firearm. Don't think there's anything to worry about though. I'm pretty sure an airsoft gun would have to shoot a .2g BB WELL in excess of 600 fps to consider it a firearm.

Yeah I knew about the 500 fps, I just thought he was talking about the speed as in ROF.. lol
Phew.

Did they ask you how to charge the batteries? :D

I would still seek legal advice in building a case regarding the alleged worker that entered your apartment unlawfully. That is of course, if you are certain no one else would have seen your guns and reported you. I have heard of this kind of thing happening in apartments al the time. Especially in the city.

It's actually well over 800fps with a .2
Sounds like everything will work out, now go get a lawyer and find who invaded the privacy of your house then sue them.
Cheers,
Grant

Thanks for that info. I figured it would have to be some ridiculous speed that no airsoft gun internals would really be able to survive anyway except maybe some gas or spring sniper rifles.

And I also agree. The issue here isn't your guns. It's who entered your home without your permission and reported these guns in the first place.

Find out who have interred in infraction at your house, and get a lawyer and bring him and the construction company that does the renovation in court.

You even said that if nobody is home then nobody can enter in your apart. They did break that rule and you can sue them for good money I'm pretty sure.

But I'm not a lawyer and never will be so maybe im all wrong lol

If they the person reported the guns to police unlawfully meaning the evidence leading to a search warrant would all be void, in another words it should means they could not press charges since someone is breaking the law to have you charged with something illegal.

Just reading Criminal law book of Canada on my free time, yea so I could be wrong

under the Criminal Code, its 500 fps muzzle velocity OR 5.7 joules of muzzle energy... under the Firearms Act, its 500 fps AND 5.7 joules.

it really depends what they want to charge you with...
you mentioned criminal charges.... that implies the Criminal Code and thus 500 fps OR 5.7 joules.

i wonder what weight bbs they use to determine that

Did anyone per chance ask the fellow where he bought these guns? Maybe it has nothing to do with passerbys and maybe he bought the guns from retailers that are under the thumbs right now?

Just a paranoid thought am sure.

RCMP Forensics lab test I heard uses .23g But Seriously They SHOULD USE JEOULES INSTEAD OF FPS, why? Because I think we should all go out there now get .88g 6mm and say a M150 Systema PTW makes 110fps. I dunno? 2J as max is already good enough, better than the Japan or UK with such low fps limit

Velocity testing on it's own is a grey area, even for the RCMP Firearms Forensics Lab. This is an old story that predates airsoft as we know it and goes all the way back to 1995 when the current Firearms Act was framed. What ammo is to be used? How should the testing be done? If it's gas guns, what propellant? There are too many variables to make testing in this regard an absolute.

Under the old laws, 500 fps was the limit, period. No mention of energy. But, as airguns are still a staple and arguably biggest selling firearms in Canada, there had to be some accomodation made for varying ammo weights. Guns that used to be perfectly legal by a good margin (shooting under 500 fps) were now technically illegal (firing over 500 fps) simply by using legal, over-the-counter lightweight ammo. The energy requirements were installed in 2000 to counter this, and to save the hassle of dealing with millions of maybe-legal, maybe-illegal airguns. This basically made all but the real serious airguns legal, and removed restrictions on their transfer and possession, upholding over 100 years of precedent in this regard, same as muzzle loaders. It was easier to change the law than try to unnecessarily regulate hundreds of thousands of pellet gun ammo retailers, owners and users.

Any finding by the RCMP on a gun that shoots over 500 fps but not over 5.7J has basis in my opinion to be argued in court. But most guys would give before then I think.

[QUOTE=ravenOVERwater;791956]I'm currently overseas..

I got a call from my family today that my apartment was searched by the police under a warrant for possessing firearms, magazine, etc.

At no point did I take the airsofts outside of the apartment.. I wasn't even in the country. And I don't share my apartment with anyone. The apartment I'm in is still under construction on the upper floors, and contractors sometimes enter the unit... however, my unit is listed as do not enter unless owner is present, so I did not worry about it. I think some contractor ignored the notice, went in while I was away, saw an airsoft, and called the cops.

Wow, what a gross load of crap to have to deal with.....any angry exes or anything? Looks like you've gotten solid advice so far, get a lawyer involved quick so they can protect your property on you behalf while you're in absentia, and to act on you behalf at any and all court appearances, I doubt that you'll be charged, highly doubt it, but then again you never can know for sure with these things, just hope you're not an example.

One other important thing what branch of the police searched your premises?
And yeah if someone trespassed on your property and caused all this mess over nothing you should definitely sue to recover any damages/legal fees as well.

Good Luck and DO NOT procrastinate, in the eyes of the law initiative can be a very powerful weapon, get on it.

Meph

Technically it's 500fps and 5.7J in both the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. The 500fps was carried over from pre-Firearms Act legislation, while the 5.7J was inserted in 2003. The section's not very well worded, but one needs to exceed both numbers to be a firearm under Canadian law.

Actually I've got an email from Canada Firearms Center and be classified AS a firearm it must meet or pass BOTH fps and joules to be classified. Meaning if you airsoft gun is 600fps but say 2.2 joules, its not a firearm.

For a .2g BB to reach 5.7 joules, that BB needs to be going around 790fps I think it is? a .23g BB would need to reach about 730fps.

Wow that's retarded. I never knew it was like that.

Ive seen a "match grade" air rifle that fired .39g non lead pellets at speeds of 1080fps+, that's around 22 joules!

In order to be classified as a firearm in Canada an airsoft gun has to shoot 784.25761 Feet Per Second (Firing .2 Gram BB's)

thats what I said although I was off my 5.something fps.... http://www.airsoftcanada.com/images/...s/rolleyes.gif

Math Wizards!
Ding!

The Canada Firearms Center was established to implement the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act defines a firearm as having it shoot 500 fps AND 5.7 joules, as you correctly stated.

The local LE and local prosecutors implement/enforce the Canada Criminal Code, which defines a firearm as being able to shoot greater than 500 fps OR have a muzzle velocity greater than 5.7 joules.

The CFC actually defines this very well in their article defining airguns and airsoft guns on their website, defining firearms for the purposes of the Criminal Code and for the purposes of the Firearms Act.

In short, if you have a AEG or bolt action airsoft gun that shoots greater than 500 fps, and you point it at someone in public, you CAN be charged with pointing a firearm. Once that stigma applies, the prosecutors CAN charge you with all sorts of other nasty CRIMES related to firearms (because they have already defined your gun as a firearm in the first criminal charge).

BUT... this only applies when you commit a CRIME with your airsoft gun and not before. Everything before the crime, should be regulated by the Firearms Act (ie transportation, import/export, selling, owning, etc.)

I was under the impression that threatening a person with a replica firearm, regardless of it's ability to operate, was considered brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to harm and can stack firearm charges against you.

No.

It's 500fps AND 5.7J, period, there is no such distinction between CFC and RCMP. C-10A applies to both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code in the exact same way.

I understand the wording is rather confusing, but Parliament wrote the section to mean AND, and there aren't two interpretations on it.

If you threaten a person in the course of committing certain indictable offences with even a paintball gun, you can be punished with firearm offences. It isn't limited to replicas.

Show me the legislative history that states that Parliament wrote the section to mean AND.

You're right though, there is no distinction between the CFC and the RCMP.
The distinction lies in the scope of the laws. The two laws here (the FA and the CCC) each serve their own purpose, and they are exclusive of each other. One does not take precedent over the other.
The CFC and de facto the RCMP implement/interpret the FA.
Your local prosecutors/interpret will implement the CCC.
The CCC will only come into play after a crime has been commited and not before. The FA governs until such time.

Like I said, check out the CFC website... it states that there are two definitions for a firearm... one under the FA and one under the CCC.

If you have your hand inside your coat pocket and tell someone it's a gun you can also be charged with a firearms offense. There was a gun in kamloops who robbed a store with a banana and was charged with multiple firearms offenses.

Sure. Thats probably true.
The point I wanted to make is that our airsoft guns, when shooting greater than 500 fps, is defined as a real steel firearm when used in a CRIME and CAN result in CRIMINAL firearm charges against you.

A replica firearm (if not operational) cannot cross that line and become a real firearm under the CCC, and thus the charge will likely be limited to a deadly weapon, as you say.

But if the replica firearm is operational (thus shooting greater than 500 fps) then it crosses that line to become a real steel firearm in the eyes of the law, regardless of it having 5.7 joules of muzzle energy or not.

Not really, I just have an airsoft energy conversion program... I just played with numbers and decimals until it stopped giving me "5.7J"

mine allows me to enter FPS, BB weight, or Joules and gives me the rest of the info :D

1. Air guns that are firearms for purposes of both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.

These are air guns with both a high muzzle velocity (greater than 152.4 meters or 500 feet per second) and a high muzzle energy (greater than 5.7 joules or 4.2 foot-pounds). The “muzzle velocity” is the speed of a projectile at the instant it leaves the muzzle of a gun, normally expressed in metres per second or feet per second. The “muzzle energy” is the energy of a projectile at the instant it leaves the muzzle of a gun, expressed in joules or foot-pounds. Air guns need to meet both standards to be classified as firearms for purposes of the Firearms Act.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/airguns_e.asp

Wow Saint.
Quite impressive of you to post that link.
I must say it was an interesting read, although only the first six pages were really relevant to this discussion.

Just to clarify things, it your opinion that Parliament meant to define a firearm as having a muzzle velocity greater than 500 fps AND 5.7 joules.

I must respectfully disagree.

Firstly, the amendment being referred to here is the provision of the Firearms Act, and the definition of a firearm, under the Firearms Act, "in order for there to be registration" (on page 2 statement by Mr. Lanctot).

This legislative history is not relevant to the definition of a firearm under the Canada Criminal Code. This legislative history is relevant to the definition of a firearm for REGISTRATION purposes.

Secondly, as stated by Mr. Smith (cheif scientist, firearms, for the RCMP) on page 4 "the intention of this amendment is to provide for an exemption from registration IF either the velocity is inferior to 152.4 m/s OR the energy is inferior to 5.7 joules. The text of the draft does say that, and I suppose any clarification on that is even better..... So its my opinion that as written, it does in fact mean that the firearm need be under only one of the two limits in order to be exempt from the registration and lisencing provisions."

Thirdly, as stated by Ms. Kathleen Roussel (legal counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre) on page 6... "The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m/s OR energy exceeding the limits in the provision will ablso be subject to registration"

It seems to me that the amendments were designed to define a firearm, for the purposes of registration, having a 500 fps (152.4 m/s) OR 5.7 joules of energy.

On a different note, what Ms. Roussel mentioned also raises certain questions. She said that it was their intention to require registration of air guns or paintball guns that shoot greater than 500 fps OR 5.7 joules of energy. So then, a PTW Max with a M150 cylinder must be registered?

And finally, there have been several questions as to the weight of the projectile used to measure the muzzle velocity and energy to determine if an AEG meets the definition of a firearm.

Mr Smith, on page 5 states "the purpose of the 5.7 joules, which is the energy equivalent of a standard-weight pellet at 152.4 m/s, is to make it abundantly clear that those air guns that were previously unregulated continue to be unregulated and that those air guns that preivously were regulated will continue to be regulated."

So they measure velocity and energy using standard weight pellets... which is 0.177 grams (am I correct? If not, then please correct me. What is the weight of a standard Crossman BB/pellet?)
Assuming 0.177 g, then our 0.2 g measurements may mean that we are all shooting HOT (although this is highly doubtful as there is a slight difference in weight, but may put some of our guns over the fps limits to become firearms)
Just a thought.

You forgot the quote the section below that define airguns for the purposes of the CCC and NOT the Firearms Act... which was the entire point of this discussion.

.177 is the caliber not the weight. The pellets I was shooting weren't lead though but they were .39g each

i stand corrected.
thanks drache

The amendment is part of a bill that applies to BOTH the Firearms Act and Criminal Code for purpose of modernizing the definition of what are not considered to be firearms, as per the summary of the bill itself.

I think you meant to say, "it is relevant to the definition of a firearm specifically for sections 91-95, 99-101, 103-107 and 117.03 of the Criminal Code", as the Criminal Code itself indicates. That happens to be most of Possession Offences (the original purpose of this thread), Trafficking Offences, Export and Import Offences, Offences relating to Lost, Destroyed or Defaced Weapons, etc. and part of Search and Seizure. That's a good chunk of the Criminal Code, so I would not consider it limited to the purpose definition of a firearm for registration purposes.

As I've demonstrated above, the amendment intends to address registration, but is not limited to registration.

I looked up your quote of Ms. Roussel on page 6 (closest link to it here), but it does not match to the actual document. Here's what I'm seeing, underlining is added by me.

I'm not going to address point-by-point the remainder of your previous post, because I feel I've provided adequate rebuttle on the core of your argument.

This thread reminds me of something I read here once, about ASC being like a pack of male dogs all trying to screw 1 female in the middle of the chaos, then the bitch takes off and everyone is just screwing each other....

Court will recess 1 hour for lunch.All rise.LOL:D

Maybe we should wait and find why the warrant was issued.:cool:

Yeah, I remember someone saying that, but I haven't been able to find the original post.

Saint,

Sorry, but I'm not too sure if I'm following your argument here.
Perhaps we are discussing two different issues here.

So I read your post above mine and noticed that you state that the original purpose of this post was to discuss possession offenses, as relating to airsoft guns.

My original post was just to state that the definition of a firearm under the CCC is different than the definition of a firearm under the FA.

If we are just limiting our discussion to that of possession offenses, then you are absolutely correct, the FA would govern and under the FA, a firearm is defined as having to shoot greater than 500 fps AND 5.7 joules of energy.

However, if we are discussing other indictable crimes, such as pointing a firearm, then the definition under the CCC would govern and the prosecutor need only show that the airgun shot greater than 500 fps OR had a muzzle energy greater than 5.7 joules. (which was the point of my original post - "just a FYI thing")

Am I correct in that assessment?

Nonetheless. You have stated that "The amendment is part of a bill that applies to BOTH the Firearms Act and Criminal Code for purpose of modernizing the definition of what are not considered to be firearms, as per the summary of the bill itself."

Sure, the proposed amendments were for both. HOWEVER, only the FA was amended and the CCC remains the same (respecting the definition). The FA and CCC clearly have two different definitions of a firearm. The proposed amendment was NOT incorporated into the CCC and only into the FA. That is why we are having this discussion, as there is obviously room for interpretation here.

You state that you would not consider it limited to the purpose definition of a firearm for registration purposes. But only the FA was amended to include "or muzzle energy of 5.7 joules" language and not the CCC. So it can be implied that the definition set out in the FA would only be applicable to the range of offenses outlined in the FA (and not solely limited to registration but also includes other offenses, as you correctly pointed out) and not in the CCC, otherwise it would have been included in the CCC.

You provided this quote...
"The idea here is to ensure that air guns or paint balls designed to have a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 metres per second are subject to registration. In addition, those that are adapted to have a muzzle velocity or energy exceeding the limits in the provision will also be subject to registration."

Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand how this can be read as defining a firearm as shooting greater than 500 fps AND having greater than 5.7 joules of energy.
For me.. it reads as..
1. air guns or paintballs having a muzzle velocity greater than 500 fps (152.4 m/s) are subject to registration.
2. air guns or paintballs that are adapted to have a muzzle velocity OR energy exceeding 5.7 joules are subject to registration.

If my understanding is incorrect, please explain.

Thanks.

I said this thread falls under Possession Offences. The definition of what is considered a firearm for the purpose of said offences is a inseparable part of that. So what we've been going back and forth about in relevant to this discussion.

Sort of yes and no.

Section 87 (Pointing a firearm) of the Criminal Code is not one of the sections listed under subsection 84(3). Therefore, one could argue that the Criminal Code observes neither the muzzle velocity or muzzle energy for the purpose of determining whether something is a firearm in that particular offence, but rather falls back on firearm's definition of "causing serious bodily injury or death to a person..."

In the case of section 85 (Using firearm in commission of offence), the device in question doesn't even have to shoot, because the term used is imitation firearm.

I don't understand what you meant by "only the FA was amended and the CCC remains the same (respecting the definition)." Technically, the 5.7J and 500FPS figure can only be found in the Criminal Code. It does not show up in the Firearms Act at all, literally. However, it doesn't have to, because the Criminal Code refers to the Firearms Act and vice-versa.

There is no room for interpretation on where the amendment appears. The only room for interpretation is how it's worded, which led to me providing the legislative history to clear that up.

I think a lot of your confusion here is from not having read both acts back to back. Again, the 500fps muzzle velocity figure was first set down BEFORE the Firearms Act, the only thing the Firearms Act did was to paraphrase it. C-10A came along and inserted the muzzle energy figure into the Criminal Code, along with instructions on how it applies to the Firearms Act. C-10A did not insert any muzzle energy or muzzle velocity figures into the Firearms Act, because traditionally such definitions and details fall under the Criminal Code.

A lot of people thought that, even me, before reading the legislative history (or whenever I forget legislative history). Simply put, the "or" is functioning more as an "alternate term for the same thing" (which makes energy = velocity as criteria) than as the more common representing alternative and exclusive choices.

Yes, it's completely retarded, everytime I have to explain this I die a little more on the inside.

Welcome to Canadian law on firearms and weapon. The vomit bags are under your seats, the suicide booth is down the hall and to the left.

Well that's as clear as Mud now! Don't you just love Canadian laws? A country were you can buy a metal C02 powered .177 cal metal pellet firing pistol, but not a metal spring powered 6mm plastic pellet firing pistol.

If I may respectfully interject here. Saint, I've read many of your posts and highly respect your opinions and insights. I'm not looking to find fault but Capt. T/O isn't just some charlatan simply arguing for the sake of arguing. He has a firm grasp of Canadian law as he makes a living out of it.

I was sitting back, hoping not to be the chump to jump up and say, "Dude, he's a lawyer".

even a pellet pistol if it looks real enough will get seized at the border....

"I think a lot of your confusion here is from not having read both acts back to back. Again, the 500fps muzzle velocity figure was first set down BEFORE the Firearms Act, the only thing the Firearms Act did was to paraphrase it. C-10A came along and inserted the muzzle energy figure into the Criminal Code, along with instructions on how it applies to the Firearms Act. C-10A did not insert any muzzle energy or muzzle velocity figures into the Firearms Act, because traditionally such definitions and details fall under the Criminal Code."

I stand corrected on this.

However, the legislative history still seems to suggest that its an OR thing and not the AND, as you have suggested it means.

This is further supported by the CFC and their interpretation of the three different ways a firearm can be defined as.

Seriously, would everyone take a chill pill and relax on the legal excerpts! Lisa's has already capped our PM's to 100 posts to free up space. I can't imagine why?

All these uber long rants between multiple parties regarding personal interpretations of various acts, legislations, laws etc. is doing this community (in this case) no favors since it clutters up the original posters thread (I have also been guilty of this and I'm going to meetings to curb it). Especially in this case since the gun itself is going in for ballistic testing.

Wait a few days for the results of the test. Then you will know exactly how "The Man" perceives these devices.

Thanks for the support Vladdiej.
But like any lawyer would/should, we must always be open to new ways of thinking and different interpretations, as different interpretations of the same words always cause conflict.

This discussion with Saint was good for me as it gave me a new perspective on the same laws. The final interpretation of what the laws will simply be made by the Courts and neither Saint nor I are "correct". The only "correct" answer will be stated by a judge.


To Steggs:
Sorry will shut up now.
I lost sight of the purpose of the original post, as my conversation with Saint was more of an "intellectual exercise" for me and my pursuit of learning/understanding more.

Saint, if you wish to continue our discussion, please pm me.

But by having these long rants regarding Canadian Laws, members with lots of knowledge on the subjects are allowed to voice said information to the public, we read it and learn more about the country we're in. I see no harm in this. :)

Steggs, I hardly see the occasional informative discussion being the same resource consuming inanity monsters that 50% of all other threads are.

vladdiej, I understood that Capt. T/O wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. He certainly did sound like a lawyer, so don't feel too bad about outing him?

Capt. T/O, I'll say that 84(3) is certainly a good candidate for a court's interpretation.

/popcorn;

Continue. This is very informative. If only sessions of Parliament were this good, viewership may actually increase.

All I'm saying is that we will be graced by actual point in fact, first hand experience in how the governing bodies treat an Airsoft gun once its been seized. All we have to do is wait for the results of the testing. Then go ahead and beat the results/outcome to death. Right now it's all talk. The one that can defend his position the best on these forums will be the winner. It does not mean he is correct.

+1

I dunno about Capt., but I'm kind of all talked out. Don't know where to go from here.

Good luck to the OP on his situation.

What are you implying? The PM limit is being reduced purely due to performance issues.

http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showthread.php?t=64996

Well that is how I read it.

Damn! You sucked me into another off-topic post. :D

Some people just scroll over them because they grow weary. :)

Yes.
Good luck to the OP on his situation.