Definition of a "firearm"

[SlartyBartFast]

I'm looking for science and statistics to try and influence law.

Canadian law defines an air gun as a firearm if it fires a projectile at greater than 500fps or with greater than 6 joules of muzzle energy (which is a .177 cal 8 grain pellet travelling at 500fps).

First, I think the only important measure should be muzzle energy. Because it's the only thing that the gun has any control over. As soon as I put a hyper velocity 5 grain pellet in my 490fps pistol, I'm breaking the law and firing an unregistered prohibited firearm. Even though I have my restricted weapons permit now, that's 10 years or more in jail for me...

Anyone know of a table that lists the different muzzle energies considered firearms in other countries? Or comparisons of firearms laws with respect to air powered guns?

Avoiding the restricted or prohibited firearm definition for pistols would avoid the requirement of detuning air pistols for import and the resulting illegal retuning that invariably occurs.

What is required IMO is a definition that brackets air rifles and air pistols and defines the requirements for them and where they can be used separate from the limited firearm or non-firearm definition currently in place.

[Rover]

"The law is an ass!", is all you have to remember.

[Chia]

The United States Gun Control Act defines it like this:
"The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Even in the most firearm-restrictive states like California, Colorado, and New York, the term firearm basically defaults to (A) of the above definition. You will occasionally see municipal ordinances that ban "air guns, pellet guns, and BB guns" but I have never seen a reference to velocity here. And I suspect that's due to old people dealing with darn youngsters plinking their mailbox.

I guess we take the term "fire" in "firearm" seriously. Sorry I can't be of more help than that.

[Mtl_Biker]

I'm looking for science and statistics to try and influence law.

Canadian law defines an air gun as a firearm if it fires a projectile at greater than 500fps or with greater than 6 joules of muzzle energy (which is a .177 cal 8 grain pellet travelling at 500fps).

First, I think the only important measure should be muzzle energy. Because it's the only thing that the gun has any control over. As soon as I put a hyper velocity 5 grain pellet in my 490fps pistol, I'm breaking the law and firing an unregistered prohibited firearm. Even though I have my restricted weapons permit now, that's 10 years or more in jail for me...

Anyone know of a table that lists the different muzzle energies considered firearms in other countries? Or comparisons of firearms laws with respect to air powered guns?

Avoiding the restricted or prohibited firearm definition for pistols would avoid the requirement of detuning air pistols for import and the resulting illegal retuning that invariably occurs.

What is required IMO is a definition that brackets air rifles and air pistols and defines the requirements for them and where they can be used separate from the limited firearm or non-firearm definition currently in place.

The best answer you got so far was the "law is an ass" one. Sometimes the rules and regulations simply make no sense at all.

But you're dreaming if you think you'll be able to change our Canadian gun laws, even if anyone thinking logically would agree with you. The average public sees all guns as evil and they'd love to have even more restrictions rather than less. And any politician who tries to relax our gun laws (even for air guns) is liable to be run out of town on a rail.

[SlartyBartFast]

And any politician who tries to relax our gun laws (even for air guns) is liable to be run out of town on a rail.

To be blunt, that's defeatist BS.
With the right attitude and promotion, and a focus on competition and safety, air pistol and rifle could be given a boost in Canada.
And unless there's a change to the law, people who have modified air pistols are only a bored police officer away from serious firearms charges.

[SamEEE]

The New Zealand law is an interesting one: I am not a lawyer, but so far as I understand...

1) Airguns are not firearms unless used in the proceedings of a crime; and then they are.

2) Some airguns are firearms if they are deemed 'specifically dangerous'. The NZ Police decides what is specifically dangerous.

Only PCP rifles so far have been deemed specifically dangerous by the NZ Police after a plainclothes officer was shot (and killed) while on private property after dark putting a surveillance device on a vehicle by a 45 calibre air-cannon.

NZ Police are similar to the RCMP in that they are somewhat Judge, Jury, and Executioner when it comes to firearms law interpretation, and then even if the judiciary thinks the interpretation is overstepping the scope or intent of the law they just lobby parliament to get the law changed!

To be blunt, that's defeatist BS.
With the right attitude and promotion, and a focus on competition and safety, air pistol and rifle could be given a boost in Canada.
And unless there's a change to the law, people who have modified air pistols are only a bored police officer away from serious firearms charges.

You would be hard pressed to find any case of liberalisation of firearm law in the G20 states. Once the rights/privileges are gone; they're gone for good.

Case of public opinion is currently vehemently opposed to the idea private ownership of guns. Here in NZ I come up against quite a lot of backlash/confusion of American Gun Culture and/or crime & violence vs. quiet enjoyment of the sport.

I'm afraid about the best we can do is spin positive PR/Marketing about our sports - which is about half the reason I started my YouTube channel.
This is also why I am totally for getting young shooters onboard at a Highschool pistol team phase - gets the kids and often the parents on board about the sport. Guns are really just tooled steel and wood... no morality in an inanimate object.

I remain hopeful.

[SlartyBartFast]

Well, here the long gun firearms registry was scrapped.

But to propose not to anything politically is just defeatist and invites the continued erosion of access to shooting sports. Sitting by hoping for the best is stupid.

In Canada, .25 and .32 calibre weapons are specifically prohibited. Except those target pistols that are on an exemption list.

So with a good safety plan and owner responsibilities defined there's no reason support couldn't be found.

[SamEEE]

Actually the withdrawal of the Long Arm registry is a pretty good example.

[Chia]

OK, so I may be a bit of a nerd, but this thread is really interesting. I'd love to hear more about firearm laws in other countries!

[SamEEE]

I present to you the Arms Act (1983).
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 72622.html

This part of the search and surveillance law gives premise for a warrantless search of a private premise, which I think is quite an interesting piece of law:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 36653.html

The antique arms provision of the Arms Act means I can own an antique muzzleloading pistol with no need for a license, which is kind of cool.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 72627.html

Also not allowed to own cluster munitions. Moral panic, clearly.

[kevinweiho]

Canadian law defines an air gun as a firearm if it fires a projectile at greater than 500fps or with greater than 6 joules of muzzle energy (which is a .177 cal 8 grain pellet travelling at 500fps).

Even a slingshot with proper ammunition has more kinetic energy than a 500 fps airpistol and they're legal in Canada. Here in Costa Rica, "military-style" rifles are banned from importation.

[ojh]

In Finland a firearm is any gun that shoots bullets propelled by gunpowder, primer compound or similar explosive pressure. A powerful airgun is any airgun that fires metallic bullets and has land-to-land caliber more than 6.35 mm (.25"). Any firearm or powerful airgun requires a license. All airguns up to and including caliber 6.35 mm are license free, but one must be at least 18 years old to buy one. There are no energy limits.

[SlartyBartFast]

Actually the withdrawal of the Long Arm registry is a pretty good example.

Exactly. However personally I disagreed with it's removal on two counts:

1st: We already have permits with numbers, and every firearm has a serial number. We manage to register every pistol, there should be no fuss to register every long gun too. Is it or was it effective? I'm not so sure. But IMO firearms owners have to admit that their hobby worries many and need to make the effort to be as transparent as possible to their neighbours.

2nd: The repeal of the registry and enactment of more permissive transportation regulations for restricted weapons was done in a very politically charged manner. This high level of partisanship makes the changes uncertain and open to attack from other political parties.

Just as .32 and .25 competition firearms are exempt from prohibition (and are allowed as restricted weapons), I would like to build the case that competition air pistols should be exempt from restricted firearms status. I didn't think it's too much to ask to have air pistol and rifle ownership depend on a non-restricted weapons permit or whether a new class of permit and a modified safety training course could be put together.

A special air powered competition gun permit would probably be the best. The firearms safety course goes into the history of firearms and talks about hunting scenarios. An air specific one could give the history and types of air powered guns and focus on airgun sports.

Airguns are not firearms unless used in the proceedings of a crime; and then they are.

I'm not a lawyer either. But my understanding is that here, if you do anything to make the person being attacked think you have a firearm, you can be charged with the same offenses as if you committed the crime with a firearm.

Some weird issues with airguns: A replica firearm is prohibited. Essentially, owning any fake gun is punishable under the same penalties as having a prohibited firearm. But...
My replica PX4 pistol and CX4 carabine are not prohibited. Because they are not replicas. They fire pellets. Were I to make them unuseable as pellet guns, they could be considered prohibited as replica firearms.

This caused some issues when some morons were carrying Umarex pellet pistols onto city buses.

[PhatMan]

SlartyBartFast,

In the UK :

2.3 Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or
other missile can be discharged. This includes any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a
lethal weapon or not, any component part (see Chapter 13) of such a lethal or prohibited
weapon, and any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the
noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.

2.4 ‘Lethality’ is not defined in legislation, but the Firearms Consultative Committee in its
Eleventh Annual Report and the Law Commission in its report of 16 December 2015
recommended that any barrelled weapon with a muzzle energy of 1 joule or more should
be considered lethally barrelled. However, this is a complex issue and, although case law
exists (Moore v Gooderham (1960), only a court can decide whether a particular weapon
is capable of causing a lethal injury and would therefore be considered a firearm for the
purposes of the Acts. Providers of forensic science services will be able to advise in
any case where ‘lethality’ is likely to be an issue. Firearms law also covers some other
weapons, including stun guns and CS, which are prohibited items under the terms of
section 5 of the 1968 Act (see Chapter 3 for further information).

(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 16_v20.pdf)

Have fun & a good Sunday,

Best regards

Russ

[Justin Credible]

The United States Gun Control Act defines it like this:
"The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Even in the most firearm-restrictive states like California, Colorado, and New York, the term firearm basically defaults to (A) of the above definition. You will occasionally see municipal ordinances that ban "air guns, pellet guns, and BB guns" but I have never seen a reference to velocity here. And I suspect that's due to old people dealing with darn youngsters plinking their mailbox.

I guess we take the term "fire" in "firearm" seriously. Sorry I can't be of more help than that.

The firearm definition in New York does not include all firearms and rifles. Firearms there are only handguns, short barreled guns (e.g. sawed-off shotgun), and a couple of years ago they added "assault weapons" which are defined elsewhere in the law. It's confusing when you read NY laws and don't know that because at first you would think you can't even touch a rifle or shotgun without a permit!

NY Penal Code Section 265.00 paragraph 4: “Firearm” means (a) any pistol or revolver;  or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length;  or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length;  or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches;  or (e) an assault weapon.

Justin Tracy

[Chia]

The firearm definition in New York does not include all firearms and rifles. Firearms there are only handguns, short barreled guns (e.g. sawed-off shotgun), and a couple of years ago they added "assault weapons" which are defined elsewhere in the law. It's confusing when you read NY laws and don't know that because at first you would think you can't even touch a rifle or shotgun without a permit!

NY Penal Code Section 265.00 paragraph 4: “Firearm” means (a) any pistol or revolver;  or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length;  or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length;  or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches;  or (e) an assault weapon.

Justin Tracy

Yes, I'm aware. I was speaking broadly for the entire country. The point I was making was that no state in the United States, even the most restrictive ones, consider BB guns or pellet guns powered by air, whether SSP or PCP, and regardless of velocity, a firearm. Hence the term "basically tracks." You will note that, with the exception of 265.00(e), the definition sticks to GCA weapons. The shortness of the barrels is a reference to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §5845 further forbidding access of NY citizens to weapons governed by the NFA.

A whole book can be written on the individual states' police powers when it comes to firearm control. The basic problem is it changes so much that it's very hard to keep up with. At some point, I might write that book for attorneys who need it and keep it updated (The ATF does keep a publication with most gun control laws, however it is dated to around 2010. The laws have drastically changed and been moved since then), but right now I have my hands full with my business.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to have a discussion with you via PM concerning various firearm laws in the U.S.. I don't think most are relevant to OP's concerns, which is what the law is concerning air guns in other countries and suggestions for modifying the laws.

[Gerard]

Canadian law defines an air gun as a firearm if it fires a projectile at greater than 500fps or with greater than 6 joules of muzzle energy (which is a .177 cal 8 grain pellet travelling at 500fps).

First, I think the only important measure should be muzzle energy. Because it's the only thing that the gun has any control over. As soon as I put a hyper velocity 5 grain pellet in my 490fps pistol, I'm breaking the law and firing an unregistered prohibited firearm. Even though I have my restricted weapons permit now, that's 10 years or more in jail for me...

Since you're looking at specific limitations in other countries as compared to Canadian law, perhaps it'd be good to first have a clearer understanding of the actual limits in Canada. Here's the page with all the information on it:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-f ... ir-eng.htm

From that page, it is clear that the limit is not "6 joules" but in fact 5.7 joules of muzzle energy. A small difference, but better to be exact about these sorts of things.

Further, your statement in the second paragraph I've quoted above suggests that merely going over 500fps will make one liable for prosecution as a criminal. But this is not so obviously the case. Let's say I put a 5gr 'hyper velocity' pellet in an airgun which shoots normal 7gr pellets such as the Diabolo Basic at 490fps. What happens? I get a velocity anywhere from 520fps to 600fps, depending on the powerplant type and the barrel length and other tuning factors which influence how quickly that lighter pellet gets launched. The law states that to be classified as a restricted firearm (in the case of a pistol) or a firearm (in the case of a rifle) the weapon must produce BOTH in excess of 5.7 joules of energy AND 500fps muzzle velocity. At 600fps that 5gr pellet delivers just 4fpe, or 5.42 joules, well below the energy portion of the law's limitation on unlicensed airguns. That lightweight pellet would have to travel at 615fps or higher to be reclassified. Not a lot of pistol length barrels are going to make that happen, regardless of how light the pellet.

Of course by adjusting various elements inside the airgun one can easily go over such limits. A PCP air pistol with a 10" barrel in .25" can easily be pushed to over 20fpe. Ataman's new pistol provides one example of a commercial air pistol shooting around 15fpe while remaining quite compact. But of course we won't see that in Canada. I wish it were different, but rather doubt that any sitting government would reverse or even significantly update the law to reflect the desires of mere airgunners. Lobbying will certainly get you some attention... but the question arises, is it the sort of attention you, or the airgunning public in general, really wants to have focused upon yourself/us? For example, as it stands now, one can without any sort of license use a big bore air pistol launching huge pieces of lead at 499fps. Say you have a .45" bore pistol capable of pushing an 80gr ball at 499fps. That's perfectly legal, though the muzzle energy is about 44fpe, getting into low powered .22lr ammo territory, actually surpassing the energy of a CCI Quiet round. It's weird, but fun for those who want to get such airguns. Do we really want the RCMP and the federal government scrutinizing this 'loophole' and 'fixing' it?

The really important aspect of the law as I see it is that any gun, regardless of power level or type, when used in the commission of a crime is seen as a firearm for purposes of prosecution. That part is perfectly reasonable, as no one ought to be waving guns at other people. But yes, it would be lovely if we were allowed to do whatever we liked in a safe, responsible manner with our airguns, and silencers would be nice as well of course. Just doesn't seem at all likely with this government, just as it wasn't happening with the previous government, and is certainly got going to be on the agenda of any party trying to get into power in the next election. As anyone with any grasp of modern electioneering history knows, saying you'll be 'TOUGH ON CRIME' in whatever form gets votes though it has no substance behind it, ever. High powered airguns would very easily fit into a tough on crime policy, putting the fear into the common (ignorant) non-shooter and manipulating their vote.

[SlartyBartFast]

From that page, it is clear that the limit is not "6 joules" but in fact 5.7 joules of muzzle energy. A small difference, but better to be exact about these sorts of things.

Well, I'll try to take your post as friendly. You could have simply asked where I got my information.

I might have blundered on the joules (or one of the references I read before posting was wrong), but the page you linked seems to get the criminal code wrong.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... ge-19.html

(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.

That clearly says fps OR joules. Not fps AND joules. And a low weight pellet fired through an airgun clearly violates rule (ii) above. Unless you want to argue semantics about whether the projectile or the bullet were the one designed to fire faster than 500fps and whether that mattered in the eyes of the law.

You just want to suggest we should exploit loopholes in our favour and hope for the best? You can't complain about laws being written badly if you're not prepared to discuss them. Nor do I feel that people should turn a blind eye to those that do modify their airguns to shoot greater than 500fps, but I don't think they should be held to restricted weapons standards for air pistol use.

Ignoring the law and exploiting a loophole just leads to the recent issue of high capacity .22lr magazines for the 10/22 that were allowed under a permissive interpretation and a turning a blind eye to the different American and Canadian marketing of the products. Now the interpretation has changed, and those magazines a prohibited.

If gun owners weren't so politically inept and hateful of getting involved in the process, the previous permissive interpretation could have been codified in law. Ignoring the loophole nature just led to trouble.

If the RCMP is interpreting the law as fps AND joules, that is sort of a good thing. But all firearms owners should be pushing politicians to rewrite the law to make the law match the favourable interpretations and close the door to re-interpretation of the law.

To say we can't influence laws positively to make airgunners have easier access to target pistols is ignoring the fact that target pistols get a regular review and new models are added to the exemption list regularly. Letting the target shooting community shoot .25 and .32 calibre weapons that without the exemption list are prohibited.

To say that a similar exemption, or an airgunners permit, couldn't be developed is defeatist and just leaves the future of the sport to the whims of the ignorant and unintended concequences of laws enacted for other reasons.

So, what I want to start talking about is:
- Why joules and fps? Why not just an energy definition?
- What energy level is acceptable for purchase by anyone over the age of 18 without restriction?
- What energy level could be purchased by someone over the age of 18 and be usealbe in airgun competition?
- What energy level becomes same as a firearm?

[SlartyBartFast]

I guess we take the term "fire" in "firearm" seriously.

Here's the Canadian definition from the Criminal Code:

firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot,
bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable
of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person,
and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled
weapon and anything that can be adapted for use
as a firearm; (arme à feu)[\quote]

I think that Canadians take the definition of "firearm" plenty seriously.

Under US law, a .22lr rifle or pistol is a firearm. But something like the Condor air rifle, that shoots .22 pellets and 1200+ fps isn't. Why should these two be classified differently?

And while many laypeople may focus on root words in a term such as firearm, that's not how language works. With English being the way it is, the "fire" in firearm doesn't mean only from burning/exploding.

Mirriam Webster defines a firearm as "a small gun" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm).
And defines a gun as "a weapon that shoots bullets or shells" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gun).

All interesting side discussion, but mot really what I'm looking to discuss at length. I'd like to define the energy of competition airguns and pistols. And make sure no one with an airgun gets charged for possession of a prohibited device because they use light weight pellets and also make it so someone wanting to get a high powered air rifle or pistol can take a safety course that focusses on air weapon mechanisms, operation, and safety. And not powder weapons, history of flint locks, hunting, and handguns.

[Gerard]

No intention to condescend, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Just trying to help out in a small way with precise numbers and current law as enforced by the authorities.

Individual shooting enthusiasts are unlikely to want to take the personal risk inherent in facing off against the government and police. The national firearms association does have a legal arm, who do lobby on our behalf, though admittedly not focused much on airguns.

As to your list; I have tried a few times to find the particular origins of this peculiarly written regulation regarding both velocity and energy. It does not seem a sensible one, and I'm far from alone in saying so. The UK 6fpe for pistols and 12fpe for rifles seems a lot clearer, really quite easy to follow. And it seems to me these limits make sense in terms of application as well. 6fpe is plenty for target shooting, and 12fpe is plenty for dealing with pests around farms or for small game hunting. Want more? Just get your FAC. Many do just that.

Canada's rules seem... well, a bit bizarre. And yes, it's true there aren't a lot of big bore sub-500fps rifles for sale in Canada. Custom builds commissioned, sure, and DIY stuff as well. I've seen things like a Crosman 2240 concerted to a .38" delivering 450fps with more than 40fpe of energy being shown off and discussed in forums with no worry about illegality, because they're perfectly legal without a license. Should they be? Who knows. I still fondly remember wandering around in 1969 with a BB rifle, then in 1970 with a pellet rifle, in a couple of cities in BC. No one ever questioned me about it. I was 7, then 8 for those experiences, and I learned to shoot quite well. Not only did police not care, but parents took it for granted. Should I have been forced to wait until age 18? What magical thing happens at age 18 that suddenly people behave responsibly? I hear of an awful lot of kids aged 20 or more who wrap their cars around poles after hitting 150km/hour or faster on city streets. Doesn't seem 'adulthood' does much for some people's common sense. I learned what was safe to shoot and what wasn't. I learned to be civilized with a gun in my hands. I learned when it was time to put it away. My son doesn't have this opportunity. He's left to shoot once a month at local HFT gatherings. Not likely to become much of a good shot that way.

Anyway, I wish you luck if you pursue this and take your thoughts to the government. Might actually do some good, and that'd be amazing. But as a guy who has been an anarchist for almost 40 years and whose optimism for substantive change away from the grotesquery that is corporatism has been slowly eroded, sorry, but my cynicism just doesn't let me see how positive change is likely.