TargetTalk

Gerard wrote: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.

Well, I wouldn't expect the NFA to be interested. Nor would I want to be represented by them. For shooting sports to be tied up with the NRA style"No Compromise" NFA who want to repeal the firearms act would not be a way to win over lots of Canadians.

I had expected the Shooting Federation of Canada would have something to say, but they're probably tied up by the non-political requirements of being the Olympic recognized organization. There's the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, but I know nothing of them.

"What magical thing happens at age 18 that suddenly people behave responsibly? " All sorts of law places age limits and requirements on activities and responsibilities. I think debating that here is pointless. And while you may have been entrusted wit ha airgun at a young age, well you can't buy one is you're child anymore (at least around here).

The interesting take-away IMO from the law as it is is a cartridge fired firearm that kept below the fps and energy threshold would be considered a "non-firearm".

I never said that Canadians didn't take firearms seriously, and I'm a bit confused as to why you thought that. I was pointing out that the root word "fire" seems to be what defines a firearm in the United States rather than the actual lethality of the method of propulsion. I'm not saying that it's the better way of doing things, it's just the way it is.

On to your other question.

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?

They are different because United States firearm law focus on the method of propulsion rather than the actual lethality of the weapon. I have no idea which one is actually more lethal. If you want, compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_(air_gun) with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle. If you read those, you'll know more than I do.

There are groups in the United States who agree with you that this distinction is weird. For example, http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state- ... ns/page/4/. However, these are a minority. Most of us just accept that this is how firearms are. Air guns are not a huge thing in the United States.

To be clear though, any prosecutor could convict someone of assault with a deadly weapon if they used that Condor air rifle to attack someone.

Hope that helps.

Some information that I came across in another thread.

https://www.usashooting.org/library/You ... SASCMP.pdf

[quote]National Three-Position Air Rifle Council rules and JROTC regulations limit air rifles
to those with muzzle velocities of < 600 fps. Manufacturers of competition air rifles
and pistols have confirmed through testing that velocities that produce optimum accuracy
are in the 560-580 fps. range so muzzle velocities of <600 fps are standard
for all commonly used target air rifles and air pistols.[\quote]

Gives a scientifically/industry backed number for a definition of a non-firearm air target pistol/rifle.

The challenge is finding the right organisation to back up the required lobbying.

Chia wrote:I'd love to hear more about firearm laws in other countries!

It's so outdated that it's sometimes flat-out wrong but Grupp's The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide surveys the gun laws and culture of ~60 countries. It's fascinating.

https://www.amazon.com/Worldwide-Gun-Ow ... 494&sr=1-1

BenEnglishTX wrote:It's so outdated that it's sometimes flat-out wrong but Grupp's The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide surveys the gun laws and culture of ~60 countries. It's fascinating.

Well, the description is flat-out laughable.

The struggle to protect the precious human right to keep and bear arms is a global fight. It is being waged against vicious anti-rights bigotry

Maybe I can hold my nose, ignore the right wing political bias, and glean some useful information.

SlartyBartFast wrote:Maybe I can ... glean some useful information.

Oddly enough, I find the reviews of the book on Amazon to be pretty educational, too.

:)

Well I don't blame him for not wanting to cover U.S. Law, at least. I just gave a talk about that on Tuesday and found I could only reasonably talk about the federal laws (GCA and NRA). Trying to cover state laws and issues related to them is definitely something that's needed in my field, but holy crud it is a LOT of work.

I like the review of the fella who relied on it and got busted in public for it. That was pretty funny.

Some thoughts from a person who's been shooting in Canada since the 70's (i.e. me)

1. If you believe that science and statistics alone will be enough to change or even influence the Firearms Act (C68), I would have to insist that you think again. With ONE exception Canadian Firearms Law has always been enacted as an emotional reaction to some tragedy involving firearms. There is a powerful emotional political element that will never retire in the face of any kind of science or statistics, regardless of the present federal government's insistence that, unlike its predecessor, it will only be making "evidence-based" legislation.

2. The scrapping of the Canadian Long Gun Registry was the lone step back from ratcheting gun control in this country, and it was only possible because of the incredible astronomical cost overrun: the promised start-up cost was on the order of a few $10M, then it was supposed to be self-funding; it ended up costing a couple of BILLION $. Of secondary interest to the public was that it was completely irrelevant to any change in the crime rate or death-rate anywhere - its supporters could never show it made any difference, other than serving as an database to be easily and frequently accessed by police. Ignoring all this, the government of the province of Quebec - under pressure from gun-control lobbyists - voted unanimously to create its own long-gun registry, enacting questionable legislation that requires anyone shooting in Quebec to register their long guns.

Another bill was introduced this spring in the Canadian Senate that proposes even more stringent reclassification, central storage (!), and prohibitions. Only time will tell where that one will go.

My point is that even in the face of a billion-dollar boondoggle and incontrovertible statistics, the emotional side still wins hands down. In such a political environment, what would be the chances of even replacing the little bit of legislation dealing with air-guns with something remotely rational?

3. You will only go so far as an individual lobbyist. Google Bruce Montague (of Dryden, Ontario). He trusted the justice system and tried to challenge the law and failed. For doing that the government jailed him and confiscated all his property, even his home for a while. IMO you have to join at least one of the Canadian firearms organizations, or perhaps all of them. At least there is a legal fund with the NFA. But if you think that this or that group is too far left or right or whatever for your particular stance then all I can say is good luck! You can write personal letters to your provincial and federal representatives (I have) with your concerns, but most of the time they have other pet programmes and priorities, and firearms are not on their radar.

4. My own view is that if the shooting sports ever expect to regain ground in Canada, it won't happen if we only focus our efforts at political lobbying. A better approach, and one that might actually work, is for all of us to individually work at getting as many people interested in shooting, and by encouraging all branches of the shooting sports, not just the ones that tickle our fancy. Don't denigrate hunters, plinkers, cowboy-action, IPSC, PPC, or ISSF shooters! If we succeed in recruiting more participants, the shooting sports may have a chance at becoming perceived by the public as mainstream, and not just associated with gangstas, mafia, and grumpy old coots. Mainstream sports activities have less chance of getting banned or penalized unfairly. However, if the majority of Canadians - most of whom are not shooting-sports enthusiasts - perceive us as a fringe group, there will be no negative political consequences if the next firearms tragedy triggers a push by social-justice-warrior-activists for more gun-banning legislation.

5. By all means, inform yourself on the law. Take advantage of work and research that has been already done. Read everything written by Professor Gary Mauser, for example.

Chia wrote:
... 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.

This is quite incorrect. The state of New Jersey includes *ALL* BB guns, air pistols and rifles, as well as slingshots and blowguns, in the the same class as firearms. The only exceptions are the "airsoft" types that shoot soft plastic projectiles.

If you want to buy an Olympic air pistol in NJ, you will need to go through the same dance as if you want to buy a Glock 9mm. Form 4473, criminal background check, mental health records check, fingerprints, three reference letters, et al.

And that is exactly why I stated I was speaking broadly. We have fifty state laws and they can be drastically different. In my presentation I advise other attorneys to research firearms law at the time of each interstate transfer for precisely this reason. It's also why lawyers are licensed by each state individually.

That said, NJ has the police powers to do that, although the air gun restriction is very unusual. Filling out a 4473 for an air gun is a bit odd, but works legally. I don't think airgun records are subject to the same retention requirements by an FFL though. Does a seller of air guns need an FFL in NJ? I just read that they have to have records "reasonably available" but that's a really loose requirement, especially compared to the ATF 20 year requirement.

Also, the broader definitions will make for some pretty squirrelly interplay with federal law. For example, Form 4473 may be required for air gun transfers, but that's only a state requirement. The ATF would not need those forms and will probably reject them as being beyond the scope of the G.C.A. and beyond their mandate. This different utilization of the Form 4473 makes accessing NICS through G.C.A law questionable for air guns, although there might be a parallel state provision to require an FBI background check and the background checks might be run through the new jersey database rather than a national one...although it would have to include NICS as otherwise the FFLs will either be calling one number for airguns and another for firearms under the G.C.A....

Anyway, not my headache, fortunately.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The next time I do a presentation on this subject I'm going emphasize the difference in firearm definitions more to attorneys so that they get the message that they need to look up these things, even air guns and so on. The basic problem is that a lot of estate planners don't know firearms law, and a lot of people who know firearms law don't know estate planning. I'm trying to correct that on the estate planning side so that we can properly counsel clients on how to effectuate legal transfers of probate assets and make sure that clients properly understand how NFA transfers work (especially when gun trusts are involved. That crap is a landmine waiting to happen to some client who doesn't understand that a perfectly legal action under a state trust can still result in an NFA violation. Which is why I strongly suggest that anyone with a gun trust purchased as a form document get some professional advice). While most states have exceptions to their laws for inherited firearms, that's only if the firearm is legal in the state in the first place.

Seeing as this is posted in the olympic AP section, I'm curious as if there really is a reason for lobbying against this law for this particular niche. I never had trouble punching paper with a '500fps' detuned ap (my Morini actually shot better at around 490). Big bore is scary indeed but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those shooting them already have PALs. I don't see people lining up to buy muzzle loaders either, and those are legally obtainable without a firearms license (all of them are considered antiques, which is laughable).

All matchlock, flintlock and wheel lock long guns or guns produced before 1898 are antique. All others are nonrestricted and require a PAL.
I know a few that shoot 'retuned' ap above 500 and heard from a number of people who say everyone they knew shot above 500. German standards offer a better performance level and testing standards than do the Canadian regulations and there should be a legal way to shoot ap at settings the pellet and pistol manufacturers have determined is best without falling under restricted weapons laws or acting illegally.

SlartyBartFast wrote:All matchlock, flintlock and wheel lock long guns or guns produced before 1898 are antique. All others are nonrestricted and require a PAL.

Nope. To rephrase your earlier sally against Gerard not being ready to discuss laws, you'd do well to actually know the law before lobbying.

And there is absolutely no logic nor substance to your following opinion. How can the "German standard" offer better "testing standards and performance" than "Canadian regulations"?

And why the Germans? Are we only talking about Steyr here? I don't remember seeing velocity settings in the manual but some people say 525fps but most will have it lower than that... Even at 525 with a 7gr pellet it is OK.

Optimal velocity for Morini is well within the Canadian laws at "between 490 and 510fps".

What I'd like to know though is, of all those people shooting "retuned guns" through their chrony and pellet sizers, what score do they shoot and what difference did 10-15fps do to it?

As for your efforts to change the law so we can import whatever air pistol without silly restrictions, BRAVO! Is a single-shot Olympic air pistol such a threat to public safety when it fires a pellet at 505 fps that it requires CRIMINAL code provisions? I'm more worried about chainsaws.

re: Canada. I encourage you to review the supreme court judgement R. vs. Dunn of November 5th 2014. This gives good background info on the case: http://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/29918 The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Dunn that airguns are "firearms" for all purposes except for licensing and registration. Thus, safe storage and transport laws apply just like for powder-burning firearms. In this case, a poor guy was convicted under various criminal code provisions for having showed his Crosman Pro 77 to his friend at work. Not threatened or anything, just "Hey, look what I just bought" type of thing. The gun in question fires BBs at up to 325fps...

I think the moral of the story here is to use common sense. Transport any pistol safely and only use it in appropriate places (i.e. gun range). The general public and the law does not tolerate guns anywhere else. For good reasons.

"The law is an ass!"

Looks like any political involvement I might have been interested in needs to be immediately refocused.
My clubs range has been 'temporarily' closed due to ventilation concerns from the city building manager.

v76 wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote:, you'd do well to actually know the law before lobbying.

Well, that I formation was straight off the RCMP website.

The German regulations serve a good basis because they actually have a testing system that accounts for varieties and they allow a higher muzzle energy. My comments on this may have been in a different thread.

Cosidering that competition APs are routinely factory set at higher than 500 fps means there's some advantage.

SlartyBartFast wrote:

v76 wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote:, you'd do well to actually know the law before lobbying.

Well, that I formation was straight off the RCMP website.

Reread the part about those guns made after 1898.
I'll quote it for you, since you didn't even bother to double check your facts nor read 2 lines further of the "absurd laws you wish to change":

"Muzzleloaders made after 1898

All matchlock, flintlock and wheel lock long guns are considered antiques no matter when they were made. (...)
Like older firearms of these types, they are exempt from the licence and registration requirements set out in the Firearms Act."

You're welcome.

As for the rest, i'm sure you're also well aware about Don Nygord winning gold medals with a Daisy 717 shooting at about 395fps.

But i'm all ears to learn about the empirical advantages of shooting 10m ap at 600fps+++

At this point this reads a lot more like a bad opinion column and this is exactly what our current law makers and medias do.

v76 wrote:Reread the part about those guns made after 1898.
I'll quote it for you, since you didn't even bother to double check your facts nor read 2 lines further of the "absurd laws you wish to change":

"Muzzleloaders made after 1898

All matchlock, flintlock and wheel lock long guns are considered antiques no matter when they were made. (...)
Like older firearms of these types, they are exempt from the licence and registration requirements set out in the Firearms Act."

You're welcome.

As for the rest, i'm sure you're also well aware about Don Nygord winning gold medals with a Daisy 717 shooting at about 395fps.

But i'm all ears to learn about the empirical advantages of shooting 10m ap at 600fps+++

At this point this reads a lot more like a bad opinion column and this is exactly what our current law makers and medias do.

Don't know why you're being negative and pissy. Determined to school me on pints of law where I don't even see what you think I got wrong.
I was pointing out muzzle loaders require a PAL.
I'm not advocating for 600 fps +.
I'm advocating any AP considered legal and not a firearm be able to be acquired by Canadians without restricted firearms issues.

I can't even... I just literally quoted the part of the law that says you don't need a PAL for those kind of guns and you're still saying you're right. That plus the way you replied to people on this post is why i'm pissy.

And to add to the argument: i dont think all airguns should be legal to own without a license. Maybe a bit more leeway in regard to 10m ap but not the rest. That said, I genuinely wish you good luck influencing and/or going into politics.

Arguing on the internet... Rover had it right!

A valiant effort though Victor, you tried. Some folks don't bother reading all the words we put in front of their eyes. Pity luthier isn't easier to predict when that might happen.