The devices that I'm referring to are basically low velocity devices that will eject a projectile below 500 feet per second. A trial court initially acquitted an individual who used one of these items. This case is still before the court, so I'm referring specifically to the particular item he used. An appellate court reversed that decision. This exposed another area of firearms law that clearly is not clear. The appellate court held that a BB gun or air rifle should be considered a firearm under the current provisions of the Firearms Act and Criminal Code even though the trial court held the opposite view.
I think it's important to settle this dispute over what legally is and what legally is not a firearm under the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. Keep in mind that the very term itself, “firearm”, has the word “fire” in it which implies that a propellent is ignited and that discharges a projectile. What I am talking about are clearly not firearms, and the notion of having a Firearms Act come to bear on people who own relatively harmless devices such as paintball guns is quite simply absurd.