In what is an interesting news story spotted by Thumpy's 3-D House of Airsoft,  whatever the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will affect ownership of airguns and even airsoft guns. Right now, Canadian airsoft players have to tread a fine line in importing and owning airsoft guns as airsoft guns can be classified as unregulated as long  as they have a muzzle velocity between 366 to 500fps on .20g BBs according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

Anything below the minimum which will make them prohibited and classified as a Replica or above the maximum which will classify them as Firearms and thus, covered by the Firearms Act.

This is best explained in this chart made by Airsplat. Though it says in the chart that the maximum is 407fps, which is a narrower definition than what is stated at the RCMP website.

Following the link provided by Thumpy, the Ottawa Citizen reports that arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court, in case they agree with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, will make owners of pellet guns to criminal charges and prison sentences if found guilty. The story is already dated, posted on the 21st of February, but so far, we have not heard of news if the Supreme Court already heard arguments on this issue.

The present way that owners of pellet guns are prosecuted only if they the pellet guns are used in intimidation or to cause bodily harm.

The case is about Christopher Dun, which TheCourt.ca gives us a backgrounder on the case:

In April 2010, the Workplace Safety Insurance Board sent investigators to observe Christopher Dunn, the respondent. The investigators observed Dunn meeting with another man and pulling what resembled a pistol out of his jacket, pointing it at the man. He was then observed returning the pistol to his jacket, getting into his car, and driving away. The investigators notified the police, who went to Dunn’s trailer to investigate. They found a Crosman Pro77 airgun, which fires .177 calibre spherical BBs that are propelled via a compressed air canister. At the time that it was confiscated, the airgun was fully functional and loaded with a partial CO2 air cartridge. The police officer testified at trial that there was no ammunition in the magazine and the person at whom Dunn pointed the gun was a friend, and he did not point it to threaten or intimidate him.

Dunn was charged with four offences contrary to the Criminal Code: s. 86 handling a firearm or imitation thereof in a careless manner, s. 87 pointing a firearm, s. 88 carrying a weapon or imitation thereof for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and s. 90 carrying a concealed weapon or imitation thereof. There was a warning on the side of the airgun that it is not a toy and has the potential to cause fatal injury. A firearms examiner testified at trial that the airgun can be purchased without a licence, since the muzzle velocity does not exceed 500 feet per second (indeed, it was 261.41 feet per second). According to the expert testimony, a pistol firing at the rate of Dunn’s airgun would penetrate an eye no less than 50% of the time, passing the “pig’s eye” test.

Dunn was acquitted by an Ottawa court as his air gun didn't meet the definition of a firearm. The decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal overturned it, which the news report says:

The court of appeal unanimously found that any pellet gun capable of firing a shot with a velocity capable of causing serious bodily harm met the definition of a firearm, regardless of how it was used or if it was used. It was a significant about face for the court of appeal — previously they had twice ruled an air gun was only considered a weapon if it was used to cause bodily harm or to intimidate someone.

Such a definition is very broad that it can cover unregulated airsoft guns as BBs can also break skin or cause eye injuries for those not wearing protection if such injuries will be covered by what the Court of Appeal says as "serious bodily harm" as it will be open to different interpretations. Many Canadian air gun owners and airsoft players might want to cross their fingers, hoping that the Supreme Court will disagree with the Court of Appeal.

As to what action that the Canadian Airsoft Community can do, there's nothing much right now but hope the arguments of Dunn's lawyer, Solomon Friedman, would be taken seriously into consideration by the Supreme Court and decide in their favour. Otherwise, many then would be violating the Firearms Act together with air gun owners.