Quote:
Originally Posted by MultipleParadox
Err don't really want to start that but ... *Fire-resistant-Hazmat suit on and diving in in Olympic pool with enough bottled oxygen to last a month* :
From the criminal code (link provided by OP)
I don't think it can be any clearer than this. My interpretation of this is that OP is technically right. That said, is it matter of being worried? Of course it isn't. I highly doubt you'll see a police/RCMP officer going to your home and asking to control and see if you have any evil-prohibited bad-lingering replicas of firearms that shoot under 366...
Honestly curious to see how you guys interpret this the other way around though
Edit: did re-read a few posts, among which Brian's, and although It does make total sense and would agree with that, wouldn't a over-zealot prosecutor be able to leverage the law text as is?
NB: I am not worried at all with this and couldn't care less, but am
Interested in the technicality of it all
|
This is new to me. Can you provide a link to the criminal code where it mentions 366 fps?