Possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace?

[GUB]

The picture with the officers pointing patrol carbines through the windows like that kinda surprised me considering the crowed parking lot.
Would have expected to see pistol and shotgun for that kind of public area.
couple a real cowboys saving the public from toy wielding uber criminals. LOL

^^This..Maybe I've been watching to much Live PD
But you sure don't see that kind of Rambo stuff in the U.S.
Panic on the cops part maybe?

[Cameron SS]

I was reading this news article:
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/t...-n-s-1.4910892

Seems like 2 kids were looking at an airsoft gun at Canadian Tire parking lot. Someone saw the gun and called the police. They were charged with s.88 possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace.

This gets me thinking s.88 is just another blanket law they can use to annoy firearm owners. Especially when doing local sale at Tim Horton's parking lot. I noticed s.88 is not in the 2020 coverage. Would it make sense to add the coverage in the future?

It seems like it was lost on most people so far that this was largely an insurance question.

As Capri insurance has indicated many times, the underwriter has the option to respond and defend a charge even if it is not covered under the policy.

The policy is also intended to not defend people accused of crimes that are inherently violent in nature. S88 is not a paper crime.

Personally I'd like to see the policy include ANY charges under Part 3 of the criminal code or the firearms act, up until there is clear evidence that actual violence was used by the accused outside of a bona fide act of self defense.

The offence is possession "for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace."

I would expect that the Crown would have to establish that the intent of the possession was to be dangerous to the public peace.

From the Criminal Code:

The crown has to prove the possession, they have to prove the intent, and they have to prove that the intent is actually or reasonably forseeably dangerous to the public peace.

It is insufficient for the crown to prove that the possession was in fact dangerous, unless the crown can prove that the accused actually intended to cause the danger.

It will be the difference between weather the public was upset by seeing the airsoft gun, prompting the 911 call, or if the guys had a malicious intent to cause the public distress.

Correct, with the first resulting in a verdict of not guilty, while the later would most certainly render a conviction. Here the crown's case is very difficult to prove without the statements of the accused.

That is exactly why insurance is needed. Even with zero chance of conviction the crown can still crush you with the process until you're broke and take a plea.

I mean I like the insurance, but two things. 1) This charge should be pretty easy to beat pretty quickly. I suspect the police only laid charges because of all the media attention. Any half decent lawyer should be able to get those dropped pretty quick at minimal cost.
2) the policy requires you to not do things that are obviously stupid or likely to result in charges. Openly exchanging firearms like objects in a public parking lot for all to see is not common practice, and likely wouldn't be covered under the policy.

Are airsoft guns considered (imitation) weapons in Canada?

Airsoft guns that are capable of firing projectiles with sufficient velocity or energy meet the definition of firearm, and are therefore weapons. Being a firearm, they can either be a Non-restricted firearm, a restricted firearm, or a prohibited firearm, based on the definitions of those classifications in S 84(1) of the firearms act. Despite being a prohibited firearm, S 84(3) of the firearms act exempts these items from the requirement to have a license, or a registration certificate, or an authorization to possess at a particular place, but they are still subject to S86 of the criminal code which means they must be stored, displayed, transported and handled in accordance with the regulations, and not carelessly.

Airsoft guns which are NOT capable of firing projectiles with sufficient velocity or energy to meet the definition of firearm, may or may not be deemed as a replica and would therefore be a prohibited device. Or it could be considered an imitation firearm, which is a legal definition associated to no particular offence or legal requirement. Or it could be considered both an imitation firearm AND a replica. Or neither. It depends.

Depends on the FPS. If they can do harm they’re legal like BB guns. If they can’t they are illegal replicas. Makes sense right?

There are many BB guns that can do harm, and are therefore firearms under S 2 of the criminal code. Not all NON firearm airsoft guns are deemed replicas. If the airsoft gun is designed to exactly resemble and existing firearm, then it might be a replica. If it is just designed to be an air soft gun without the specific intent to resemble a firearm, then it might not be a replica.

...for a purpose dangerous to the public peace....

1. Cops can charge you with anything, but it does not mean you are guilty
2. Purpose itself must be "dangerous to the public peace"
3. You have to act for that purpose

IMHO, it is very high standard.

You don't have to act in some way that is dangerous. Any overtly dangerous act would be covered under some other charge. S88 is designed to intervene prior to some overt danger happens. Here the act that gives rise to the offense is the simple act of possession. The possession itself must be intended for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. Proving the possession is typically the easy part. The hard part is proving the intent. If the police are acting on information from a 911 call, as opposed to surveillance for example, then the police will likely know nothing about the intent, other than what is provided by the idiots accused of the offence who might be trying to talk their way out of the charge.

Best to meet at the gun range or ship the item. Restricted guns cannot simply be brought to a parking lot and sold.

Restricted firearms can certianly be brought to a parking lot and sold, particularly if they fall into a category of named exemptions from section 91-95 of the criminal code, such as antiques, tranquilizer guns, harpoon guns, blank firing rivet guns, signalling devices or firearms that discharge projectiles below 500 FPS and 5.7 joules of energy.

Since none of these firearms require an ATT, it would be perfectly legal to meet at any mutually agreeable place.

The responsibility here is for the police to advice the public that the devices are legal to own and use, it was a private sale, and that the individuals pose no risk to the public. Police need to reassure the cowed public that somethings which seem scary are in fact safe and legal. Advising gun owners to take safe and legal activities and conduct those affairs outside of public scrutiny is actually harmful to public safety. Neither the police nor our community should give such advice.

[diegocn]

It seems like it was lost on most people so far that this was largely an insurance question.

Thank you for catching that! Was my thought reading all the responses. And your explanation on their stance was pretty solid though I would like to hear Capri's response on this matter too.

[guess_kto]

I read the policy today, so I will bump this question up.

Why section 88 is not included in the insurance?

Any plans to include it in the future?

What is this charge is added to other covered charges, would insurance then apply?

[maple_leaf_eh]

Ok... this is of actual concern to some of us. I drive military jeeps with covered airsoft MG’s or dewats on public roads. For the sake of not causing people on edge any unnecessary anxiety they are taken off during covid. Am I looking for a criminal charge next time I do this?

The conversation about deactivated, airsoft and other display weapons for Historic Military Vehicle events was a big concern in Quebec not long ago. There is a FB group that became a movement which forced the Transport Minister to first accept the advice of the licencing authority and then immediately overrule it by ministerial decree. Both legit moves, and he got to publicly punish the lying bureaucraps at the SAAQ at the same time.

[GreenBob]

I read the policy today, so I will bump this question up.

Why section 88 is not included in the insurance?

Any plans to include it in the future?

What is this charge is added to other covered charges, would insurance then apply?

I am interested in this as well. My insurance expires end of May.

Cheers,

[TheJudge736]

He probably bought it there too.