Blow gun hunting in canda?

zuke said:
I didn't write the law.
A 22 fired out of a rifle will punch thru a vest,as will all center fire rifle's.
A vest will stop some pistol. It's a feel good kinda ploy
Click to expand...

well depending on what level you talking a level 3a will stop most handgun rounds and buckshot now if your talking level 4 it can stop AP .30-06 and 7.62x39(i have a 4 its not somthing you want to have on for a long time)

vest are made to absorb the impact of the bullet but when you have something that has cutting edges like a broadhead then it will go throw a 3a with no trama plate
 
drache said:
They used to sell them at walmart years back but with paintballs instead of darts. Then the disappeared. Guess they were told they were selling prohibited weapons :D



[youtube]J1KGFonmZzQ[/youtube]
Click to expand...

the prohibited ones are dart shooting ones not paintball only ones(there some fed by a tube that can only shoot paintballs)

being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath
 
stevebc said:
Many years back I got to try one out that had been seized from some poor guy who had them as part of a circus act. Very interesting, very accurate, very powerful, considering it's just powered by breath.
Click to expand...
.
.
.
BEWARE THE CLOWNS!

When I was a lot younger, we used EMT tubing, golf tees, and large sewing needles. There used to be a Waterworks Plant on a large property inside the City Limits where a lot of Pheasants roosted at night.

Ranges were generally under 50 feet or so, up a tree. The only problem is that every once-in-a-while you pinned one against the tree and had to climb up for it.

But then, again, i had the ultimate weapon. A double barreled firecracker rifle that shot marbles. Took patience to aim it as lock time after you lit the fuse was a bit slow, but it could really sail a marble out into the local river.

But that paled in comparison to the Cannon that fired Heinz Baby Food tin cans ( 2 1/4 inch bore) 5 or 6 hundred yards out into the lake, to the consternation of the local Sea Gulls.
.
 
zuke said:
The reason the blowgun's are banned is because they can go thru body armour.
Just like fleshette's in a shotgun.
Click to expand...

Assuming that is correct, given that were prohibited back in 1969 when virtually no cops wore body armour, I think martial arts movies are a much more likely reason for the prohibition.
 
If any of you want to challenge it... here's one court decision regarding an appeal of a decorative blowgun seizure at the border. Ridiculous, but true : :(

http://www.citt.gc.ca/appeals/decision/ap2a013_e.asp

(technically, any pipe is a blowgun then!)

The product in issue was introduced as Exhibit B-1. It consisted of two hollow pieces of wood that were attached together to form a tube of approximately 150 cm in length. A metal spear of approximately 19 cm was attached to one end of the tube with woven rattan. The tube had openings at each end, one designed to receive a dart and be brought to the mouth for blowing, the other to allow the dart to exit. Two pointed objects had been inserted into one end of the tube. The appellant 7 testified that the two pointed objects were not part of the blowpipe that was to be imported. No evidence was led by the respondent as to what these pointed objects were or how they came to be filed as exhibits together with the blowpipe. This was not helpful to the Tribunal. The appellant and the respondent agreed that Exhibit B-1, excluding the pointed objects of unknown origin, was the product that the appellant attempted to import into Canada on January 9, 2000.

The appellant submitted that the product in issue was purchased while on vacation in Borneo. It was purchased as a decorative ornament for display purposes, not as a weapon subject to the Regulations. The appellant submitted that the product in issue is sold as a souvenir to tourists and not as a weapon to hunters, nor does it fall within the normal, everyday meaning of a weapon. The appellant argued that, because the product in issue is designed as an ornament, it is not intended to be fired or, at most, it could be used to blow air and a projectile through it as could be done when using a piece of copper tubing.

The appellant referred to a letter from the Malaysian consulate in Vancouver, British Columbia, that takes the position that the product in issue is intended as a souvenir and not a weapon. The appellant put forward the position that the product in issue is an art object and not a real Yaqua Blowgun. Rather, the appellant submitted that the bona fide Yaqua Blowguns that led to the 1978 prohibition were made of highly polished precision-machined aluminum and came with spring steel darts and nicotine sulphate poison; they were advertized as capable of killing small animals; their pipes had handgrips, a mouthpiece, a sling and a carrying case; and some were telescopic, so as to easily fold away to become a concealed weapon. In support of this position, the appellant relied upon various documents on file that were obtained through an access to information request. The appellant further submitted that the product in issue is not capable of projecting a dart at high velocity, as is a real Yaqua Blowgun that was found, in tests performed in support of the 1978 prohibition, to be capable of blasting a 3-in. dart through 1/4-in. plywood. Conversely, the product in issue is not a sophisticated weapon and the darts that it is designed to receive are nothing more than wooden meat skewers.

The appellant submitted that it would be unjust for the product in issue not to be returned because Mr. Tom Matthews of North Hatley, Quebec, had been allowed to import a similar blowpipe, as evidenced by an affidavit of Mr. Matthews on file in this appeal. 8 The appellant further argued that any number and variety of pipes commonly found in the market could serve as a more efficient blowpipe than the product in issue. Indeed, in the appellant's submission, various copper, plastic and vinyl tubing can fire darts. The appellant referred to several documents filed with the Tribunal that relate to discussions that occurred in preparation of the 1978 ban of Yaqua Blowguns; the appellant argued that the intent of the Regulations had not been to ban souvenir blowpipes of the sort represented by the product in issue. Finally, the appellant argued that the Criminal Code states that a barrelled weapon is not a firearm unless it can fire a projectile at a muzzle velocity of more than 153 metres per second, which is a speed well above what could possibly be attained by the product in issue.

The respondent did not call any witnesses. The respondent argued that the issue in this appeal is whether the product in issue meets the definition of a Yaqua Blowgun, or of a device similar to a Yaqua Blowgun, as found in the Regulations. The respondent submitted that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proving that the respondent was incorrect in the classification decision and that the intention in buying the product in issue is not a relevant factor in this appeal. The respondent submitted that the appellant has admitted certain facts: that the product in issue is a tube or a pipe; and that it is a blowpipe that can fire darts that could possibly cause injury. The respondent argued that the words "any similar device" in section 12 of Part 3 of the Regulations should be given a broad interpretation and that the product in issue meets the definition of that section because it is a tube or a pipe that is designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath. The other pipe or tubing filed by the appellant with the Tribunal does not meet this definition. Indeed, in the respondent's view, Exhibits A-2 and A-3 (a brake cable lining and a chrome-plated lavatory connector respectively) were not designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts, but for other purposes. The respondent further submitted that muzzle velocity was not relevant to this proceeding nor was the case involving Mr. Matthews' blowpipe because that matter cannot be viewed as a precedent. Finally, the respondent submitted that a product similar to the product in issue would be permitted to enter Canada if it was permanently disabled and could no longer function as a blowpipe.

The Tribunal accepts the appellant's position that the intended use of the product in issue was as an ornamental art object rather than as a weapon. Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds that the product in issue is a prohibited weapon because it meets the statutory definition of a device similar to a Yaqua Blowgun in accordance with section 12 of Part 3 of the Regulations. The appellant admitted that the product in issue is a tube or a pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath. As such, it is a device similar to a Yaqua Blowgun. The Tribunal notes that Mr. Harrison testified that he was, himself, able to shoot darts through the product in issue by the breath. However, contrary to the appellant's position, muzzle velocity is not relevant to the product in issue because it is not part of the definition of "Yaqua Blowgun", as prescribed by the Regulations. Furthermore, the appellant's argument that a similar blowpipe could be made with any number of tubular products available in Canada is not pertinent because the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this appeal is solely to examine the classification of the product in issue. The Tribunal agrees with the respondent's position that the product in issue would no longer be designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath if it were permanently disabled.

Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the product in issue is properly classified under tariff item No. 9898.00.00.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
dHb said:
"Commonly known as" - this just kills me. I'll guess that of the .01% of the population that has heard of a Yaqua Blowgun 99% read it in that criminal code section or this thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

C'mon man. All it means is that some of the dumbasses that wrote these laws up were reading comic books between screenings of whatever movie was on.

At one time you pretty much couldn't find a comic book that DIDN'T have an advert in it for Yaqua Blow Guns.

I cannot imagine how many of them must have been mail-ordered into the country.

They must have all been turned in, though. Never hear about them in the news. :D

Cheers
Trev
 
I wonder if any of thee tribunal people have a 2 edged bread knife at home or a skipping rope both prohibated wepons by definition.
 
I know there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in talking about pellet guns on this forum lately but this topic belonds somewhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom