C-68: THE DEFINITION PROBLEMS--WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

In "an Act respecting firearms and other weapons," the least one
should expect is that the drafters get the definitions of
"firearm" and "weapon" correct.  In Bill C-68, they did not. 

Faced with a golden opportunity to correct an inane situation,
the drafters failed to correct this problem: They still define
"firearm" as "a barrelled weapon" and their definition of
"weapon" says it includes "any firearm."  They are unchanged.

The two create an unbreakable loop; one cannot fully know the
definition of "firearm" until one knows the meaning of "weapon"
and vice versa.  That is gross linguistic incompetence.

Further, the current definition of "weapon" is so broad that any
female Member of Parliament who conceals a spare pair of panty
hose in her purse for reasons of personal modesty is guilty of
carrying a concealed weapon, contrary to s. 90, if she is aware
that any other person has ever been strangled with panty hose.

The offence in s. 90 is colored by R v. Coleman (1987), 59
CR (3d) Alta QB at pp 90-91, in which the broad definition
preceding the current definition (which is even broader) was
addressed.  Parliament, by use of the phrase "anything used,"
defined the word "weapon" to include "anything used" by anyone
in the general public to threaten, intimidate, injure or kill any
other person.  That is hopelessly vague and too broad.

The meaning of the word "concealed" was settled by R v.
Felawka (1993), 85 CCC (3d) 248 SCC at pp. 259 and 263:

... it would appear that the requisite intent or mental
element should be that the accused intended to hide from others
an object he knew to be a weapon...

In order to prove concealment it would have to be established
that the accused took steps to hide the weapon so that it would
not be observed or come to the notice of others.

Bill C-68 is riddled with similar evidence of incompetence in
law, ignorance of good English, and incoherence.  C-68 is not
repairable; it is necessary to start over again from scratch.

In the existing firearms sections of the Criminal Code, the
practice of putting closely-related sections far apart often
leads to errors and erroneus decisions.  Very few Crown
attorneys or defence attorneys even find all related sections.

These are classic examples of the incompetence of the officials
who drafted Bill C-68:

In the existing law, the definition of "firearm" is in CC s.
84(1) and the exceptions to that definition are in s. 84(2).

In C-68, the broad definition of "firearm" (which we will call
"firearm A") is moved to s. 2, but the exceptions are moved to s.
84(3), where they have the effect of re-defining certain
"firearms" under the s. 2 "firearm A" definition as non-firearms. 
This narrower definition (which we will call "firearm B") means
that some "firearm A" firearms are not "firearms" under some (but
not all) sections of the Criminal Code, but are under others.

S. 86(3)'s "it-is-not-a-firearm" exceptions only apply to the 14
sections of the Criminal Code dealing with "firearm B" firearms.

In at least 41 other Criminal Code sections, the broad "firearm
A" definition applies.  The narrower "firearm B" definition
[modified by s. 84(3)] applies throughout the Firearms Act. 

Therefore, whenever one reads the word "firearm" in a criminal
charge, one must consider whether the exceptions apply ("firearm
B definition"), or not ("firearm A" definition).

For example, paintball guns fall into the "firearm A" definition,
but not the "firearm B" definition.  Because a paintball gun is
exempted from s. 91 under s. 84(3), a CC s. 91(1) charge of
possessing it without a license or a registration certificate
will fail; it is not a firearm for the purposes of s. 91.

However, a charge under CC s. 87 of pointing a "firearm"
(paintball gun) at another person will succeed.  It is a
"firearm" for the purposes of s. 87,  according to s. 84(3).

The word "weapon" is defined in CC s. 2.  It includes a paintball
gun, because it defines "any firearm" as a "weapon."  S. 84(3)
does not apply for the purposes of s. 2, so a s. 2 "firearm" 
comes under the "firearm A" definition.  Therefore, carrying a
paintball gun in a bag or out of sight in a vehicle is a
criminal offence, carrying a concealed weapon, under CC s. 90.

The technical aspects of firearms mechanisms are among the most
difficult and esoteric mechanical matters ever considered by the
courts.  There are very few firearms experts in Canada, and they
tend to be people who are expert only in one area, such as
sporting rifles and shotguns, or handguns, or military firearms.

The government has often suffered from this want of genuine
expertise, but the FA s. 117.13 solution is not good.  In that
section, it is proposed that when an "analyst" (the word is not
defined within the Criminal Code) supplies "a certificate," that
certificate "is evidence" in proceedings on firearms matters.

In most firearms cases, the "analyst" will turn out to be a
police officer with minimal qualifications to give technical
evidence.  The firearms field has a long history of cases which
have been determined on the basis of inadequate evidence supplied
by an ill-trained officer banking on the authority of the uniform
and the ignorance of the applicant's or defendant's counsel.

THIS IS NOT A CRIME CONTROL ISSUE; THIS IS AN INCOMPETENCE ISSUE.