I've looked in on this thread a few times, don't know much about ASP's colour zones etc. but I can tell you for sure that the remarks about using the baton without lawful authority are dead on. That means following the use of force continuim for police and law enforcement related agencies, or face the consequences. As for a civilian in self defence, the use of force to defend
property is frowned upon by the justice system and almost always results in civil liability, no matter the justification or jurisdiction.
As far as using the baton to defend your "
person", or to defend another, there must be an air of reality to that defence. In other words, you must run away if you can, and if unable to do so you must use only enough force to protect yourself from continuing harm, but go no further than that.
The definition of a weapon is a subjective test, there must be an demonstrated intention to use the object as a "weapon" for the purposes of the Criminal Code. What makes the baton different than a firearm is the fact a firearm is always a weapon for the purposes of the criminal code, whether there is an intention to use it or not.
Unless the ASP baton is on the list of prohibited or restricted weapons or devices, mere possession of the ASP does not constitute a contravening act. What makes this weapon interesting is that it is a purpose built weapon, coupled with it's spring loaded, gravity or centrifugal characteristics. The weapon could easily be argued to fit in the category of prohibited weapon by anology to knives of the "switch blade" variety. A successful argument on that front could well lead to the curtailment of non-authorized possession of the weapon.
Even more important is the fact that carrying the ASP un-concealled in public without lawful excuse is a summary conviction offence, just like any other "weapon." And, the restriction is not confined to carriage on the person .. if it is in your car, that is enough to satsfy the offence. Again, given the purpose of this device, it would be hard to argue lack of subjective intent. The code makes reference to "public meetings or on the way to attend public meetings" for this offence, however that has been broadened by the courts to mean virtually anywhere but private real property [a "dwelling"] or immediately on the way to private property.
It seems to me the issue will turn on "lawful excuse", which means "authorized by law" which, at a minimum, suggests peace officer or military status directed by Order in Council or by appointment[*edit: appointment or business licence].
Hope this does not muddle things.
Cheers.
