Quantumeazer Space gun! 18+
- Thread starter gareth.e
- Start date
If we are accepting (or more accurately ignoring) the government's stance on hand guns, you can't hold the government accountable for anything in this case. The shop is at fault for being overly cautious in regards to legislation.
No it isn't, it's defined as an imitation firearm by the act, just because it's stupid doesn't make it any less of an offence.
Ah the joys of the VCRA bill and how it affects gun nuts.
I've had to learn a lot about the firearms part of the bill to protect myself, but it had slipped the mind to think that even such toys are considered in the fray. I remember the old days of buying cap guns by the dozen and have shoot outs with my friends.
I've had to learn a lot about the firearms part of the bill to protect myself, but it had slipped the mind to think that even such toys are considered in the fray. I remember the old days of buying cap guns by the dozen and have shoot outs with my friends.
I've quoted the appropriate legislation. It's specifically worded so that this kind of thing isn't to be sold to under 18's.
Last edited:
/Fail for not looking your age
what?
if he was 30 then fair enough, but this is 1 year, potentially 1 day over 18.
This is what happen when mentally disabled people are allowed in parliment, the mp's are fools who introduce new laws based on their own opinions without things like facts to back them up, so many of them are living in the fantasy world. I can't even imagine what the mp's thought this would achieve, they do know imitation firearms can't kill people don't they?
Hmm, I wouldn't have thought that the courts would count those as imitation firearms myself, but perhaps I am mistaken. If anything, it isn't specifically worded, its very vague. What is an imitation firearm? What are the requirements for it to be an imitation? If it was clear it would say 'any object which resembles a firearm or fictional firearm'.
Has anything along these lines actually gone to court yet so the statute has been interpreted? A quick search using LexisNexis doesn't bring any obvious results.
The government's rationale seemed to be along the lines of
The act has only been in force for 14 months, and with it being unlikely that something involving a children's space-gun will actually progress to court, the issue of whether the Quantumqueazer counts as an imitation firearm or not probably won't be resolved that soon!
Even when it did reach court, how the interpretation lies could differ between judges. If they used a more 'literal' approach then obviously, yes, it would be an offense. If they used 'mischief' or 'golden rule' interpretations that avoid precise language, then its much more open to debate.
How so? They have purposely left the statute requirements open so that judges can add to the law as they see fit. It seems pretty reasonable to me in terms of legislation, although it does create a current no-mans land for retailers, who would clearly rather be safe than sorry ...
I am training to be a lawyer yes, although I am far from vastly knowledgable in the subject. I am writing an essay on statuatory interpretation at the moment. Of course, if anyone wishes to correct me then I would happily change my possition.
Because imitation firearms can't hurt anyone so they should not be illegal, if I went into a bank saying I had a gun in my bag the teller would have to take the threat seriously and armed police sent, therefore banning imitation firearms does nothing.
And notice the keyword, "thought", aka we have no evidence and just have a hunch.
EDIT - In fact by banning imitation firearms you increase the number of real firearms being used in robberies, which jeopardises public safety.
Last edited:
I see. I don't particuarly have any opinion regarding the policy behind the legislation, I was more speaking of how the legislation has been written and questioning what it actually meant.
You are so very wrong. They are infact most likely to be the cause of harm to the person wielding said imitation gun.