Dummy launcher legality

[Chuck]

Here you Sim, is this it:

http://a4.img.bidorbuy.co.za/image/uplo ... ud_Gun.jpg

[Sim G]

Thanks Charlie! I was looking at the same time as you and found this.....

They did have triangular "spud cutters"!

Any one still got one? Where can I get one?

[froggy]

dummy launchers for dog training ?
sounds awfully painful when "man's best friend" eventually hits the grounds ?

[CDM5]

Thanks Charlie! I was looking at the same time as you and found this.....

They did have triangular "spud cutters"!

Any one still got one? Where can I get one?

I dug one from a field one time. Couldn't work out what is was as it had a cylinder roughly 6mm in size.
Still not clear on what they are.

[breacher]

Lethal HAS been defined to a certain extent by the court already.

When considering if an item is a lethal barreled weapon the court established a test “that a weapon is lethal if it is capable of causing injury from which death might result, regardless of the maker’s intention." Thus the question of whether an item is a lethal barreled weapon is a question of fact. 

So, the court sets the level of injury fairly high.

If it were me and I was defending the possession of this item, I would simply point out that these have been around for years, have presumably been discharged thousands if not millions of times and not one single death has been recorded. Therefore they are UNLIKELY to cause death.

Further, I would point out that it is not a weapon. Just like a tennis ball launcher used for tennis practice is not a weapon. Just like a line throwing gun is not a weapon. None are designed to be a weapon.

[Sim G]

Lethal HAS been defined to a certain extent by the court already.

Each case on its own circumstances...

[breacher]

Lethal HAS been defined to a certain extent by the court already.

Each case on its own circumstances...

Each case relies on precedent and case law.

[Sim G]

Each case relies on precedent and case law.

First paragraph of CPS guidance

"Lethality is a complex issue and although case law exists (Moore v Gooderham [1960] 3 All E.R. 575), only a court can decide whether any particular weapon is capable of causing "more than trifling and trivial" injury and is therefore is a "firearm" for the purposes of the Acts. The Forensic Science Provider (FSP) will be able to advise in any case where "lethality" is likely to be an issue. See also: R v Thorpe 85 Cr. App. R 107 CA."

The court hearing the case will decide on lethality in the circumstances of that case.

[Sim G]

And from the recent Law Commision scoping document on firearms law;

"2.2 This absence of a definition of lethal goes back further than the Firearms Act 1968 - the first legislative provision to use it in the definition of “firearm” was the Firearms Act 1920.1 The definition of firearm has remained largely unchanged since then, passing through the Firearms Act 19372 into the consolidating 1968 Act. None of these provisions specified what lethal means in this context or how lethality is to be determined.

2.3 In the absence of legislative guidance on the matter, it has been left to the courts to fill this lacuna. As this chapter will establish, the courts have demonstrated a marked reluctance to define lethal with any specificity."

[breacher]

Each case relies on precedent and case law.

First paragraph of CPS guidance

"Lethality is a complex issue and although case law exists (Moore v Gooderham [1960] 3 All E.R. 575), only a court can decide whether any particular weapon is capable of causing "more than trifling and trivial" injury and is therefore is a "firearm" for the purposes of the Acts. The Forensic Science Provider (FSP) will be able to advise in any case where "lethality" is likely to be an issue. See also: R v Thorpe 85 Cr. App. R 107 CA."

The court hearing the case will decide on lethality in the circumstances of that case.

Yes but you are forgetting one thing...........................

Before it even gets to court, the CPS will refer to precedent and case law in SIMILAR cases. They will want a healthy prospect of a win before putting it before a court.

I can assure you they would not put a tennis ball training machine or a line throwing device or a dummy bird launcher before a court asking the judge to decide if its a weapon and the jury to decide if its "lethal".



The "give it a run" days are long gone !!

Edit - if we go by your understanding of the matter - a non section 1 air rifle of under 12ft lbs would still be a potential firearm. It can only be decided that its not a firearm when the owner is charged and a jury decides it is not lethal.

And further ( by your logic ) if that is a stated case - another air rifle owner can be charged the next day as case law and precendent dont seem to apply to lethality ?

The same goes for a spud gun. No jury has ever decided that spud guns are not lethal. Does that mean that until one IS brought to a couyrt, spud gun owners should worry that they are in possession of a weapon that may one day land them in court so the matter can be decided ?