CS: Legal-Section 5(1)(b)
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] If anything is used as a 'weapon of offence' then its a criminal offence anyway. If thet deliberately filled it with ammonia to use it as a weapon then it was probably an offensive weapon and could (under some circumstances) be considered to be covered by Section 5(1)b though more than the act of fillin it with ammonia would be required as Jonathan points out. Any sensible police officer would charge on both counts and let the CPS, Forensics and the courts argue the technicalities. Regards Jerry Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Legal-Section 5(1)(b)
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >My understanding is that strictly speaking the Act only applies to barrelled >weapons discharging toxins. Not true. Section 5 prohibits "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing; and ...". So it is immaterial whether there's a barrel or not. >Apparently a Jif lemon container full of ammonia >solution was not covered by Section 5. That's by case law (i.e. a judgement of the Courts of Appeal). The detergent container was neither designed for the discharge of a noxious liquid, nor was it adapted. So it fell outside the prohibition. >Come to think of it, is CS in an >aerosol spray covered? Is it designed or adapted for the discharge of a noxious liquid, gas or other thing? --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 -- Was that Jif lemon container employed as a weapon, though? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Legal-Section 5(1)(b)
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Now you see _this_ is what Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 >was intended for. ;) Steve, I take your rhetorical point but the debates on the Firearms Act of 1920 which the '68 Act amends refereed to "deathless gas" being used for robberies. My understanding is that strictly speaking the Act only applies to barrelled weapons discharging toxins. Apparently a Jif lemon container full of ammonia solution was not covered by Section 5. Come to think of it, is CS in an aerosol spray covered? Regards, John Hurst. -- I haven't got my copy of the 68 Act in front of me but I think in Section 57 it defines a firearm as "any lethal barrelled weapon" _or_ any prohibited weapon. Stun guns are banned under Section 5(1)(b) because it says "designed to expel a noxious substance... or any other thing". Electricity apparently being "any other thing". For some reason people are always saying to me: "Oh, I'll just fill a water pistol with ammonia." When the subject of self-defence comes up. If you do that you have "designed or adapted" your water pistol into a "weapon designed to expel a noxious substance" and you have violated Section 5(1)(b). It doesn't have to have a barrel or any characteristics of a firearm to be banned under 5(1)(b), it must merely be designed or adapted to be a weapon designed to expel a noxious substance or any other thing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
