Question: What is defined as 'Ordnance'??

[trekin]

However, a replica of a gun not capable of
causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is not a firearm.

Does that read as the replica being capable of injury, or being a replica of a real firearm that is capable of of injury?

Well now, that would come down to punctuation wouldn't it.
"A replica of a gun capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is a firearm." has a totally different meaning, especially in legalese, to "A replica of a gun, capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is a firearm."

[Daddybang]

OK so I was interested in the meaning so I looked at a dictionary ( for the youngsters among us that's a magical instrument of knowledge in book format! ) and Ordnance (not to be confused with Ordinance) is any military equipment including but not limited to weapons ammo vehicles etc.
So it seems( ) to be a purely military term. How this works for the original question I have no f@#kin idea but hopefully it is some sort of answer.
(Please excuse me but the pills they gave me for my busted hand are Good!!!!)

[bladeracer]

Does that read as the replica being capable of injury, or being a replica of a real firearm that is capable of of injury?

Well now, that would come down to punctuation wouldn't it.
"A replica of a gun capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is a firearm." has a totally different meaning, especially in legalese, to "A replica of a gun, capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is a firearm."

Yep, lack of punctuation is why I asked. I think it means that anything that resembles a real firearm, and fires something that can injure.

[Rod_outbak]

Daddybang,

Many thanks for that; it does help unravel the mystery somewhat.

Now I just need to find out the legalities of owning military equipment, and how it becomes 'ex-mil'
[Obviously there is a process for ordnance to be sold off to the public, but I'm yet to understand the parameters for it]

The two items I've seen in the recent past which started this query, were a couple of (fired) cannon shell cases like JSS's umbrella stand, and a optical rangefind/periscope, which I was told was off a field artillery piece.
It made me wonder how legal such things are to own these days...

Cheers, and thanks to all who have shared their thoughts/knowledge.

Rod.

[bladeracer]

Daddybang,

Many thanks for that; it does help unravel the mystery somewhat.

Now I just need to find out the legalities of owning military equipment, and how it becomes 'ex-mil'
[Obviously there is a process for ordnance to be sold off to the public, but I'm yet to understand the parameters for it]

The two items I've seen in the recent past which started this query, were a couple of (fired) cannon shell cases like JSS's umbrella stand, and a optical rangefind/periscope, which I was told was off a field artillery piece.
It made me wonder how legal such things are to own these days...

Cheers, and thanks to all who have shared their thoughts/knowledge.

Rod.

I think empty brass is fine, my difficulty was importing the inert shell.

[trekin]

Does that read as the replica being capable of injury, or being a replica of a real firearm that is capable of of injury?

Well now, that would come down to punctuation wouldn't it.
"A replica of a gun capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is a firearm." has a totally different meaning, especially in legalese, to "A replica of a gun, capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is a firearm."

Yep, lack of punctuation is why I asked. I think it means that anything that resembles a real firearm, and fires something that can injure.

That can cause death or injury. Yes, that can only be read one way and the Act would have been thoughly proofread by the Gov't legal department and even though this is written as an example, Section 8A makes it part of the Act;

"8A Notes in text
A note in the text of this Act is part of the Act."

Now applying the same punctuation rule the second sentence, "However, a replica of a gun not capable of causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is not a firearm." you can see why gel blasters are still legal up here. It is also why I don't understand how airsoft is not legal up here, apart from the lack of understanding of the Act by those supposedly wanting to get it legalised.