Rod_outbak wrote:All,
Idly thinking about things today, and the issue of us common folk not being allowed to own 'Ordnance'.
I have always assumed that the law is prohibiting things like cannons, rocket/missile launchers, and their consumables.
However, I wondered if the accessories for such equipment, also fell under this same banner?
For instance:-
What about say, the optics/rangefinder off a field artillery piece?
What about say, the firing pin from a heavy cannon?
What about an inert shell from a 20mm cannon?
What about the projectile from a 40mm bofors (assuming it is inert)?
What about a cannon ball?
I know that none of the above would be deemed 'restricted' if they were for a rifle below .50 Cal, but I've never looked at how the firearms laws view the accessories for Ordnance.
Anyone know?
I've not really looked into the limits for owning ex-mil accessories, but I've seen plenty of it over the years.
MANY years back, one of my uncles living room had 3 WW1 large brass cannon shells that had been engraved. Beautiful works of art (not sure if it was trench art or post-war), but I now wonder if that sort of thing is allowed these days?
Cheers,
Rod.
Noisydad wrote:You can own and live fire canon. They’re registered as a single shot shotty. Seymour Black Powder Club has a (live firing) target event for canon.
Rod_outbak wrote:bladeracer,
If the rangefinder is free of radium, do you think it'd likely be allowable? It sounds a stupid question, but I keep thinking about the stupidity we are seeing in WA firearms legislation, and I start to wonder if the federal people wouldnt get just as squirrelly if they think the common folk might possess anything to do with ordnance.
Noisydad,
Is the type of cannon you can own, all types, or is it restricted to smooth-bore, or blackpowder, or what?
Could you front up with a 25 pounder from WW2, and be allowed to fire it??
[I wouldnt have thought so.]
This is where I get confused; what is the delineation between something that is obviously historical (say; a civil-war era wheeled cannon), and modern military ordnance?
Thanks to you both for replying.
Cheers,
Rod.
Noisydad wrote:Canon are black powder and 2” bore max. Don’t think anyone could afford to feed anything bigger than anyway.
Noisydad wrote:You can own and live fire canon. They’re registered as a single shot shotty. Seymour Black Powder Club has a (live firing) target event for canon.
Rod_outbak wrote:- Another thought would be to fire a net using a compressed air charge, but as far as I can interpret the Weapons act, we are still firing a projectile, and therefore still need a licence, and they will STILL have kittens about a remotely operated weapon.
Rod_outbak wrote:- Another random thought would be a freaking biiiig spear on the front of the drone, and get drone to suicide into the dog, but that seems a tad expensive, and probably one where they immediately create NEW regulations banning this sort of action..Also; nigh impossible to nail the dog first go, unless you coat the spear in a poison, which will also get the authorities a bit fretty...
Daddybang wrote:In qld an object must be able to fire a "lethal" projectile (I think that's determined by velocity ) to be considered a firearm hence we can have gel blasters.
trekin wrote:A replica of a gun capable of causing death or injury by discharging a
projectile is a firearm. However, a replica of a gun not capable of
causing death or injury by discharging a projectile is not a firearm.
bladeracer wrote:trekin wrote: 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?
trekin wrote:bladeracer wrote: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."
Rod_outbak wrote: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 wrote:trekin wrote:bladeracer wrote: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.