Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Is this a firearm?

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby gid » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:08 pm

At over a grand, it is a very expensive toy. If unrestricted sales continue, it will undoubtedly be used to spear a child and then be subject to licensing.
gid
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:55 am

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby dls » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:42 pm

It is already of a kind which is simply banned. Sorry, but what place would a license have?
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12529
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby shootist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:58 pm

dls wrote:It is already of a kind which is simply banned. Sorry, but what place would a license have?


I'm fairly sure that, at present, there is no ban in place. My suggestions are just that, although hopefully I will be proved right.

Firearms 'bans' are not that simple. Pistols are 'banned' as prohibited weapons. Quite a few deer stalkers carry pistols for humane dispatch of deer, legitimately on their firearms certificate.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:19 pm

dls wrote:The argument, if any, wouldbe that the two items in the list establish (perhaps) some kind of substance, and there is a rule of interpretation (I forget the Latin name) which a catch-all at the end of such a list should include that quality.


I'll accept that as a guideline, but I'll need persuading that it is an actual rule, especially as a rule for interpretation of statute.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:54 pm

In the hope of persuading the OP of the existence of the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation:

http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/glossary/E/ejusdem-generis/

The ejusdem generis rule – from the Latin, meaning 'of the same kind'. This rule can be applied where general words following specific words set out in a list are found. The question arises as to whether the specific words set out in the list affect in any way the correct interpretation to be placed upon the general words – do they limit the general words in some way? The rule provides that the general words are limited in meaning to the same kinds of things as mentioned in the specific words appearing in the list. For example if a statute applied to tigers, lions, leopards and other animals it could be assumed that a panther would be included as another animal but not a cow. The list must contain at least two specific words before the general word or phrase, for this rule to operate.

The rule can be best illustrated by looking at some examples. In Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) The Betting Act 1853 made it an offence to keep a house, office, room or other place for the purposes of betting. The defendant had been using what was known as 'Tattersall's ring' for the purposes of betting. Tattersall's ring was an outside area and the House of Lords had to decide if the statute applied to an outside area. The court found that the general words 'other place' should be interpreted as inside or an indoor place because the other words in the list were all references to places inside and, as he had been operating outdoors, the defendant was found not guilty.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20679
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby shootist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:31 pm

atticus wrote:In the hope of persuading the OP of the existence of the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation:

http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/glossary/E/ejusdem-generis/

The ejusdem generis rule – from the Latin, meaning 'of the same kind'. This rule can be applied where general words following specific words set out in a list are found. The question arises as to whether the specific words set out in the list affect in any way the correct interpretation to be placed upon the general words – do they limit the general words in some way? The rule provides that the general words are limited in meaning to the same kinds of things as mentioned in the specific words appearing in the list. For example if a statute applied to tigers, lions, leopards and other animals it could be assumed that a panther would be included as another animal but not a cow. The list must contain at least two specific words before the general word or phrase, for this rule to operate.

The rule can be best illustrated by looking at some examples. In Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) The Betting Act 1853 made it an offence to keep a house, office, room or other place for the purposes of betting. The defendant had been using what was known as 'Tattersall's ring' for the purposes of betting. Tattersall's ring was an outside area and the House of Lords had to decide if the statute applied to an outside area. The court found that the general words 'other place' should be interpreted as inside or an indoor place because the other words in the list were all references to places inside and, as he had been operating outdoors, the defendant was found not guilty.


Your hope is realised. Hardly surprising when I've never heard of it, but most illuminating. Thank you. I may want to reproduce that elsewhere if I may. (Unattributed unless you wish otherwise)
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:55 pm

oops, not the OP, but the APe!

Please do not misattribute other people's work to me - it is not fair to them.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20679
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby shootist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:43 pm

atticus wrote:Please do not misattribute other people's work to me - it is not fair to them.


My mistake, I realise. I didn't want to appear to take credit for you digging up someone else's words.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:31 pm

atticus wrote:In the hope of persuading the OP of the existence of the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation...

I did not question its existence, only the extent to which it is a rule rather than a guideline. I am not entirely persuaded in their first example, it was a poor choice and may depend on context. I don't particularly want to argue the point any further though.

Turning then to the list in question, how do you suggest the rule applies to the list in question?
"Any noxious liquid, gas or other thing."
It's ambiguous in the first place does it mean any (noxious liquid), gas or other thing; or does it mean any noxious (liquid, gas or other thing)? (I trust the notation is suitably clear).
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Is this a firearm?

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:50 pm

I thank the previous poster for clarifying
Hairyloon wrote:I'll need persuading that it is an actual rule, especially as a rule for interpretation of statute.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20679
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron