Please advise

needle_too

Dear all,

I wish to draw attention to this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055084459 in the Airsoft/paintball forum.

I submit that the moderator, o1s1n, has been unreasonable and biased in his decision to close an informative and engaging thread on the subject of the legality of these toys in Ireland.

He acknowledges that the toys may actually be illegal and agrees to put the thread as a sticky.

Next he works a beautiful volte face and changes his mind, lays down the law. They are not illegal.....and thats it.
Perhaps he is willing to indemnify anyone who follows his advice? Or is it Boards.ie who will do this?

I take a bit more flack about the position I hold - that the law is unclear and problems might arise - and o1s1n implies that he knows people who are trying to actually start a business in the area.

Finally he states outright that he will ban me if I persist.
"If you persist with such comments I'll ban you"

It is my belief that o1s1n's attitude is objectionable and his position as a moderator on the forum untenable.
I have no problem with people using the board as a commercial soap box - but that they should have moderator powers to stifle any contrary opinions is unjust and unfair.

As a resolution I request that the thread be re-opened.
Further I request that o1s1n be censured and be required to explain his actions and/or declare any business interests/associations he may (or may not) have in the matter for other thread participants.

respectfully

needle_too

DeVore

I didnt see anywhere in that thread where he said they may actually be illegal.

I understand Oisin has some connection to the Airsoft commerical world, I think it was one of the reason we chose him as Mod. Oisin can you elaborate on this?

I think he did a pretty good job of moderating there and you did a poor job of letting it go when you had made your point (and been told by a Garda that you were wrong).

If you think your laws are "maleable" try playing poker in this country. I think you are being a touch hysterical about a possible (and rather extreme mis-) interpretation of the law. However it seems you got banned because no one could get you to see that.

Can you explain a little about why you came here to highlight this point? It seems a touch odd for the first 7 posts of an account to have such a direct and heartfelt "issue".

DeV.

needle_too

DeVore wrote:

I understand Oisin has some connection to the Airsoft commerical world, I think it was one of the reason we chose him as Mod. Oisin can you elaborate on this?

Indeed.

DeVore wrote:

I think he did a pretty good job of moderating there and you did a poor job of letting it go when you had made your point (and been told by a Garda that you were wrong).

What do you mean 'being told by a Garda'?
How do I or anyone else know this guy is a Garda - do you know him personally or something? Are you vouching for him?
Some random person claims to be a Garda, makes an assertion that they provide no evidence for and you expect me, in the face of legal advice recieved, to just accept that?
Besides so what if he is a Garda - doesnt make him a legal expert -
and if I based every business decision on what people said on bulletin boards I'd be broke a long time ago.

DeVore wrote:

If you think your laws are "maleable" try playing poker in this country. I think you are being a touch hysterical about a possible (and rather extreme mis-) interpretation of the law. However it seems you got banned because no one could get you to see that.

Firstly I havent actually been banned.
Secondly you understand the position I'm taking - the law is malleable.
The position is extreme but yet again I have acknowledged that - it is the failure of others to realise that this may be the case - and making unsupportable assertions upon which others may make purchases which could get them into trouble with the law or at the very least get their equipment seized.

In extremis, consider this -

(Now just for the hard of thinking this is an anecdote - a made-up story used to illustrate a point. Its not real, ok?)

I use boards.ie and represent myself as a Garda claiming that Heroin has now been made legal in Donegal.
Someone else pops up and says 'wait a minute, before you go buying this stuff, I took legal advice and its not so clearcut'.

A moderator agrees that Heroin is legal on the basis that he knows someone who wants to be a Heroin dealer.

The thread is closed.

DeVore wrote:

Can you explain a little about why you came here to highlight this point? It seems a touch odd for the first 7 posts of an account to have such a direct and heartfelt "issue".

DeV.

Yeah - its right there in the very first line of the very first post.
See where it says 'I have taken legal advice on retailing Airsoft in Ireland'.
Thats the giveaway, right there.

The issue arose when I investigated holding a number of AEGs as stock. I was advised that under current legislation they could be seized and thus decided to let others know as I had previously thought the same.
Save em the bother of spending a few hundred Euro and possibly losing it.

Secondly, since youre now arse covering for you moderator, if you can find any documentation that says that this is legal then please produce it. Produce a link to it. Anything really.

Finally as a representative of Boards.ie am I right in thinking that if any airsoft guns are seized while being imported or held by myself or others it is the position of Boards.ie, (as you and your representatives are giving legal advice and refuting the urge to be cautious), that you will indemnify any losses incurred? You are certainly not urging caution on a contentious legal point

o1s1n offers this opinion "Your stock isnt going to be seized. If its under 1 joule, it would be perfectly legal to possess and sell."

I take o1s1ns and your own positions to be offering a legal opinion on behalf of Boards.ie as you are using the offices and powers afforded to you by Boards.ie to press a legal interpretation and stamp out debate to the contrary.

Other members have clearly and sensibly pointed out that 'it is very very hard to find where it says they are legal'

Can I intrepret a refusal to reopen the thread as Boards.ie offering legal advice on the matter? I assume you have indemnity insurance.

State your position clearly please.

tbh

needle_too wrote:

Can I intrepret a refusal to reopen the thread as Boards.ie offering legal advice on the matter? I assume you have indemnity insurance.

I think if you take anything you read on boards as legal advice then you deserve everything that's coming to you. Are we to assume you are actually proposing using the fact that "boards said it was legal" as a defence? I can hear the legal system laughing at you from here.

muffler

I can hear the sound of a door being slammed

needle_too

tbh wrote:

I think if you take anything you read on boards as legal advice then you deserve everything that's coming to you. Are we to assume you are actually proposing using the fact that "boards said it was legal" as a defence? I can hear the legal system laughing at you from here.

You have a short memory.

What "boards said" appears to be very good grounds for a defence.

"MCD are suing Boards.ie"
http://www.blather.net/globaleyes/archives/2006/08/mcd_are_suing_boardsie.html

"Now we have been threatened with legal action from Chris Evans at Switch Media "
http://www.johnbreslin.com/blog/2006/07/12/more-legal-threats-this-time-from-switch-media/

One of your moderators has offered his opinion that my "stock wont be seized". Dont get me wrong I think its great that there are so many 'legal experts' on here and ones that are so sure of themselves too.
Now it appears that your senior moderators are backing up that position.

I'm just asking for clarification about your ability to back up these statements. Do they represent the views of Boards.ie, or not?
Your officers (moderators), their attitudes and actions seem to suggest they do.

My mother used to say, "When youre in a hole, you should stop digging."

tbh

needle_too wrote:

You have a short memory.

What "boards said" appears to be very good grounds for a defence.

"MCD are suing Boards.ie"
http://www.blather.net/globaleyes/archives/2006/08/mcd_are_suing_boardsie.html

"Now we have been threatened with legal action from Chris Evans at Switch Media "
http://www.johnbreslin.com/blog/2006/07/12/more-legal-threats-this-time-from-switch-media/

One of your moderators has offered his opinion that my "stock wont be seized". Dont get me wrong I think its great that there are so many 'legal experts' on here and ones that are so sure of themselves too.
Now it appears that your senior moderators are backing up that position.

I'm just asking for clarification about your ability to back up these statements. Do they represent the views of Boards.ie, or not?
Your officers (moderators), their attitudes and actions seem to suggest they do.

My mother used to say, "When youre in a hole, you should stop digging."

I appreciate you gifting me the site, I'm just a mod here - don't take what I say as being representative of what the admins say. Actually, do you see how that statement works? anyway, to address you point, "that company" are in dispute with boards because of statements that may be construed as being libellous to them being posted on the website. As far as I understand the situation, boards may be responsible for the content of the site, or it may not be, but is wisely taking no chances until the situation is resolved.

What you are pointing out is completely different IMO. Somebody on boards is expressing an opinion about something which may or may not be legal. If you want to take their opinion as fact, thats completely up to you, but how could boards be responsible for you acting on that advice?
I could tell you cannabis is legal, but try using that as a defense if you get caught, they'd laugh you out of court. Would it be fair to say that this is now a bigger feud between you and the mod in question?

needle_too

tbh wrote:

I could tell you cannabis is legal, but try using that as a defense if you get caught, they'd laugh you out of court.

But this is exactly my point.

In fact its very similar to an analogy I used earlier. (above, I think)

Its a debate which your mod has unreasonably stifled whatever reason.

There are others who have expressed reservations and understand what I am trying to do - to urge caution.

Why is my point unreasonable but your moderators view perfectly reasonable?

There is a whole load of hyperbole typed by people stamping their feet and demanding the world share their intrepretation. And if you dont, as I have been told, I will be banned.

I have tried to be circumspect in my approach and I submit that my position on the matter is reasonable, cautious, and considered.

tbh

needle_too wrote:

But this is exactly my point.

In fact its very similar to an analogy I used earlier. (above, I think)

Its a debate which your mod has unreasonably stifled whatever reason.

There are others who have expressed reservations and understand what I am trying to do - to urge caution.

Why is my point unreasonable but your moderators view perfectly reasonable?

There is a whole load of hyperbole typed by people stamping their feet and demanding the world share their intrepretation. And if you dont, as I have been told, I will be banned.

I have tried to be circumspect in my approach and I submit that my position on the matter is reasonable, cautious, and considered.

please stop calling him "My mod" - I don't have anything to do with the site. I repeat: I'm not talking on behalf of the admins.

It seems to me like the O1S1N threatened you with a banning because you wouldn't let the issue drop- IMO (strictly IMO) he's perfectly entitled to do that - just as you are perfectly entitled to start up a website and run it however you see fit.

CrazyRabbit

needle_too wrote:

Indeed.

What do you mean 'being told by a Garda'?
How do I or anyone else know this guy is a Garda - do you know him personally or something? Are you vouching for him?
Some random person claims to be a Garda, makes an assertion that they provide no evidence for and you expect me, in the face of legal advice recieved, to just accept that?
Besides so what if he is a Garda - doesnt make him a legal expert -
and if I based every business decision on what people said on bulletin boards I'd be broke a long time ago.

I can vouch for the "random person (who) claims to be a Gardai". He is. If you attend an airsoft skirmish with us, he'll be more than happy to show you his badge.

Although he is not a legal expert as such, he's the one that would be doing the arresting. If he, and his fellow Gardai are not going to arrest you for having a <1 joule Airsoft gun, then you don't need to be worry about any court case.

Several airsofters were mistakenly arrested shortly after airsoft was legalised and subsequently released without charge or prosecution. This was due to the Gardai not being informed of the change in the law.
I myself was arrested by two Gardai who seen my Airsoft AK 47 and thought it was illegal. A short while later at the station, the guards confirmed that they were legal and I was released. The Guards drove me home with apologies being offered along the way. There are other occasions like this, and that is why everyone else is so sure that we don't need to worry about the ambiguous wording of the law.

Your thread did raise an interesting point that the wording of the law, could, possibly be ambiguous. But in reality there is nothing to worry about. The meaning of the law is quite clear to anyone with an iota of common sense and no judge is going to convict an innocent joe boggs just for owning a (<1 joule) airsoft gun.

Alot of your posts were just scaremongering and do not help promote Airsoft as the safe & legal sport that it is. Your posts could confuse new players or scare them off completely.

You made your point about the wording of the law, and it should have been left at that. While I have had many disagreements with O1s1n over his moderating decisions, I support his decision in this case.

EDIT: Oh, and he never said he was going to sticky your thread/post. He was asked by another poster to sticky http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039E882/vWeb/flJUSQ6UWJ7P-en/$File/CriminalJusticeAct06.pdf and he said he would. Re-read the thread to confirm.

DeVore

You've made your point.
The moderator doesnt agree. Neither do I but thats not important.

The poster is well known to be a garda though that doesnt make him a lawyer. It does put him right at the front line of the practise rather then the theory.

Lawyers in my experience will ALWAYS tell you that XYZ is "possible" under the law if there is any way whatsoever to imagine that it might be. Its good for business.

Finally, you have made your point and had it aired. It has been disagreed with. It hasnt been *erased*, just disagreed with.


I'm not sure what you want from me here, a poem? I'll sleep happily enough in my bed tonight on the basis of that thread. If I got concerned about that, I'd get explosive blood-pressure rises from a number of our other forums. PI, AH etc.

So, this has been a very enlightening discussion. I'm content with how the mod handled that situation and no one has been banned, no content erased and no one is dead.

I am still confused as to *why* you are so deathly concerned about a possible radical (and presumeably "wilful", on the part of the judiciary) mis application of the law as it reads in natural english.

DeV.

o1s1n

needle_too wrote:

Dear all,

I wish to draw attention to this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055084459 in the Airsoft/paintball forum.

I submit that the moderator, o1s1n, has been unreasonable and biased in his decision to close an informative and engaging thread on the subject of the legality of these toys in Ireland.

Biased? I'm not biased. I'm right. "These toys" are 100% legal. Your sources are incorrect. Posting up information that says otherwise is a lie and does nothing but add to the confusion in this new sport.

needle_too wrote:

He acknowledges that the toys may actually be illegal and agrees to put the thread as a sticky.

If you're going to quote me, at least get it right. That link I put in the sticky was to the department of justice bill covering the section on sub 1 joule air powered guns. Another poster asked me to put a link up as he was having difficulty locating it. If it does anything, it reaffirms the legality. Not the illegality.

needle_too wrote:

Next he works a beautiful volte face and changes his mind, lays down the law. They are not illegal.....and thats it.
Perhaps he is willing to indemnify anyone who follows his advice? Or is it Boards.ie who will do this?

They ARE legal and that IS it. My "advice?". Do you know why this airsoft forum was created? Because airsoft has become legal in Ireland. Do you know why there is now a skirmish site open in Dublin? Because airsoft has become legal in Ireland. Do you know why a couple of us have had misunderstandings with the Gardai and not only been let go without any trouble but APOLOGIZED to? BECAUSE AIRSOFT HAS BECOME LEGAL IN IRELAND. I really don't know how many times I can say this.

needle_too wrote:

I take a bit more flack about the position I hold - that the law is unclear and problems might arise - and o1s1n implies that he knows people who are trying to actually start a business in the area.

The law is not unclear. It states that a firearm is something with a muzzle velocity over 1 joule. You're just reading into it too much.

needle_too wrote:

Finally he states outright that he will ban me if I persist.
"If you persist with such comments I'll ban you"

And I will stand by that. You can not come into the airsoft forum and persist at making comments which do nothing but cause confusion and cast doubts over our sport which is 100% legal.

needle_too wrote:

It is my belief that o1s1n's attitude is objectionable and his position as a moderator on the forum untenable.
I have no problem with people using the board as a commercial soap box - but that they should have moderator powers to stifle any contrary opinions is unjust and unfair.

There are contrary opinions and there are downright WRONG opinions which can cause damage. Opinions of these sort need to be moderated.

needle_too wrote:

As a resolution I request that the thread be re-opened.
Further I request that o1s1n be censured and be required to explain his actions and/or declare any business interests/associations he may (or may not) have in the matter for other thread participants.

Business interests/associations? Excuse me? What are you insinuating? Or is this just another one of your conspiracy theories :rolleyes:

o1s1n

DeVore wrote:

I understand Oisin has some connection to the Airsoft commerical world, I think it was one of the reason we chose him as Mod. Oisin can you elaborate on this?


DeV.

The forum was just created as airsoft became legal. (The people in the shooting forum were sick of seeing airsoft/paintball threads) Therefore the community was rather small to non existent and no one really had any information. Including myself. A few of us got really stuck in and read up as much as possible. Tried to figure out the best places to buy from/the best started AEGs to get etc. Took the plunge and started importing.

The moderator at the time was only a stand in until he found a replacement who actually played the sport. That's when it was passed on to me.

As far as connections in the commercial world, that was not the reason I was originally appointed. However, since then it's all taken off in a huge way and a community has sprung up. We meet regularly at games and frequent this board a lot. Everyone knows everyone. There are a couple of posters who are currently developing businesses. Including sites and retail. I have been very careful about watching promotion. Recently for example, someone wanted the HRTA thread stickied and I refused because of this.

Boston

Have to say, from my experience, o1s1n seems like a decent chap and a decent moderator (you do Judo right, otherwise I'm mixing you up with someone else).

needle_too

Ok, this is my final say on the matter.

The law states that a firearm is a weapon which fires a projectile greater than one joule or "any other
weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile
can be discharged with such a muzzle energy"

Airsoft guns have barrels which can fire a projectile with a force greater than one joule. Its not open to debate or interpretation.
There is no specific exclusion codified for airsoft guns.

Any other interpretation is fantasy or wishful thinking.

I have provided links to govt sites and recounted the advice I was given.

I am still confused as to *why* you are so deathly concerned about a possible radical (and presumeably "wilful", on the part of the judiciary) mis application of the law as it reads in natural english.

I am not really concerned but am annoyed that the mods are allowed to stifle debate. They are using their position to promote a position which (again in extremis) may result in people knowingly or unknowingly breaking the law.
Ignorance is not a defence, yet ignorance is what you are promoting.

The fact remains that not one single person who disagrees with me has produced one single scrap of evidence or referenced one single law or provided any legal or court papers to prove otherwise.

The only things they can recount are stories of getting arrested and I believe others have had guns stopped at customs.

My irritation is that your thread and mods are not just denying these points but refusing to even allow discussion on them.

As you are standing so resolutely by this position you wont mind, in the event of a serious incident occuring, that the relevant Boards.ie threads and details are referenced in the press.

There is something very wrong with people who cannot understand the phrase "any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile
can be discharged with such a muzzle energy"

As Boards.ie accept responsibility for the content on their site and have decided that their intrepretation (or the interpretation of their agents or representatives) is correct - specifically excluding all others - I now consider the matter over.

EDIT - Im sure o1s1n is a decent chap - its just that I believe he's wrong.

CrazyRabbit

I spoke with a solicitor last night about this. (Terrence Lyons solicitors)

He explained that no matter what wording is used, there is always the possibility of double meanings, or the possibility of the meaning being misunderstood. Such is the nature of the english language. He says that we have judges in our courts so that the meaning of these laws can be interpreted, and where needed, clarified.

After reading the relevant section of the Criminal Justice Bill, he states that he does not know of any judge that could possibly misinterpret this law and convict anyone. While the wording is perhaps not perfect, the meaning of the law is very clear and there is no possibility of a conviction.

If you think about it....a straw, a hollow brush handle, or a piece of plumbing pipe could all in theory be used it fire a projectile with an energy greater than 1 joule. But don't expect to see any Gardai bursting into McDonalds and arresting everyone who ordered a straw with their milkshake. The interpretation of the law that you are proposing in nonsense.

Nobody has anything to fear about being arrested for having an airsoft AEG etc. If you don't want to get into the business, then that's fine, but there is no need to spread paranoia all over the airsoft forum.

o1s1n

CrazyRabbit wrote:

I spoke with a solicitor last night about this. (Terrence Lyons solicitors)
If you think about it....a straw, a hollow brush handle, or a piece of plumbing pipe could all in theory be used it fire a projectile with an energy greater than 1 joule. But don't expect to see any Gardai bursting into McDonalds and arresting everyone who ordered a straw with their milkshake. The interpretation of the law that you are proposing is nonsense.

Nicely put. Sums it all up really.


needle_too, do you know WHY this new addition was made to the air propelled section of the bill?

There are several reasons.

The old law made any air propelled device hypothetically illegal to posses unlicensed. Including airsoft, Nerf and plastic dart guns. Shooters campaigned for a minimum muzzle velocity to be clarified as the cut off between firearm/toy etc. Originally (As informed by Sparks), they were looking for a number around 7 joules. Which I believe to be the power of your standard competition airgun.

They were given 1 joule instead.

I've also been informed that the Gardaí were sick of having to ballistics test airsoft related products. A total waste of their time. They could also have quite possibly pushed for the 1j law change too.

Going by your argument, this law becomes a completely pointless addition to the bill. Everything which could possibly fire a projectile powered by air would still require a license. Even as i said, Nerf and Plastic Dart guns.

You state that we've had trouble with the police? You misunderstood. When the law was initially introduced, your bog standard Garda was not aware. However, after clarification it was all sorted. With apologies on their behalf.

Have you been reading this forum long? Do you have much experience with this subject? I've been dealing with people and looking into it now nearly every day for the last year. I am in contact with most major parties and people interested in setting up the sport in Ireland.What I say may just be my opinion, but it is a very well informed one.

Hivemind187

needle_too wrote:

Ok, this is my final say on the matter.

The law states that a firearm is a weapon which fires a projectile greater than one joule or "any other
weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile
can be discharged with such a muzzle energy"

Airsoft guns have barrels which can fire a projectile with a force greater than one joule. Its not open to debate or interpretation.
There is no specific exclusion codified for airsoft guns.

Any other interpretation is fantasy or wishful thinking.

I have provided links to govt sites and recounted the advice I was given.



I am not really concerned but am annoyed that the mods are allowed to stifle debate. They are using their position to promote a position which (again in extremis) may result in people knowingly or unknowingly breaking the law.
Ignorance is not a defence, yet ignorance is what you are promoting.

The fact remains that not one single person who disagrees with me has produced one single scrap of evidence or referenced one single law or provided any legal or court papers to prove otherwise.

The only things they can recount are stories of getting arrested and I believe others have had guns stopped at customs.

My irritation is that your thread and mods are not just denying these points but refusing to even allow discussion on them.

As you are standing so resolutely by this position you wont mind, in the event of a serious incident occuring, that the relevant Boards.ie threads and details are referenced in the press.

There is something very wrong with people who cannot understand the phrase "any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile
can be discharged with such a muzzle energy"

As Boards.ie accept responsibility for the content on their site and have decided that their intrepretation (or the interpretation of their agents or representatives) is correct - specifically excluding all others - I now consider the matter over.

EDIT - Im sure o1s1n is a decent chap - its just that I believe he's wrong.

Interesting arguments you make and it is suspicious how each one is tragically flawed.

Lets look at teh major points you have made;
1) People are making an argument based on an interpretation of the words.
answer: Well, so are you. You are arguing that the words "any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile
can be discharged with such a muzzle energy" indicate that anything that has a barrel is a weapon, when, in fact, the issue of the barrel is clarified by the inclusion of the reference to muzzle energy.

2) That no one is citing their references or backing up anything they say.
Answer: Well, neither have you to any reasonable standard. In fact, you have actually done less to back up your statements with phantom solicitors and "deep-throat" Gardai. The people of boards have worked long and hard to understand these laws and it is not a case of choosing which words suit them, the legal interpretation of the law is as Oisin defended it.

3) That the mods, specifically Oisin, are "stifling debate" and censoring you. The trouble with this argument is that you have been given a chance to prove your point and you failed, you then doggedly pursued the point o a stage where people were yelling "troll". Under those circumstances it is hardly surprising that the thread was locked. You have claimed that they were not allowing discussion of them, but how can that be if your post is 2-3 pages long? What is that if not a discussion (albeit a heated one).

Lastly, dont threaten people with the media, especially when you have been shown to be wrong. You lost the argument, you dont have to like it, but you could exercise a little decorum and grace in defeat.

o1s1n

Boston wrote:

Have to say, from my experience, o1s1n seems like a decent chap and a decent moderator (you do Judo right, otherwise I'm mixing you up with someone else).

*Judo chop*

No, I don't do judo. Someone else.


.....I'm still a decent chap though...right???

o1s1n

tbh wrote:

Would it be fair to say that this is now a bigger feud between you and the mod in question?

WTF??? That's the first I've seen of that!. Cheers for point it out tbh, would have gone totally unnoticed.

This just gets weirder...


Actually, I think that kind of a thing warrants a ban.

cast_iron

Question: Is a painball marker classed as an "air gun"?

o1s1n

They would be classed as an airgun yes. Because of the size of the projectile, the muzzle velocity gets pushed to WELL over 1 joule. So you still need a license or some kind of Gardaí authorization.

Anyway, slightly off topic. If you want to know more pop over to the paintball & airsoft forum

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=830

cast_iron

My apologies, I was thinking of one thing and typed another! I meant to ask if Airoft Guns are classed as "air gun". (I wasn't asking out of interest - it's actually on topic.)

And I thought they would be. Therefore, the wording of the law is quite adequate:

an air gun (including an air rifle and air pistol) with a
muzzle energy greater than one joule or any other
weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile
can be discharged with such a muzzle energy,

The OP is trying to use the definition of a firearm that's after the word "or" in the above quote to make his point. And in fairness, whilst I don't think his argument stands, it's open to a little debate.

But I turn the OP's attention to the boldface type. It is under this wording where the the Airsoft guns fall, and are hence legal.
The wording is set so that the first clause (bold type) is for air guns and the second is for homemade devices, etc.
You can't choose which definition the air gun falls under - it IS an air gun, so therefore, it's quite clearly stated that the ONLY qualification is having "a muzzle energy greater than one joule". So the barrel reference CAN'T apply to an air gun.

Hence, you were quite clearly misadvised.

o1s1n

cast_iron wrote:

My apologies, I was thinking of one thing and typed another! I meant to ask if Airoft Guns are classed as "air gun". (I wasn't asking out of interest - it's actually on topic.)

And I thought they would be. Therefore, the wording of the law is quite adequate:

The OP is trying to use the definition of a firearm that's after the word "or" in the above quote to make his point. And in fairness, whilst I don't think his argument stands, it's open to a little debate.

I do agree. But extreme emphasis would be placed on the word little. It would be open to debate in the same way you could open the wording of most legal documentation to debate. However, the OP just went mad with it. Repeat phrases such as "These WEAPONS are illegal". "Can only be sold by gun dealers" "customs turning a blind eye" and many many long posts full of complete misinformation and lies. It would almost feel as if he has ulterior motives and is purposely going out of his way to cause trouble.

cast_iron wrote:

But I turn the OP's attention to the boldface type. It is under this wording where the the Airsoft guns fall, and are hence legal.
The wording is set so that the first clause (bold type) is for air guns and the second is for homemade devices, etc.
You can't choose which definition the air gun falls under - it IS an air gun, so therefore, it's quite clearly stated that the ONLY qualification is having "a muzzle energy greater than one joule". So the barrel reference CAN'T apply to an air gun.

Hence, you were quite clearly misadvised.

Well put. I really don't think it needs any more clarification. If he doesn't agree now, he never will.

DeVore

Oisin please ban Needle_Too from the airsoft forum indefinitely until I lift it. Needle_Too you are banned from that forum for wilful badgering and for the narky comment on a completely unrelated thread. You need to step back from this and take a deep breath.

I also dont like your threatening tone about "the media". I'm not sure what kind of press has a higher ACTUAL circulation then Boards... Perhaps the Times and the Examiner. So, I'm not sure how you are going to get any more attention to this subject then it already has but please, be my guest. In fact, I'll buy you dinner for 2 if anyone is ever convicted under that law as it stands. Ever.

Thread done.

DeV.

Victor

needle_too, it is also illegal to park your bicycle on the footpath. It might be illegal to cycle on the hard shoulder, but we aren't sure.

I would strongly advise that you do neither, just in case.

RoundyMooney

Arise ye threads of old

David Michael

I wondered if Boston had input.

he did

o1s1n

Don't do that to me! I thought he was back

Arcto

Needle_too i think youve gone a bit ga ga, wouldnt you agree?
I understand what you are saying but do not agree. My last purchase was last december, an all metal desert eagle Gas blow back. Customs took it and held it for 2 months (i presume they were getting gas or something to chrono it-no one in customs ever seems to know whats going on too well.) One of the few times i rang up for an update on the package i was informed that a specialist from the gardai was in the process of testing it, to make sure it was legal. Few weeks later gun arrives....

It is in no way ilegal. However, i can make it ilegal by putting green gas into it. No modifications, no strip down, just put different gas into it. And its also not iligel to own the gas. So i guess this is just another one of those gardai specialists that doesnt really know what hes doing...is it? Becuase as far as i can see its perfectly legal to own one as long as you dont upgrade it over 1J.

CuLT

Victor wrote:

needle_too, it is also illegal to park your bicycle on the footpath. It might be illegal to cycle on the hard shoulder, but we aren't sure.

I would strongly advise that you do neither, just in case.

You're a bit of a twit to be dragging this up Victor