Pepper Spray

Blay

Blay wrote: »

An airsoft gun for defence? Jesus christ it wouldn't even put a bruise on ya, that's from someone who has played airsoft for 4 years and has 10+ airsoft guns.

Not just for defense, I use it for airsoft, as well as an aeg.

As for bruise. I would have to disagree. I won't draw blood, but it does hurt!

Anytime I'm hit at close range, it will leave a mark. I have seen a -legal- gun leave a nasty bruise/lump on someones temple (shot from couple of feet away).

neilthefunkeone

If you burst out your front door holding any airsoft gun pants will be sh@t!!!! :D

I have a little can of pepper spray i picked up in Andorra a few years ago.. Not sure on the life of them.. If anything it will confuse and slow down anyone coming at you..

Also have an airsoft handgun.. Looks the business in my mind!

Procrastastudy

While I have made my opinion on this clear I thought I'd relay a story as the thread has now gone completely off topic.

When I managed a shop on Henry St a junkie tried to vault the counter. The security guard had obviously seen what was about to happen and decided that it would be much more reasonable and less effort to allow the momentum of the junkie to carry himself into his fist mid-flight.

After grabbing said junkie and sticking him in the stairwell for the Garda to arrive the security guard briefly let go of him to put gloves on... I wasn't touching him for obvious reasons (I'm all for helping my fellow man but this guy put himself in this position) I was just there as a witness. Next thing I know the guy has rolled himself down the stairs. Security guard goes down to pick him up. I'm there thinking "we're buggered when the cops get here they're never gonna believe this".

Mr Garda arrives literally lifts him off his feet and slams him into the wall with word to the effect of "I'm fed up dealing with you - you always get caught" - and into the van he went. Never saw the poor sod again although I do sometime wonder to myself if he was the one who lifted about €6k of gear out of the van that the cluchie driver had left open on Henry st.

I do miss city centre retail...

Del2005

Victor wrote: »

This is an urban myth.

Tell that to person I know who had a boiling kettle held over their looking for car keys.

The best defence is to keep the scum out. Once there in its too late as every home is full of things people can use as a weapon.

LH2011

a 10kg dry powder extinguisher, is handy to have close at hand, shoots a fair distance , and once cracked open, keeps going until empty.

id say if you got that in the eyes / face it would hurt like hell.. and perfectly legal to have lying around.


best not to confront if you can retreat into a safe place, not worth taking the risk , as you never know what they are carrying,

LH2011

Deleted User wrote: »

Also keep a hammer close by for backup

Completely legal.

not a good idea to have something that can be taken off you and used against you, also you have to be really close when swinging a hammer..
not a good idea.

best to keep a bit of distance between you and the intruder. what would Chuck Norris do,,,

benway

Was just gonna say ... you know the way that in the movies the plucky underdog hero can always defeat the evil villain with a combination of quick wits and their fists?

Real life isn't like that. At all.

LH2011

benway wrote: »

Was just gonna say ... you know the way that in the movies the plucky underdog hero can always defeat the evil villain with a combination of quick wits and their fists?

Real life isn't like that. At all.

thats exactly it... no point getting in harms way, when you dont know what you are facing.

fletch...

Reading trough this thread made me think a bit, most people will Crap themselvs when the time happens.
Never mind bats, or sprays. lets stay legal here, most people have a glass or jug of water beside theyr bed. If said intruder gets past the dog, throw the cold water in his face the smash him over the head with the jug, followd by a good shove down the stairs.

Or take your lamp shade, you know your room lay out - he doesent, dark room tell him to f off, if he enters the room then like a whip smack him across the face with the lamp plug. Throw your keys to him, natural reaction is to catch it. then boot him down the stairs. See - no need for geting yourself in crap for using un necessary weapons.
A camera flash could also blind him, but mite make him more determined to get in and claim back the evidence.

Just talking sence here - this is what we like to think we would do in a situation, when it happens its a different story. I work in security, my dad used to work in security, was robbed - they steppd over the sleeping German Shepard, badly beet/stabbed my dad, took what they wanted, left. Came back a couple days later and robbed the dog.

Just dropping a reality check guys, yes we have rights to defend ourselfs but it doesnt change a thing. dont get yourselfs locked up for battering an idiot with a pick axe handle

deadwood

fletch... wrote: »

Reading trough this thread made me think a bit, most people will Crap themselvs when the time happens.
Never mind bats, or sprays. lets stay legal here, most people have a glass or jug of water beside theyr bed. If said intruder gets past the dog, throw the cold water in his face the smash him over the head with the jug, followd by a good shove down the stairs.

Or take your lamp shade, you know your room lay out - he doesent, dark room tell him to f off, if he enters the room then like a whip smack him across the face with the lamp plug. Throw your keys to him, natural reaction is to catch it. then boot him down the stairs. See - no need for geting yourself in crap for using un necessary weapons.
A camera flash could also blind him, but mite make him more determined to get in and claim back the evidence.

Sounds like the next Macauley Culkin Home Alone plot!

Procrastastudy

All these "legal" things arent really at issue. It's what you do with them that matters. If you pummel someone's face in with a hammer you're probably going to jail.

syklops

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

All these "legal" things arent really at issue. It's what you do with them that matters. If you pummel someone's face in with a hammer you're probably going to jail.

Was the law not recently changed to prevent this?

benway

Been through this above. Reasonable force is justifiable on a subjective basis, as it had been under the previous law.

It does not equate to carte blanch for homeowners to kill or maim intruders where it would be gratuitous to do so.

All you wannabe action heroes should bear this in mind.

Witcher

A householder is going to end up doing time over that law, someone is going to think it gives them a licence to kill and they'll end up inside.

Zambia

My understanding was the only real aim was to allow the householder to remain in the property.

Example being if a home owner stuck a intruder and he was knocked down the home owner would then have the chance to flee with his family.

Under this law I was assuming the home owner would not be prosecuted if he stayed and when the intruder got up and attacked again and was injured by the homeowner. Or indeed if while the homeowner was throwing him out the door he was to hit his head or something.

Anyone have the text of it?

angelfire9

I wonder how many of the posters in this thread are actual women who have actually been 9 months pregnant like the OP :rolleyes:

As someone who has actually BEEN pregnant and someone who has actually BEEN burgled (though not at the same time)
My advice to the OP is quite simple
Take yourself into the bathroom and lock the door and let them have the run of the house and everything in it

NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING you have in your house is worth risking your life and the life of your baby to protect

Presumably you have insurance to cover theft?

syklops

angelfire9 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters in this thread are actual women who have actually been 9 months pregnant like the OP :rolleyes:

As someone who has actually BEEN pregnant and someone who has actually BEEN burgled (though not at the same time)
My advice to the OP is quite simple
Take yourself into the bathroom and lock the door and let them have the run of the house and everything in it

NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING you have in your house is worth risking your life and the life of your baby to protect

Presumably you have insurance to cover theft?

All your :rolleyes: are endearing and all, but I think you have forgotten that the OP is a pregnant woman, and she came on here asking for advice on pepper spray. The answers you see here are responding to her initial question.

benway

Zambia wrote: »

My understanding was the only real aim was to allow the householder to remain in the property.

Example being if a home owner stuck a intruder and he was knocked down the home owner would then have the chance to flee with his family.

Under this law I was assuming the home owner would not be prosecuted if he stayed and when the intruder got up and attacked again and was injured by the homeowner. Or indeed if while the homeowner was throwing him out the door he was to hit his head or something.

Anyone have the text of it?

Personally, I think the real aim was to satisfy a certain instinct among property owners, because to do so would play well politically ... said it before and I'll say it again, in my opinion this Act is nothing but yet another piece of populist grandstanding in Irish criminal justice policy.

It formally codified the good 'ol "castle doctrine" from over yonder Stateside. No duty to retreat from the dwelling existed at common law, but in any event the new act specifically excludes this. :rolleyes:

The position was discussed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2006 (DPP -v- Barnes):

There are consequences of the special status of the dwellinghouse and of its importance to the human dignity of its occupants. Amongst the most relevant of these is that, as has been held by the Courts of Common Law for centuries, a person in his dwellinghouse can never, in law, be under an obligation to leave it, to retreat from it or to abandon it to the burglar or other aggressor.

>Full text of the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011<


It's interesting to compare and contrast the position with Section 18 of the Non-Fatal Offenses Against the Person Act:

1997 Act wrote:

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.”

2011 Act wrote:

2.—(1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—
(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and
(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—
(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,
(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or
(iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

(4) It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances.

Not seeing a massive difference myself, in practical terms. Of course, the new Act also extends to the use of lethal force, but this was also countenanced under the preceding common law - see Barnes. From where I'm seeing it, the 2011 Act makes the sum and total of zero practical difference to the legal position.

While I'm on a ramble, don't mean to rag on you Mr. C, but this is such a bunch of nonsense:

Corruptable wrote:

waffle emanating from academics, judges, and counsel who don't live in the real world.

Yeah, what would they know? I mean, they only spend their lives studying the problem and working in the system, seeing all kinds of cases day in day out. I'd rather listen to the Mail. And the Sun. And especially the Sunday World. They know life. Real life. :rolleyes:

Even the Gardaí are of the view that the fear of crime in this country is overstated, and represents a problem in in itself:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Fear%20of%20Crime%20in%20Ireland.pdf/Files/Fear%20of%20Crime%20in%20Ireland.pdf

Suppose they don't live in the real world either, bleedin' liberals.

Fact is, our "common sense" understandings may not necessarily be accurate appraisals of the world around us - try Blink by Malcolm Gladwell for a decent overview.

None of which is meant for a second to take away from the seriousness of criminal victimisation, or to deny the fact that it can, does and will happen, maybe to us or maybe to people we know. Or maybe not. But I think it's better to deal with it realistically rather than live in terror of some imaginary crime wave.

angelfire9

syklops wrote: »

All your :rolleyes: are endearing and all, but I think you have forgotten that the OP is a pregnant woman, and she came on here asking for advice on pepper spray. The answers you see here are responding to her initial question.

Well duh
Which is why I responded by telling her what I felt her best course of action was in the event of a burglary i.e. let them take what they want and keep herself safe
I say this as a woman who has been pregnant & has been burgled (though thankfully not at the same time)

Zambia

I would agree total the act is really re-inventing the wheel.

Deadwood once asked the question has a victim ever been prosecuted for defending themselves using reasonable force. So far nobody has given any real case. Shooting someone twice not in quick succession is unreasonable before the Nally case is drawn up.

Sadly I think this law was drawn up purely for public opinion on an urban Myth.

Mr Simpson

OP the best advice I can give you is, make sure you have an alarm, locks on your interior doors and keep your mobile charged and near you. If you hear something, get your baby and lock the both of you in a room, and call the guards. Theres no point putting yourself or your baby in harms way for material items.

P.S Always leave your car keys away from the front door, but DON'T hide them, its best they find them easily, than go further into the house trying to find them.

EDIT: completely missed AngelFire9's post, she's completely spot on.

benway

Zambia wrote: »

Sadly I think this law was drawn up purely for public opinion on an urban Myth.

Which is how criminal justice policy is usually formulated in this country, imho.

Discodog

benway wrote: »

Even the Gardaí are of the view that the fear of crime in this country is overstated, and represents a problem in in itself:

Much of the fear in rural areas is because of Garda response times. Several people have been burgled in my local area & the only way for the community to respond is by protecting each other.

In my road we all have each others mobile numbers & I know that my neighbours would be here like a shot if I needed help.

talla10

Corruptable wrote: »

and most cases are prosecuted under Section 9(4) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990.

The Key word in that legislation is public place. Strangely enough it is not an offence to possess it soley in your dwelling. If Gardai ever search your dwelling they may seize it but have no legislative power to prosecute you.

MagicSean

talla10 wrote: »

The Key word in that legislation is public place. Strangely enough it is not an offence to possess it soley in your dwelling. If Gardai ever search your dwelling they may seize it but have no legislative power to prosecute you.

This doesn't apply to pepperspray as it is considered a firearm as opposed to an offensive weapon.

talla10

It does apply to pepperspray which isnt considered a firearm its a incapacitating spray. If it was considered a firearm then AGS could detain under S.30 OASA rather than arrest under S.94 firearms act

Witcher

1925 Firearms Act:

Section 1:
"The expression “prohibited weapon” means and includes any weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing, and also any ammunition (whether for any such weapon as aforesaid or for any other weapon) which contains or is designed or adapted to contain any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing"

Section 14, Subsection 1/2:

14.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person without the authority of the Minister for Defence to manufacture, sell, purchase, hire, let on hire, use, or carry, or to have in his possession, custody, or control, or knowingly to have on his premises any prohibited weapon as defined in this Act.


(2) Every person who after the commencement of this Act and without the authority of the Minister for Defence manufactures, sells, purchases, hires, lets on hire, uses, or carries, or has in his possession, custody or control, or knowingly has on his premises any prohibited weapon as so defined shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years or imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.

MagicSean

talla10 wrote: »

It does apply to pepperspray which isnt considered a firearm its a incapacitating spray. If it was considered a firearm then AGS could detain under S.30 OASA rather than arrest under S.94 firearms act

I'm afraid you are incorrect. If you look at section 4e of the Act you linked you will see that the definition of a firearm includes items considered prohibited weapons under the 1925 act. In that act a prohibited weapon includes "weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing" which would cover pepperspray.

Corruptable

I suppose it's only "spreading more fear", but again, I would reiterate the position that I, and I'm sure many others, would rather risk becoming a criminal than becoming a victim.

An 81-year-old widower spends hours every day at his local garda station for company and sleeps under his bed in terror six years after he was was tied up, beaten and robbed by a gang at his isolated farmhouse.

Yesterday, justice finally caught up with Darren Finnerty (32), of Cummer, Tuam, Co Galway, who was jailed for six years for his part in the robbery of the then 75-year-old at his home near Ballygar on September 18, 2006.

Det Sgt John Considine told Galway Circuit Criminal Court that Finnerty broke in to the isolated farmhouse at 9.30pm with another man and a woman.

They kicked and beat the victim before tying him up.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/justice-is-done-six-years-after-vicious-robbery-3009127.html

In response to those who fear an arms race. This doesn't appear to be the case in places like France, Germany, etc. where more sensible possession laws exist. At present you'd probably be more sensible to be like a nearby farmer who used a pitchfork on one of two people tampering with his oil tank last weekend, wounding one of them in the arm.

benway

Lookit, nobody's trying to pretend that these things don't happen. But the fact remains that they're thankfully still relatively rare occurrences. We shouldn't let the way that these stories so readily stick in the mind overshadow this.

If someone fancies themselves physically to go at a wannabe thief with a pitchfork or other weapon, then have at it, but for many people this would be a bad idea.

It'd be better to have a network of friends and neighbours keeping an eye out, ready to assist and supplement the Gardaí, and to keep yourself out of harm's way in so far as possible if the worst happens. Also to keep the threat of victimisation in perspective - it warrants taking every reasonable precaution, it does not warrant obsessing or living in fear.

Personally, I think these action hero fantasies are dangerous.

buzzardflute

What about some of these uk legal defence marker spray's,i think they might be classed as legal in ireland aswel?Might buy you some time to get out and call the guards!

http://www.niton999.co.uk/shop/product_view_Defence-Marker-Spray_code_DMS001.html

http://www.stoppared.com/page3.htm

joushikijin

Think_then_talk wrote: »

Pepper Spray's, CS gas spray & Stun guns, are totally prohibited in Ireland and firearm certificates are not granted for these weapons.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Individuals

Hello,
I just checked your link and was unable to find any reference to pepper sprays.
Does anyone has a reliable and credible source that clearly states that the possession of pepper spray is illegal in the Republic of Ireland? It would be much appreciated.

Regards,
Dénis

LowKeyReturn

Firearms Act 1925

1.—(1) In this Act—

the word “firearm” means a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged;

the word “ammunition” (except where used in relation to a prohibited weapon) means ammunition for a firearm but also includes grenades, bombs, and other similar missiles whether the same are or are not capable of being used with a firearm, and also includes any ingredient or component part of any such ammunition or missile;

the expression “prohibited weapon” means and includes any weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing, and also any ammunition (whether for any such weapon as aforesaid or for any other weapon) which contains or is designed or adapted to contain any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing;

the expression “firearm certificate” means a firearm certificate granted under this Act;

the expression “firearms dealer” means a person who, by way of trade or business, manufactures, sells, lets on hire, repairs, tests, proves, purchases, or otherwise deals in firearms or ammunition;

the expression “registered firearms dealer” means a firearms dealer who is for the time being registered in the register of firearms dealers established in pursuance of this Act;

the word “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made under this Act;

the expression “the Minister” means the Minister for Justice.

(2) In this Act the word “port” means any authorised place of entry into Saorstát Eireann, and the words “export” and “import” include respectively export and import over a land frontier as well as export and import over a sea frontier, and all cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

***


Has been amended but not as to change the meaning of the highlighted section.

joushikijin

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Firearms Act 1925

1.—(1) In this Act—

the word “firearm” means a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged;

the word “ammunition” (except where used in relation to a prohibited weapon) means ammunition for a firearm but also includes grenades, bombs, and other similar missiles whether the same are or are not capable of being used with a firearm, and also includes any ingredient or component part of any such ammunition or missile;

the expression “prohibited weapon” means and includes any weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing, and also any ammunition (whether for any such weapon as aforesaid or for any other weapon) which contains or is designed or adapted to contain any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing;

the expression “firearm certificate” means a firearm certificate granted under this Act;

the expression “firearms dealer” means a person who, by way of trade or business, manufactures, sells, lets on hire, repairs, tests, proves, purchases, or otherwise deals in firearms or ammunition;

the expression “registered firearms dealer” means a firearms dealer who is for the time being registered in the register of firearms dealers established in pursuance of this Act;

the word “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made under this Act;

the expression “the Minister” means the Minister for Justice.

(2) In this Act the word “port” means any authorised place of entry into Saorstát Eireann, and the words “export” and “import” include respectively export and import over a land frontier as well as export and import over a sea frontier, and all cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

***


Has been amended but not as to change the meaning of the highlighted section.

Thank you, this means any form of spray can (deodorant, colour or window cleaner) could be interpreted as a "weapon"! So no clear and unambiguous definition.
This correlates to my enquiry with the local Garda station today, who were unable to tell me if it is legal or not. I will call the Garda legal department in Dublin tomorrow and will update this thread once I know more.

LowKeyReturn

joushikijin wrote: »

Thank you, this means any form of spray can (deodorant, colour or window cleaner) could be interpreted as a "weapon"! So no clear and unambiguous definition.
This correlates to my enquiry with the local Garda station today, who were unable to tell me if it is legal or not. I will call the Garda legal department in Dublin tomorrow and will update this thread once I know more.

You're welcome. It's been discussed on this forum at length if you use the search function.

joushikijin

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

You're welcome. It's been discussed on this forum at length if you use the search function.

I am not interested in layman's discussion but in a legal answer if carrying pepper spray in Ireland is legal or not. So far I have no clear or unambiguous answer to this question, but I appreciate any help I can get.
I am grateful for the link you provided but it gives me no satisfactory answer and clearly does not mention pepper spray.

LowKeyReturn

joushikijin wrote: »

I am not interested in layman's discussion but in a legal answer if carrying pepper spray in Ireland is legal or not. So far I have no clear or unambiguous answer to this question, but I appreciate any help I can get.
I am grateful for the link you provided but it gives me no satisfactory answer and clearly does not mention pepper spray.

There are numerous barristers and solicitors that frequent his forum, some of which have posted in the numerous threads on the subject, which include a discussion of deodorant spray etc.

Don't let me stop you from hiring a solicitor and barrister to write you a legal opinion, however, it's all billable!

ResearchWill

joushikijin wrote: »

I am not interested in layman's discussion but in a legal answer if carrying pepper spray in Ireland is legal or not. So far I have no clear or unambiguous answer to this question, but I appreciate any help I can get.
I am grateful for the link you provided but it gives me no satisfactory answer and clearly does not mention pepper spray.

I have seen a person convicted of possession of pepper spray, in a public place, it was found in his car during a search.

ResearchWill

joushikijin wrote: »

Thank you, this means any form of spray can (deodorant, colour or window cleaner) could be interpreted as a "weapon"! So no clear and unambiguous definition.
This correlates to my enquiry with the local Garda station today, who were unable to tell me if it is legal or not. I will call the Garda legal department in Dublin tomorrow and will update this thread once I know more.

I think any court would split themselves laughing at any Garda who brings a person before the court under the firearms act for possession of a can of lynx. While some teenage boys would kill ya with the over use of same I do not believe they are manufactured with the intention of causing harm. While some deodorants might be nasty they are not noxious.

joushikijin

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have seen a person convicted of possession of pepper spray, in a public place, it was found in his car during a search.

His car is not a public space! This sounds like another hear say story without validity.

ResearchWill

joushikijin wrote: »

His car is not a public space! This sounds like another hear say story without validity.

Where do you think the car was stopped. But on a public place. By that logic no one could be convicted of drink driving in a public place because they are in fact in their car. He is in possession of both the car and it contents. It was an appeal from Cork District Court to Cork Circuit court. I was in court waiting a number of my own cases when my ears picked up at mention of pepper spray. Unless you feel I am making up the story.

BTW I am in Galway Circuit Court tomorrow, God I hate the road to Galway when are we going to have a motorway from Cork to Galway, its a bloody pain.

joushikijin

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think any court would split themselves laughing at any Garda who brings a person before the court under the firearms act for possession of a can of lynx. While some teenage boys would kill ya with the over use of same I do not believe they are manufactured with the intention of causing harm. While some deodorants might be nasty they are not noxious.

The definition of "noxious"

Noxious
1. poisonous or harmful
2. harmful to the mind or morals; corrupting

Deodorant is a noxious substance due to its composition and can compared to other, also noxious substances result into irreparable and long term damage, if abused!

ResearchWill

joushikijin wrote: »

The definition of "noxious"

Noxious
1. poisonous or harmful
2. harmful to the mind or morals; corrupting

Deodorant is a noxious substance due to its composition and can compared to other, also noxious substances result into irreparable and long term damage, if abused!

A tooth pick can result in irreparable damage if abused and pushed into someone's eye. There is no court going to accept that because an otherwise inert product can be abused it suddenly becomes noxious. Pepper spray has been held to be covered under the act I am not aware lynx has also been so described.

From UK law similar to here


Regina v. Hawkes (Attorney-General's Reference No 68 of 2007)

"The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Davis and Mr Justice Simon) so stated on October 22, 2007 when allowing an application by the AttorneyGeneral, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer, as being unduly lenient, a prison sentence of two years imposed on Clayton Hawkes by Judge Rucker at Truro Crown Court on May 18, 2007, following his conviction for conspiracy to supply a controlled class A drug and two counts of possessing a prohibited weapon, a stun gun and a pepper spray, for which he received concurrent sentences. The total sentence was increased to four years."

UK Act is the Firearms Act 1968 the relevant section is S.5

"(b)any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing; and"

BTW the Irish legislation "the expression “prohibited weapon” means and includes any weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing, and also any ammunition (whether for any such weapon as aforesaid or for any other weapon) which contains or is designed or adapted to contain any noxious liquid, noxious gas, or other noxious thing;"

Kinda the same.

joushikijin

ResearchWill wrote: »

Where do you think the car was stopped. But on a public place. By that logic no one could be convicted of drink driving in a public place because they are in fact in their car. He is in possession of both the car and it contents. It was an appeal from Cork District Court to Cork Circuit court. I was in court waiting a number of my own cases when my ears picked up at mention of pepper spray. Unless you feel I am making up the story.

This is exactly what I mean by hear say! You might have "picked up" a conversation without knowing the full context first hand.

LowKeyReturn

joushikijin wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean by hear say! You might have "picked up" a conversation without knowing the full context first hand.

Wha???

You realise this was in a court where the rules of evidence would apply.

ResearchWill

joushikijin wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean by hear say! You might have "picked up" a conversation without knowing the full context first hand.

I'm a barrister in Court listening to a court case, it was not a random person talking on the street, I think its not difficult to get a person was convicted in DC for possesion of pepper spray and appealed the severity of a sentence, I think listening to court cases being part of the job I should get the facts right.

joushikijin

ResearchWill wrote: »

I'm a barrister in Court listening to a court case, it was not a random person talking on the street, I think its not difficult to get a person was convicted in DC for possesion of pepper spray and appealed the severity of a sentence, I think listening to court cases being part of the job I should get the facts right.

I am not interested in believes but facts only. Unfortunately do I have not much but an excerpt from an act that seems to be predestinated for arbitrary abuse and several individuals subjective opinions!

Your help is much appreciated and I am sure the Garda will also have an answer for me.

LowKeyReturn

joushikijin wrote: »

I am not interested in believes but facts only. Unfortunately do I have not much but an excerpt from an act that seems to be predestinated for arbitrary abuse and several individuals subjective opinions!

Your help is much appreciated and I am sure the Garda will also have an answer for me.

I can't work out if you're a troll or you really don't understand how this works. I'm assuming the latter.

Gardai don't make the law, judges (common law) and the legislature (statute law) do. Judges interpret statutes. An act (statute) can't contain every possible outcome otherwise every time lynx brought out a new deodorant it would need to be put in to the act.

You need to engage a solicitor to get a proper answer. If you're insistent they might get a legal opinion off a barrister.

ResearchWill

joushikijin wrote: »

I am not interested in believes but facts only. Unfortunately do I have not much but an excerpt from an act that seems to be predestinated for arbitrary abuse and several individuals subjective opinions!

Your help is much appreciated and I am sure the Garda will also have an answer for me.

I have also posted a case which sets out that under similar uk law pepper spray was a weapon. Pepper spray is a prohibited weapon under Irish law and lynx is not. It's that simple, AGS will tell you the same, if you don't believe me or them then by all means carry pepper spray. Enjoy the conviction under the firearms act.

By the way the case I was in court for was fact and the UK case quoted is fact.

joushikijin

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I can't work out if you're a troll or you really don't understand how this works. I'm assuming the latter.

Gardai don't make the law, judges (common law) and the legislature (statute law) do. Judges interpret statutes. An act (statute) can't contain every possible outcome otherwise every time lynx brought out a new deodorant it would need to be put in to the act.

You need to engage a solicitor to get a proper answer. If you're insistent they might get a legal opinion off a barrister.

I am in search of a clear answer. I am from Germany and I am used to have a clear law written down. If the act that is being recited the only legal document defining the legality or non-legality of pepper spray or other substances than there is a lot of work that needs to be done because this is asking for abuse from lawyers and judges.
I hope that I am very wrong because it would scare me very much if this very vaguely phrased act is the only document defining what should be clearly written out.
I dont think a barrister or lawyer should be needed to understand the law, every citizen should be able to grasp it. Again this reminds me a lot of countries in which governments are corrupted and not a modern democracy.