Spear Guns and their definition as firearms? Is is based on propulsion means.

Zxthinger

Spearguns have, in my mind always been considers as a firearm but as of late I have met several speargun fishermen who claim that only the pneumatic variety are a controlled item under the law. They believe that the rubber band type of spearguns are not controlled by the firearms act.

Perhaps someone here might have done knowledge related to this fringe of "firearms law" and its interpretation..

It's seem to make since that a unit powered by rubber band is not a firearm.??

Any thoughts?

Grizzly 45

The law is basically, anything that projects a projectile over one joule of energy out of a barrel is a firearm. Now go figure that with a crossbow as it hasn't a barrel,but anyway... It doesn't say how it is propelled, be it powder, gas or rubber tubing. If it can be chroned as over 1joule it is a firearm under Irish law. As has been said here before there are plenty of toy crossbows that could do this for sale in toy stores here,.You could proably do it with your own breath as well,pushing a spitball down a biro barrel.So no the diving lads are wrong on that point.But TBH a speargun isn't [1] exactly concealable [2]Doesnt fly very well out of water,[ignoring Sean Connery as 007 tacking a SMERSH agent to a palm tree of course:p][3] Has yet to be used in holding up the local post office here in Ireland[4]Kind of a specialist market,where Johnny Scrote is going to look abit out of place in the diving dept looking for "one o dem sperar guns like!"

It's probably another situation where there is a legal fog around the whole issue and is suffering from "A mate of mine told me"[mis] information.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

It's seem to make since that a unit powered by rubber band is not a firearm.??

Any thoughts?

So is a Crossbow, to an extent, and its not only a firearm but a restricted firearm.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The law is basically, anything that projects a projectile over one joule of energy out of a barrel is a firearm.

Not quite.

The law says:

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

As has been said here before there are plenty of toy crossbows that could do this for sale in toy stores here,.

The issue with crossbows, and this would relate to spear guns, is there is no minimum energy limit for a crossbow, unlike an air rifle or cartridge based firearm. As such even toy crossbows are, in the most technical sense, a restricted firearm. Same as paint ball guns. There over one joule, and better still a short firearm, so legally they're a restricted short firearm, which can not be licensed since Nov. 2008, and for the most part illegal.

Nuts, but there ya go.

But TBH a speargun isn't [1] exactly concealable

Zero impact on its status as concealed carry is not relevant to us as firearm owners

It's probably another situation where there is a legal fog around the whole issue and is suffering from "A mate of mine told me"[mis] information.

Not really.

The law is clear enough on this. As you said if it's over one joule, regardless of whether its pneumatic or rubber band powered, its a firearm and needs a license.

Chiparus

Cass wrote: »

So is a Crossbow, to an extent, and its not only a firearm but a restricted firearm.

Not quite.

The law says:


The issue with crossbows, and this would relate to spear guns, is there is no minimum energy limit for a crossbow, unlike an air rifle or cartridge based firearm. As such even toy crossbows are, in the most technical sense, a restricted firearm. Same as paint ball guns. There over one joule, and better still a short firearm, so legally they're a restricted short firearm, which can not be licensed since Nov. 2008, and for the most part illegal.

Nuts, but there ya go.

Zero impact on its status as concealed carry is not relevant to us as firearm owners


Not really.

The law is clear enough on this. As you said if it's over one joule, regardless of whether its pneumatic or rubber band powered, its a firearm and needs a license.

Catapult?

GolfVI

Its funny because I own a compound hunting bow that is strong enough to take down a bear and inch group perfect at 50 yards, yet i could buy it perfectly legal in a sports shop

Although bow hunting is ilegal here im surprised there’s no laws or limits on them as with crossbows
With crossbows i understand its more so the fact the “bolt” can be pre-loaded and held in place as against the arrow in a bow which has to be held by the user, but thats literially the only difference in my eyes

Gravelly

Funny that crossbows are illegal here, but compound bows, which can be just as powerful and nearly as compact, aren't. When I was a young lad myself and my friends used to have great fun with crossbows.

EDIT: Just saw GolfVI's post above now!

Half-cocked

Gravelly wrote: »

Funny that crossbows are illegal here, but compound bows, which can be just as powerful and nearly as compact, aren't. When I was a young lad myself and my friends used to have great fun with crossbows.

EDIT: Just saw GolfVI's post above now!

I seem to remember there were a couple of incidents involving crossbows that caused a knee jerk reaction to have them classified as firearms. It's the same type of reactionary legislation that outlawed 'samurai style swords' but you can still possess every other type of sword.

GolfVI

Half-cocked wrote: »

I seem to remember there were a couple of incidents involving crossbows that caused a knee jerk reaction to have them classified as firearms. It's the same type of reactionary legislation that outlawed 'samurai style swords' but you can still possess every other type of sword.

From my understanding I think the fact that bow shooting is an olympic sport it would be very hard for the government to outlaw it.

Crossbows are generally a hunting tool and since bow/crossbow hunting is ilegal here im sure the higher powers above just thought “sure what would they need one of those for anyway”

Although im sure the few incidents you described didnt help

Gatling

GolfVI wrote: »

From my understanding I think the fact that bow shooting is an olympic sport it would be very hard for the government to outlaw it.

They could easily ban bows overnight if they chose to with zero discussion or consultation

Cass

Chiparus wrote: »

Catapult?

No real legislation governing them, but they are illegal to use for hunting. So legal to own, just don't hunt with it.

GolfVI wrote: »

Its funny because I own a compound hunting bow that is strong enough to take down a bear and inch group perfect at 50 yards, yet i could buy it perfectly legal in a sports shop

As above perfectly legal to own, but not to hunt with.

Although bow hunting is ilegal here im surprised there’s no laws or limits on them as with crossbows

I misspoke last night, probably due to the hour, but the one joule limit only applies to barreled firearms, so as it is with crossbows there may be no actual minimum limit for spearguns etc.

Half-cocked

If I hold a compound bow horizontally, does it become a crossbow in the Eyes of the Law?;)

Cass

Oh, you mean "gansta style"?

It means you look like a Wally, and the bolt may fall out. Thats about it. :P

Gravelly

Cass wrote: »

Oh, you mean "gansta style"?

It means you look like a Wally, and the bolt may fall out. Thats about it. :P

It's a bow so it wouldn't have a bolt

Cass

Ok now i look like the Wally.

Really shouldn't take crap when i don't know a thing about Archery.

I seen rubber band ones for sale in shops here so doubt they are illegal.
You can buy crossbows up north.
The little hand gun style ones are good craic.
Power out of them is scary.
Would love to see what a proper a full sized one could do.

Cass

BrownFinger wrote: »

I seen rubber band ones for sale in shops here so doubt they are illegal.

They are perfectly legal, no question on that, it's just a matter of licensing them.

Same with other items. Deer callers are "illegal" yet i see them for sale. When i say illegal they are legal to sell, just illegal to use.

Grizzly 45

Why bow and arrows and catapults aren't licensed here iMO is the fact that they need both hands to operate as well.You cant exactly rob the bank while holding your compound bow at full draw while reaching for the swag.:p
TBH this Xbow licensing thing is another farce, there are so many plans out there on the Net,that if you are anyway competent you can build one yourself if you wanted one.

Samuari swords. There is a loophole there.The act states that if it is made by traditional methods it is exempt. There are actually Samurai swords up in the 200 euro plus mark that are made ,as are some excellent quality kitchen knives, by trad Japanese sword making techniques today in Japan.IOW they were trying to ban the cheap knock off copies like "Battle Orders UK" would be selling,and more likely to be used in a pub brawl,than a ww2 keepsake brought back from Burma or wherever.

Vegeta

Someone save me having to check the legislation, why are bows ok (shooting a projectile/missile well over 1 joule) but crossbows are not?

Is there specific provision for bows?

Grizzly 45

Half-cocked wrote: »

I seem to remember there were a couple of incidents involving crossbows that caused a knee-jerk reaction to have them classified as firearms.

Once a Garda got poked by a meat skewer fired from a pistol Xbow in Dublin post office raid, in the leg. So kind of a "knee-jerk reaction" alright. :pac:

But before that... I remember working in Limerick as a security gaurd, on a certain site, that was controversial as it was costing some locals their livelihoods of scrap metal collecting. We had one-night ball bearings, and xbow bolts aplenty hitting our security vans. They looked like a stagecoach in a western after the Indians had attacked! AGS view.
"Nothing we can do, they aren't firearms."

Grizzly 45

Vegeta wrote: »

Someone save me having to check the legislation, why are bows ok (shooting a projectile/missile well over 1 joule) but crossbows are not?

Is there specific provision for bows?

They aren't mentioned at all in the legislation, nor are catapults,or spear guns. It's Xbow specific.Due to the incidents mentioned above, and hasty and sloppy legislation copied from the UK and Canada of all places too,by Messers O'Dea and Burke.

Half-cocked

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Samuari swords. There is a loophole there.The act states that if it is made by traditional methods it is exempt.

Correct. "In a bid to cater for collectors, those made before 1954 or at another time by traditional hand-made methods will be exempt". Why 1954? Is that when Katanas R Us started mass producing them? How do you tell one made in 1953 from one made in 1955? Every bit as ill-thought out as every other bit of legislation that tries to curb civilian ownership of 'weapons'.

Instead of banning a long list of specified items, why not just make 'carrying with intent' the offence, then you can apprehend everyone carrying a sharpened screwdriver to a claymore who doesn't have a good reason for having it on them. When you go down the road of banning specified items, you run the risk of legitimizing everything not on the banned list ie, my katana is banned but I can still have my gladius (which is far more concealable).

Gravelly

Half-cocked wrote: »

Correct. "In a bid to cater for collectors, those made before 1954 or at another time by traditional hand-made methods will be exempt". Why 1954? Is that when Katanas R Us started mass producing them? How do you tell one made in 1953 from one made in 1955? Every bit as ill-thought out as every other bit of legislation that tries to curb civilian ownership of 'weapons'.

Instead of banning a long list of specified items, why not just make 'carrying with intent' the offence, then you can apprehend everyone carrying a sharpened screwdriver to a claymore who doesn't have a good reason for having it on them. When you go down the road of banning specified items, you run the risk of legitimizing everything not on the banned list ie, my katana is banned but I can still have my gladius (which is far more concealable).

There's a business opportunity there for someone to stamp new katanas with "made in 1953" and sell them to the wannabe samurai market here in Ireland!

Half-cocked

Gravelly wrote: »

There's a business opportunity there for someone to stamp new katanas with "made in 1953" and sell them to the wannabe samurai market here in Ireland!

But I'm sure the Garda metallurgy lab techs will be able to accurately date the year of manufacture as well as being able to discern traditional sword making methods from mass production.... right?;)

Gravelly

Half-cocked wrote: »

But I'm sure the Garda metallurgy lab techs will be able to accurately date the year of manufacture as well as being able to discern traditional sword making methods from mass production.... right?;)

Oh definitely, the Garda CSI Squad would be all over it like a cheap suit

Cass

Vegeta wrote: »

Someone save me having to check the legislation, why are bows ok (shooting a projectile/missile well over 1 joule) but crossbows are not?

Is there specific provision for bows?

There is no joule limit for bows/crossbows. That is for barreled firearms (before anyone asks i cannot remember where i seen that, but will try and find it) . Its why kids toys can legally fall under the same definition as a 350lb crossbow.

Grizz is correct that the legislation doesn't make reference to spears, bows, etc. but the Wildlife act does. Hence you can buy one (a bow) without the need for a license (no joule limit on them) but the Wildlife act prevents you using it for hunting.

So it's not one specific line or piece of legislation, it's a culmination of a few.

Vegeta

Cass wrote: »

I misspoke last night, probably due to the hour, but the one joule limit only applies to barreled firearms, so as it is with crossbows there may be no actual minimum limit for spearguns etc.

Ahh I see, now I want a compound bow

Gravelly

Vegeta wrote: »

Ahh I see, now I want a compound bow

They are mighty fun in fairness. Americans bring down bears (and moose, elk etc.) with them, which is more than I'd be willing to risk.

scwazrh

Most nail guns for construction use fire projectiles down a very short barrel at excess of 100j how are these kept out of the firearm heading?

Cass

The same way paintball guns are. If they [AGS] don't look in that direction, nothing illegal is happening.

Grizzly 45

scwazrh wrote: »

Most nail guns for construction use fire projectiles down a very short barrel at excess of 100j how are these kept out of the firearm heading?

That's a rather tacky one.:)So I dunno if I will nail this explanation. As such a nail gun isn't considered a weapon, [excluding factual films like Lethal Weapon 2] or hysterical anti-gun politicians in the US But most nail guns have to be put point blank onto a bit of timber to disengage the safety on the barrel. So its kind of a point-blank affair, where belting your victim with a hammer might be a lot more effective than trying to nail them to a bit of 2X4. Plus a lot of the guns are now going to compressed air,so unless you are going to tow a compressor behind you while stalking your victim, I'd say nail guns are not going to feature in many mass shootings.

Grizzly 45

POP Quiz... Which country initially decided a ban on blowpipes was a good idea?and then this crazy idea spread all over the Western world like a bad rash,where it would make zero sense at all?