Thanks for these updates and continued hard work 
â ⌠Itâs a question about whether the particular prohibition comes within the meaning of the words in the statute which enable the regulations and within the scope and purpose of the legislation.
And, in my view, when one has regard to the dictionary definitions of the word âweaponâ and then the types of items or articles that were described by the AttorneyâGeneral in the second reading speech, and, indeed, the other items and articles that are specified in the schedule to the Weapons Act, being things such as knives, martial arts implements, nunchuckas, that they are all items which have as their purpose the infliction of injury in fighting or combat.
And that the evidence in this case does not establish the gel blaster is something that was manufactured for that same purpose and so cannot be properly described as a weapon and, accordingly, in my view, the prescription of a gel blaster is outside the scope and purpose of the Weapons Act and I, therefore, find Mr Clark not guilty.[4]â
This is a single ruling by a Magistrate in a single case where the Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of 2 Gelblasters.
This is not a ruling by a High Court to lift the Bans/Laws that Papalia and the Police Minister pushed through Legislation to Re-write the Weapons Act to include Gelblasterâs, but itâs definitely a great outcome for anyone else charged and brought to Trial as a Case Matter to be used in their Defence
This can also be used to Lobby other Ministers with the Statements made by this Judge to further push forward the illegality of the rushed Bans in WAđ
âIn essence, the respondent contended:
(1) the Weapons Act is concerned with or directed to âweaponsâ within that wordâs common law or ordinary meaning;
(2) the regulation making power in the Weapons Act could only extend to âweaponsâ in the common law or ordinary sense;
(3) a âprohibited weaponâ could only be a weapon in the common law or ordinary sense;
(4) gel blasters are not âweaponsâ within a common law or ordinary sense; and
(5) accordingly, the Weapons Regulations were beyond power if they prescribed gel blasters as they were not âweaponsâ.
29 The respondentâs argument was that the Weapons Regulations prescribing gel blasters dealt with a subject outside the scope of the empowering provision. This is sometimes referred to as simple ultra vires.[11]â
â On the [appellantâs] proposed construction of the Act, there would be no constraint on the scope of articles that might be prescribed as a âprohibited weaponâ: a pillow, a pen, walking cane, flashlight, or toys such as a cricket bat, foam sword or Nerf gun can be âprohibited weaponsâ.[13]â
â It was not contended below or in this Court that it was somehow beyond the power of the Legislature to regulate gel blasters. That has been done, on its face, by a combination of a very broad statutory definition of âweaponâ to include a âprohibited weaponâ and the Weapons Regulations which have clearly included gel blasters within âprohibited weaponâ.â
Respectfully I donât agree. The courts in the ruling are correct as there is a clear defection given what item could be Prohibited. Correctly followed GBs could be under the ACT. I am sure they will correct if the coming press statements are unlawful yer
Everything I posted above in quotation marks are direct copy and pastes from the Court Documents themselves, not my own words or opinions.
Itâs definitely a good ruling which gives strength to our arguments against the bans, but itâs still a law that stands in place that anyone caught can be prosecuted under, and would have to be fought out in the Courts just like this poor bloke has been through 
It would seem that the main argument that the Prosecution has switched to is not the Firearms Act Definition of a Weapon, but now using the argument against the Laws in regards to the possession of a âProhibited Weapon.â
This is a smart move by the Prosecution to sidestep the arguments over the legality of a Gelblaster complying as a âweaponâ under the Firearms Act, which they are obviously losing in that argumentâŚâŚ. so have shifted their attention to arguing that the charges are justified under the âProhibited Weapons Act.â
So itâs a double edged argument for the legality of Gelblasters, whereas both the Firearms Act AND the Prohibited Weapons Act are needed to be challenged to remove Gelblasters from their definitions to be considered Legal for use and possession.
âOne of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesnât belong, can you tell which thing is not like the others by the time I finish my song?â
1 Like
Is this legit or did the WA gov do a sneaky sneak and edit the laws.
the WA police minister is rubbish.
1 Like
Yes agree a darn good predicaments. Now we just have to us the opportunity. Get a Bill Drafted as the amendment now has to be repealed but must have something to replace it
As per the comments by the Magistrate in these proceedingsâŚâŚ. whereas everything on the whole list are actual real weapons designed exclusively to cause physical harm/death upon a person, the kids toy Gelblaster certainly doesnât meet the Legal Definition by any means 
1 Like
i wish NSW did the same. I already knew the NSW policeâs reasoning was just as rubbish as WA policeâs logic, they (NSW Police) even lost their court case with Brad Towne but yet still banned them anyway⌠WTF!!!
lazy cops run by karens.
1 Like
do you mean âprecedentâ?
dis is interesting do it be go further tho
Who knows, itâs up to the individual people to get on board and keep the pressure up on our current State Governments to try and break the status quoâs 
1 Like
A test case, perhaps�?
To try the new legislation�?
Shall i send you over a ZB-26, @DocBob �? 
As long as youâre paying the court costs, yeah go for it mate! 
The answer to all of this is quite simple and is the same answer that was used to ban replica guns (in army disposal shops) and plastic 1:1 scale kit models of firearms (in hobby shops) back in the 1980s. And I remember the '70s and '80s well - yes, it was a golden age for firearms and replicas in Australia.
Dickheads would point replicas at police officers and members of the public, and so the police who dealt with these issues âat the sharp endâ didnât want the public having them (blanket rule).
Such is life.