SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, Ruling, Gel Blasters INVAILD

Legal
41

the logical thing is to punish the minority, not punish the majority ffs.

1 Like
42

No, you got it backwards!

They should be punishing the minority and leaving the majority alone!

1 Like
43

exactly. they need to do this in NSW too.

1 Like
44

No youā€™re both wrong, they should be fucking everyone over cause thatā€™s the logical thing to do according to politicians

45

Hey guys, Iā€™m new to the forum/community

So the bullshit that the police minister spun about converting a blaster into a ā€˜firearmā€™ is clearly a lie with zero evidence, Iā€™m guessing he canā€™t even be held accountable for that? Iā€™m new to the idea of gelblasters & the way all Aus law works. I donā€™t know if I understand parliamentary privilege. Does he get parliamentary privilege and to walk away with spinning some random shit to push his own point?

If so, thatā€™s a pretty stupid privilege no matter your stance. If thatā€™s the situation then it makes no sense how a claim with no evidence can not only attempt to influence Australian law but not even be audited and or punished adequately for lying?

Hoping gelblasters are legalised soon because Iā€™ve been interested since before the initial outlaw in 2021. I was about to buy a blaster right before the shitshow too. Good thing I didnā€™t.

2 Likes
46

Get on Facebook and look up the SWGB (South West Gel Blaster) Group.

Much of what we have been fighting here in Western Australia is quite well documented on their Facebook page.

Thereā€™s plenty of other online communities from WA who are still fighting these bans, so I highly recommend checking them out, joining up and getting involved in the campaigns that we are working on to change these ā€œlawsā€.

1 Like
47

Put in a join request. Itā€™ll be good to have access to proper WA based group for legal info, areas to play, how to get blasters etc. (if Iā€™m able to at all).

48

And, by ā€œlawsā€, do you mean the extremely biased , factually incorrect , point of view, of one person in power, who seeks to enforce his personal viewpoint on an entire stateā€¦??

1 Like
49

The fact one bloke can have more power with his opinions than an entire state of people is unbelievable

1 Like
50

You know that kinda sounds a lot like a dictatorship :thinking:

2 Likes
51

Democratic nation my ass. You canā€™t even legally impeach or suit a parliament member about their actions in said parliament due to privilege. What a joke.

2 Likes
52

thatā€™s every state here in Australia.

2 Likes
53

even the manufacturers say that they cannot be converted. the WA police minister is full of shit. :joy:

1 Like
54

Any rational person who picks one up would say they canā€™t be converted, even if they have no knowledge of firearms.

3 Likes
55

good, i am rational :smiley:

56

Hey guys, has there been any updates on the ban in WA? Or are we now just waiting for a minister to try and change it?

1 Like
57

No updates that Iā€™ve heard of yet.
Check out the Southwest Gelball Facebook page to see if thereā€™s anything been updated on there :+1:

2 Likes
58

High Court Case Argument: Inconsistency of Gel Blaster Classification Under Section 109 of the Australian Constitution

Case Title: [Plaintiffā€™s Name] v. The State of Western Australia

Court: High Court of Australia

Overview

The plaintiff challenges the amendment to the Weapons Act 1999 (WA) that classifies gel blasters as prohibited weapons, arguing that this classification is inconsistent with federal laws and violates Section 109 of the Australian Constitution. The case also highlights the misuse of power and misconduct by state authorities, particularly in the actions taken by police and government ministers, which have caused undue fear in the community.

Definition and Characteristics of Gel Blasters

  1. Nature of Gel Blasters: Gel blasters, also known as gel guns or hydro blasters, are toy guns that utilize super-absorbent polymer water beads (typically 6-8mm in size) as projectiles. These gel balls are made primarily of water and are designed to break upon impact, leaving minimal residue, which makes them environmentally friendly and easy to clean.

  2. Mechanism of Operation: Gel blasters operate similarly to airsoft guns, using either a spring-loaded mechanism or an electric motor to propel the gel beads. The muzzle velocity of gel blasters is generally lower than that of traditional firearms, typically around 200-250 feet per second, which is considered safe for recreational use.

  3. Safety Considerations: While gel blasters can cause minor injuries if misused (e.g., if shot at sensitive areas like the eyes), they are regarded as safer than airsoft or paintball guns due to their lower impact force and the nature of their projectiles. Protective eyewear is recommended during use, but the overall risk is significantly lower compared to actual firearms.

Legal Inconsistencies

  1. Federal Classification of Gel Blasters: At the federal level, gel blasters are classified as toys by the ACCC ASN/NZ 8124 standard, as the gel beads are not legally considered ammunition. This federal classification is inconsistent with the WA amendment that deems gel blasters prohibited weapons, creating confusion and undermining the legal framework governing their possession and use.

  2. Section 109: Inconsistency: Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states that when a state law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law prevails. The plaintiff argues that the WA amendment is in direct conflict with the federal classification of gel blasters as toys, rendering the state law invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

  3. Ambiguity in Enforcement: The lack of a precise definition for what constitutes a gel blaster under the WA amendment leads to potential overreach in enforcement. Law enforcement may struggle to differentiate between legal gel blasters and other devices, resulting in arbitrary enforcement actions against law-abiding citizens who possess these toys.

  4. Impact on Recreational Use: The classification of gel blasters as prohibited weapons not only affects individual enthusiasts but also impacts local businesses and community events centered around gel blaster activities. The inconsistency in classification undermines the legitimacy of recreational use, which is legally recognized in other states like Queensland.

Misuse of Power and Misconduct

  1. Ministerial Actions: The plaintiff contends that the Ministerā€™s actions in promoting the prohibition on gel blasters were based on misleading information and unfounded claims about public safety risks associated with these toys. This has resulted in a disproportionate response that does not reflect factual evidence regarding their use or safety.

  2. Undue Fear in the Community: The governmentā€™s portrayal of gel blasters as dangerous weapons has created undue fear among community members, leading to unnecessary panic and anxiety surrounding their use. This fear is exacerbated by heavy-handed policing tactics employed under this classification.

  3. Police Misconduct: Instances have been reported where police have acted excessively in enforcing laws related to gel blasters, including unwarranted raids and intimidation tactics against individuals possessing these toys. Such actions reflect an abuse of police power aimed at suppressing lawful activities rather than addressing genuine safety concerns.

  4. Public Trust Erosion: The combination of misleading information from government officials and aggressive policing strategies has eroded public trust in both law enforcement and government institutions. Citizens feel threatened rather than protected by those meant to uphold public safety.

Relief Sought

The plaintiff seeks the following relief from the High Court:

  1. Declaration of Invalidity: A declaration that the amendment to the Weapons Act 1999 (WA) classifying gel blasters as prohibited weapons is invalid due to inconsistency with federal law under Section 109 of the Constitution.

  2. Injunction: An injunction preventing the state from enforcing the amendment until a clear and consistent legal framework is established regarding gel blasters.

  3. Costs: An order for costs associated with the proceedings.

Conclusion

This case presents a significant opportunity to address both legal inconsistencies between state and federal laws regarding gel blasters in Australia and issues related to misuse of power by state authorities. By challenging the validity of the WA amendment under Section 109 of the Australian Constitution, along with highlighting ministerial misconduct and police overreach, the plaintiff aims to restore clarity and fairness to the legal status of gel blasters while ensuring that community fears are based on factual evidence rather than misleading narratives. Addressing these issues is essential for promoting a consistent legal framework for gel blasters and rebuilding public trust in government institutions.

3 Likes
59

Thanks for the in depth reply as to this ongoing campaign :+1:
Lobbying Local Members is still an action that any of us in this Hobby can continue to pursue as individuals in the fight against these Laws :muscle:

2 Likes
60

if only NSW had the same brains behind it.