What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
fine and 3 years clink in WA?

--
John H

On 6/1/22 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>
Laser pointers of the type cockheads use to dazzle pilots of aircraft?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>
That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.

On 6/1/22 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>
Electric skateboard?

--
Daryl

On 6/01/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
> fine and 3 years clink in WA?

Given that it's Western Australia you're talking about, it could be a
Pacemaker :)

People complain about Tasmanians being inbred fuckwits, but West
Australians make them look like rocket scientists....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Grumpy Tech wrote:
>On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>
>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>
>That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.

The black jellybean is yours. :)

They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?

--
John H

On 6/01/2022 11:09 am, John_H wrote:
> Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>>
>> That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.
>
> The black jellybean is yours. :)
>
> They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
> eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
> firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?
>
I'd take 3 years in the slammer over being filled with 9mm slugs from a
case of mistaken recognition any day. Agree though both the fine and the
jail sentence is excessive.

I had a bit of an interest in the subject when a mate was trying to get
airsoft going in Qld. Airsoft guns are illegal in most states afaik.

On 6/01/2022 6:08 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/01/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>
> Given that it's Western Australia you're talking about, it could be a
> Pacemaker :)
>
> People complain about Tasmanians being inbred fuckwits, but West
> Australians make them look like rocket scientists....
>
>
>

Further proof that Queenslanders and Victorians are as blind as they are
fucking stupid.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/toy-guns-victoria-bans-gel-ball-blasters-after-they-are-used-in-serious-crimes/695c7788-1793-4e40-9f33-912aade2d71f

Grumpy Tech wrote:
>On 6/01/2022 11:09 am, John_H wrote:
>> Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>>>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>>>
>>> That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.
>>
>> The black jellybean is yours. :)
>>
>> They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
>> eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
>> firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?
>>
>I'd take 3 years in the slammer over being filled with 9mm slugs from a
>case of mistaken recognition any day. Agree though both the fine and the
>jail sentence is excessive.

Gel blasters do have a number of restrictions in Qld which are very
obviously designed to prevent mistaken recogntion by those who can't
tell the difference.

>I had a bit of an interest in the subject when a mate was trying to get
>airsoft going in Qld. Airsoft guns are illegal in most states afaik.

I've never seen one but according to the authorities airsoft guns are
banned because they're deliberately made to resemble real firearms
whereas any of the gel blasters I've seen only have a vague
resemblance at best.

OTOH paint ball guns, which pack a far greater whallop, do require a
licence in Qld and other states as well, including WA.

--
John H

On 06-Jan-22 12:09 pm, John_H wrote:
> Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>>
>> That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.
>
> The black jellybean is yours. :)
>
> They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
> eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
> firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?
>

Yet there was already a provision controlling possession of items that
resemble guns, and some gel blasters certainly do.

But rather than use that provision, they added a paragraph to the
definition of prohibited weapon so as to expressly capture gel blasters,
regardless of what they look like, and even prohibited the gel balls
themselves.

Seems like a pretext to me.

Sylvia.

On 6/01/2022 3:55 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 06-Jan-22 12:09 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>>>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>>>
>>> That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.
>>
>> The black jellybean is yours.  :)
>>
>> They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
>> eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
>> firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?
>>
>
> Yet there was already a provision controlling possession of items that
> resemble guns, and some gel blasters certainly do.
>
> But rather than use that provision, they added a paragraph to the
> definition of prohibited weapon so as to expressly capture gel blasters,
> regardless of what they look like, and even prohibited the gel balls
> themselves.
>
> Seems like a pretext to me.

Exactly the same a paintball, both the guns and the paintballs are
restricted items although you'd be hard put to mistake a paintball gun
for a real one.

On 6/01/2022 3:54 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 6/01/2022 3:55 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 06-Jan-22 12:09 pm, John_H wrote:
>>> Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>> On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>>>>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>>>>
>>>> That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.
>>>
>>> The black jellybean is yours.  :)
>>>
>>> They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
>>> eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
>>> firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?
>>>
>>
>> Yet there was already a provision controlling possession of items that
>> resemble guns, and some gel blasters certainly do.
>>
>> But rather than use that provision, they added a paragraph to the
>> definition of prohibited weapon so as to expressly capture gel
>> blasters, regardless of what they look like, and even prohibited the
>> gel balls themselves.
>>
>> Seems like a pretext to me.
>
> Exactly the same a paintball, both the guns and the paintballs are
> restricted items although you'd be hard put to mistake a paintball gun
> for a real one.

Gel blasters that resemble a real weapon as many do should be
restricted. QLD is backwards as per usual but they will eventually catch
on and the facts may even eventually reach the QLD backwater
Dunning-Kruger poster child, not that he would ever acknowledge it.

On 6/1/22 4:55 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 06-Jan-22 12:09 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 6/01/2022 6:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> What battery powered device, legal to own in Qld, comes with a $36k
>>>> fine and 3 years clink in WA?
>>>>
>>> That would be a gel blaster I would suspect.
>>
>> The black jellybean is yours.  :)
>>
>> They appear to've been banned because someone with extremely bad
>> eyesight (no doubt a result of inbreeding) might mistake one for a
>> firearm. But, 3 years in the slammer WTF?
>>
>
> Yet there was already a provision controlling possession of items that
> resemble guns, and some gel blasters certainly do.
>
> But rather than use that provision, they added a paragraph to the
> definition of prohibited weapon so as to expressly capture gel blasters,
> regardless of what they look like, and even prohibited the gel balls
> themselves.
>
> Seems like a pretext to me.
>
> Sylvia.
The gell bals are used ornamentally in garden like pot displays