Author Topic: Getting OC-based dog spray legalized by taking the law to court.  (Read 1341 times)

August 30, 2014, 04:06:33 pm
Read 1341 times

The-lizard

  • *
  • Master of the five stringed banjo

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 413
    • View Profile
My idea is simple, get OC sprays designed for use on animals legalized in Belgium, by having a court limit the scope of application of the "Law on weapons 2006", Article 10, to a literal interpretation of it's text.

Article 10 of the Belgian "Law on weapons of 2006" states:

Quote
Les objets destinés à toucher les personnes au moyen de substances toxiques, asphyxiantes, lacrymogènes et de substances similaires, à l'exception d'outils médicaux [sont considérées comme armes prohibées].
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Objects intended to project toxic, asphyxiating, lachrymatory or similar substances upon people, with the exception of medical tools [are considered prohibited weapons].

With animals being classed as "objects" under Belgian law, OC sprays designed for use on animals should, logically, benefit from the same exemption from article 10 of the "Law on weapons 2006" as insecticide sprays.


Something similar could be done in the UK; arguing that OC is not a noxious substance and that carrying OC spray for the purpose of self-defense against animals does not constitute an offense under the UK's "offensive weapon" laws.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 07:04:30 pm by The-lizard »

August 30, 2014, 09:32:18 pm
Reply #1

Spike

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 5,582
  • Personal Text
    NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
    • View Profile
But.....If you then use it on or against a person you are breaking another law!

You can't win!   :(

Spike.
People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people... "V"

August 26, 2016, 09:47:23 pm
Reply #2

The-lizard

  • *
  • Master of the five stringed banjo

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 413
    • View Profile
But.....If you then use it on or against a person you are breaking another law!

Not necessarily. If it is necessary for you to use it in order to save your life, and you attempted to retreat before using it, I believe it would be considered lawful self-defence under UK law.

August 26, 2016, 11:38:15 pm
Reply #3

Spike

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 5,582
  • Personal Text
    NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
    • View Profile
It may still be seen as "going prepared" and they may question whether you did in fact intend to retreat.

It comes down to this....if they want to prosecute they will always find grounds to do so. You may fight in court and win, but by then you will have been plastered all over the tabloids and TV, you may have spent a fortune on lawyers (who never lose) and in certain circumstances damage your career prospects.

Probably safer to just terminate the threat and hope to escape thereafter! Or run away......

Oh. Why go with dog spray? Stand up for either mace or some other recognised human threat deterrent.

Spike.
People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people... "V"

August 27, 2016, 10:56:44 am
Reply #4

The-lizard

  • *
  • Master of the five stringed banjo

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 413
    • View Profile
It may still be seen as "going prepared" and they may question whether you did in fact intend to retreat.

That's the problem. If they want to get you, they will get you. There's not really much you can do about this, other than decide whether to be judged or buried.


Oh. Why go with dog spray? Stand up for either mace or some other recognised human threat deterrent.

Because there's a "loophole" which can easily lead to it's legalization, and such legalization can spark debate.

August 27, 2016, 12:59:56 pm
Reply #5

Spike

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 5,582
  • Personal Text
    NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
    • View Profile
The "system" is heavily biased against the law abiding being proactive and extra lenient on the habitual lawbreakers who don't give a damn anyway!  :(

What is the loophole with dog spray? And, is it particularly effective? Where can it be sourced?

Spike.
People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people... "V"

August 27, 2016, 01:47:11 pm
Reply #6

The-lizard

  • *
  • Master of the five stringed banjo

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 413
    • View Profile

What is the loophole with dog spray?

From my first post:

My idea is simple, get OC sprays designed for use on animals legalized in Belgium, by having a court limit the scope of application of the "Law on weapons 2006", Article 10, to a literal interpretation of it's text.

Article 10 of the Belgian "Law on weapons of 2006" states:

Quote
Les objets destinés à toucher les personnes au moyen de substances toxiques, asphyxiantes, lacrymogènes et de substances similaires, à l'exception d'outils médicaux [sont considérées comme armes prohibées].
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Objects intended to project toxic, asphyxiating, lachrymatory or similar substances upon people, with the exception of medical tools [are considered prohibited weapons].

With animals being classed as "objects" under Belgian law, OC sprays designed for use on animals should, logically, benefit from the same exemption from article 10 of the "Law on weapons 2006" as insecticide sprays.


Something similar could be done in the UK; arguing that OC is not a noxious substance and that carrying OC spray for the purpose of self-defense against animals does not constitute an offense under the UK's "offensive weapon" laws.[/size]

And, is it particularly effective?

It should be fairly effective against a non-determined attacker.

August 28, 2016, 12:18:16 am
Reply #7

Spike

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 5,582
  • Personal Text
    NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
    • View Profile
People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people... "V"

August 28, 2016, 01:22:39 am
Reply #8

Ali3nat0r

  • Tech
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1,454
    • View Profile
That loophole should work in Belgium, however the definition of S5 firearm here says nothing about use on people, just "discharging any noxious gas or other thing".

August 28, 2016, 10:44:13 am
Reply #9

Spike

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 5,582
  • Personal Text
    NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
    • View Profile
"Section 5(1)(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends on type."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/#a14

Banjaxed then.

Spike.
People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people... "V"