Logical Law

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:39 am

This ought to be in the 'Funnies' but it's a good example of how stupid lawmakers can get.

Years ago, before the current laws, in NSW if you had one licensed pistol there was no need to have a safe and your good lady wife could have access to the pistol.

If you got another pistol then you had to buy a safe; logical enough.

However if your wife decided to take up the sport and got a license and bought a pistol and there were now two pistols in the house , then a safe was required; OK fair enough.

But the safe had to have a lockable internal draw to house one of the pistols because the other licensed pistol holder wasn't allowed access to the other person's pistol even though they had access when they didn't have a license.

stripperclip · Post by **stripperclip** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:41 am

I bet that was taxing on there minds to come up with that.

Post by **Niner** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:12 am

Now that is crazy.

You said that was years ago. What's the law now?

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:02 pm

One or more pistols one safe. I believe the same applies as of old regarding access.

One trap that has been created is allowing another person to know where your keys are, long arms or pistols.

It has happened in some States that the police have arrived to check something and the man of the house not being at home they have asked the wife if they could have a look in the gun safe.

Obligingly she produces the key and the rest is history, involving fines and confiscation.

Tom-May · Post by **Tom-May** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:14 am

"...One trap that has been created is allowing another person to know where your keys are, long arms or pistols.

It has happened in some States that the police have arrived to check something and the man of the house not being at home they have asked the wife if they could have a look in the gun safe.
Obligingly she produces the key and the rest is history, involving fines and confiscation..."

Surely that constitutes some form of entrapment - I'd have thought that was the kind of practice that US lawyers would love (lots of long, expensive legislation - almost Dickensian*).

I'm surprised the authorities can get away with that in such a litigeous environment.

Tom

* Jandice and Jandice in the Court of Chancellry - Bleak House

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:15 pm

I just watched the BBC 'Bleak House' on local TV. You can't beat the BBC for good productions.

I suppose that the victims simply can't afford to go to law and the various State police forces usually can't be sued anyway.

Stinks.

milboltnut · Post by **milboltnut** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:37 am

Where are you from bro?

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:49 am

Not in NJ but in the New England district of New South Wales, Down Under (which as I keep pointing out is really the top of the world).

milboltnut · Post by **milboltnut** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:35 am

Not in the U.S.A.?

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:10 am

Well yair, I guess you could call us the nether lands.

We're the country run by George Bush's mate, John Howard.

Surely you've seen them posing together?

Logical Law

Logical Law

What?

You live in NJ right?

Netherlands??