Irish weapons act undescripitive?

lb1997

Hi I was looking into some Katanas and Tantos as I'm a member of a martial arts club and plan on owning my own. forgetting about age , The law states that a Katana made by means of untraditional methods is illegal when made post- 1954 (not sure if that year is 100% correct)
I searched and couldnt seem to find any descriptive details of this law, Does this inlcude the Wakizaki?? what about Tantos?
and what do they Define a Katana as?
wiki defines it as a : a curved, slender, single-edged blade with a circular or squared guard and long grip to accommodate two hands.
so technically the Wakizaki is perfectly legal(IF made by untraditional means)? Am I right?
Could soembody shed some light on this?

Mellor

lb1997 wrote: »

Hi I was looking into some Katanas and Tantos as I'm a member of a martial arts club and plan on owning my own. forgetting about age , The law states that a Katana made by means of untraditional methods is illegal when made post- 1954 (not sure if that year is 100% correct)

I think they have phrased it in more general terms than that.

Something like
"Sword, sometimes known as samurai or katana"

so technically the Wakizaki is perfectly legal(IF made by untraditional means)? Am I right?

Afraid not. The wiki definition has no bearing on the law. Often it comes down to the intention behind the wording.

That aside, the fact that it included "samurai sword", means that it almost certainly covers all other Japanese blades. (And prob many Chinese or other similar blades too)

Pat Mustard

Mellor wrote: »

That aside, the fact that it included "samurai sword", means that it almost certainly covers all other Japanese blades. (And prob many Chinese or other similar blades too)

I'd agree with most of what you've said, except for the last part, highlighted in bold.

I suppose a 'samurai sword' could take in the katana, wakizashi and tanto, and others, probably not exhaustively listed here.

To my knowledge, the definition of 'samurai sword' has not been examined in detail by a court of record in this country. Therefore, perhaps you are right to say that a court might find that Chinese blades which are similar to 'samurai swords' might fall within the definition, provided that they are sufficiently similar.

I'm not sure if you are saying that many other Chinese swords would fall within the definition. If that is what you are saying, then I don't agree. There are so many types of Chinese swords that are so different to 'samurai swords', that it seems incorrect to me.

Mellor

The Mustard wrote: »

To my knowledge, the definition of 'samurai sword' has not been examined in detail by a court of record in this country. Therefore, perhaps you are right to say that a court might find that Chinese blades which are similar to 'samurai swords' might fall within the definition, provided that they are sufficiently similar.

You and I know that a Chinese sword isn't a samurai sword by definition. But thst irrelevant. the law uses the phrase "sometimes known as". And I imagine that a layperson would often refer to lots other asians blades generically as "samurai swords". The law is so generic that its easiy (for them) to argue it covers all sorts.

I'm not sure if you are saying that many other Chinese swords would fall within the definition. If that is what you are saying, then I don't agree. There are so many types of Chinese swords that are so different to 'samurai swords', that it seems incorrect to me.

I said "many" would, not every chinese sword would. And I said "similar" so as to exclude the ones that are different.

Not sure what gave you an impression otherwise.

Dyr

You can certainly argue that wakazachi and tanto fall outside the specific definition of "two handed", whether its worth the legal cost to make that argument is a different matter

Pat Mustard

Mellor wrote: »

You and I know that a Chinese sword isn't a samurai sword by definition. But thst irrelevant. the law uses the phrase "sometimes known as". And I imagine that a layperson would often refer to lots other asians blades generically as "samurai swords". The law is so generic that its easiy (for them) to argue it covers all sorts.

Well, I reckon a judge would have to allow at least enough leeway to account for bad fakes. If there was that much leeway, maybe a judge would find as a matter of fact that a chinese sword that looked somewhat like one of the 'samurai swords' was indeed one.

Mellor wrote: »

I said "many" would, not every chinese sword would. And I said "similar" so as to exclude the ones that are different.

Not sure what gave you an impression otherwise.

You said many Chinese or other similar blades rather than many similar Chinese blades. Hence the confusion on my part. In any case, fair enough.

Pat Mustard

Bambi wrote: »

You can certainly argue that wakazachi and tanto fall outside the specific definition of "two handed", whether its worth the legal cost to make that argument is a different matter

Why do you say that an argument that a sword is one or two-handed would affect whether it comes within the definition of a samurai sword?

lb1997

Mellor wrote: »

I think they have phrased it in more general terms than that.

Something like
"Sword, sometimes known as samurai or katana"




Afraid not. The wiki definition has no bearing on the law. Often it comes down to the intention behind the wording.

That aside, the fact that it included "samurai sword", means that it almost certainly covers all other Japanese blades. (And prob many Chinese or other similar blades too)

I can see your point but (heres the actual law that i found: 'the sword sometimes known as samurai or katana, other
than such a sword—
(i) made before 1954, or
(ii) made at any other time according to traditional methods
of making swords by hand.”.')
dont you think they are being specific just to katanas from reading that? they say ':sometimes known as samurai or katana '' so this sword in question cant not be called a katana ,the samurai part is to assist those who are less informed of these swords. It's hard to explain what im tryin to say so just tell me if im not making sense.

lb1997

The Mustard wrote: »

Why do you say that an argument that a sword is one or two-handed would affect whether it comes within the definition of a samurai sword?

its whether it comes into the definition of a katana which must be 2 handed or its not a katana

Pat Mustard

lb1997 wrote: »

dont you think they are being specific just to katanas from reading that? they say ':sometimes known as samurai or katana '' so this sword in question cant not be called a katana ,the samurai part is to assist those who are less informed of these swords. It's hard to explain what im tryin to say so just tell me if im not making sense.

It basically refers to a 'samurai sword' or katana.

I would say that the phrase 'samurai sword' is a catch all term which takes in the katana, and, by definition, other samurai swords as well.

I may be a bit rusty on this, but at the risk of boring people, the relevant rules of statutory interpretation are:
The Golden Rule.
The Literal/Plain Meaning Rule.
The Mischief Rule.
The Purposive Approach.

My own opinion is the Literal/Plain Meaning Rule is relevant and perhaps the Golden Rule is also relevant.

A katana is a katana, but a judge might consider that a bad fake katana is still a katana. A judge might decide that a 'samurai sword' might take in a range of swords that samurai used to use. Perhaps he could decide that a sword which is similar to some samurai sword is in fact a samurai sword.

A sword which is dissimilar from the swords which samurai used to use should not properly be considered an offensive weapon, in my opinion.

As an aside, one has to question why a 'samurai sword' should be considered an offensive weapon, whereas a sword of German origin, such as a Großes Messer (pic below) is not classified as such. What a poorly conceived and badly drafted piece of legislation, overseen by the same Minister for Justice who oversaw the introduction of the blasphemy law.

Pat Mustard

lb1997 wrote: »

its whether it comes into the definition of a katana which must be 2 handed or its not a katana

I think that this argument is on the basis that it must be a katana in order to be an offensive weapon, ignoring other varieties of samurai swords. I wouldn't bet my house on a judge buying that argument.

lb1997

The Mustard wrote: »

It basically refers to a 'samurai sword' or katana.

I would say that the phrase 'samurai sword' is a catch all term which takes in the katana, and, by definition, other samurai swords as well.

I may be a bit rusty on this, but at the risk of boring people, the relevant rules of statutory interpretation are:
The Golden Rule.
The Literal/Plain Meaning Rule.
The Mischief Rule.
The Purposive Approach.

My own opinion is the Literal/Plain Meaning Rule is relevant and perhaps the Golden Rule is also relevant.

A katana is a katana, but a judge might consider that a bad fake katana is still a katana. A judge might decide that a 'samurai sword' might take in a range of swords that samurai used to use. Perhaps he could decide that a sword which is similar to some samurai sword is in fact a samurai sword.

A sword which is dissimilar from the swords which samurai used to use should not properly be considered an offensive weapon, in my opinion.

As an aside, one has to question why a 'samurai sword' should be considered an offensive weapon, whereas a sword of German origin, such as a Großes Messer (pic below) is not classified as such. What a poorly conceived and badly drafted piece of legislation, overseen by the same Minister for Justice who oversaw the introduction of the blasphemy law.

I see , well the whole point of this thread was to see what sort of weapons i could legally import,so now i guess i'll just scrape up the extra cash and buy a traditional katana as its really the only option. i was orginally planning on gettin a cheap 'ninja sword'(crafted with CNC) which i believed would be legal to import as it didnt have the same characteristics as a katana:
http://www.blades-uk.com/large_pic.php?product_id=256
it was shockingly inexpensive, £18!

Pat Mustard

That sword that you linked to looks like a cheap fake katana of the kind that the legislation was intended to catch! I'd go for something else, if were you.

lb1997

The Mustard wrote: »

That sword that you linked to looks like a cheap fake katana of the kind that the legislation was intended to catch! I'd go for something else, if were you.

gotcha , the price was the only benefit to that one

Gran Hermano

I remember when the law was changed and thinking it was both oddly phrased and included a weird selection of items. Whatever prompted them to include kusari gama? It's not like we've ever had crime sprees with kusari gama thugs nor is it the easiest choice for your typical thug to wield.

Pat Mustard

Without looking at the legislation, I believe that a Monkey's Fist is also an offensive weapon.

A tennis racket would be pretty much as threatening.

Mellor

The Mustard wrote: »

You said many Chinese or other similar blades rather than many similar Chinese blades. Hence the confusion on my part. In any case, fair enough.

I see what you mean, fair enough.
From your other posts, I think we're looking at it from the same point of view.

lb1997 wrote: »

dont you think they are being specific just to katanas from reading that? they say ':sometimes known as samurai or katana '' so this sword in question cant not be called a katana ,the samurai part is to assist those who are less informed of these swords. It's hard to explain what im tryin to say so just tell me if im not making sense.

The use of the word OR rules out that interpretation. It can be known as either, but not necessarily both.

For what you suggest to be true, it would have to read:
"samurai sword known as the katana"

The Mustard wrote: »

My own opinion is the Literal/Plain Meaning Rule is relevant and perhaps the Golden Rule is also relevant.

A katana is a katana, but a judge might consider that a bad fake katana is still a katana. A judge might decide that a 'samurai sword' might take in a range of swords that samurai used to use. Perhaps he could decide that a sword which is similar to some samurai sword is in fact a samurai sword.

This is my reading of it also. The the intention behind the law and the general understand of the phrase, not the technical meaning, is what the judges would go to.
Otherwise, one could argue that only swords made by traditional means are truly katanas, therefore no sword is illegal.

A sword which is dissimilar from the swords which samurai used to use should not properly be considered an offensive weapon, in my opinion.

Agree.

As an aside, one has to question why a 'samurai sword' should be considered an offensive weapon, whereas a sword of German origin, such as a Großes Messer (pic below) is not classified as such. What a poorly conceived and badly drafted piece of legislation, overseen by the same Minister for Justice who oversaw the introduction of the blasphemy law.

A knee jerk reaction to a couple of incidents that got media coverage. Some gob****e starts shouting about people running about with samurai swords

lb1997 wrote: »

I see , well the whole point of this thread was to see what sort of weapons i could legally import,so now i guess i'll just scrape up the extra cash and buy a traditional katana as its really the only option. i was orginally planning on gettin a cheap 'ninja sword'(crafted with CNC) which i believed would be legal to import as it didnt have the same characteristics as a katana:

I'd agree with The Mustard. That's exactly the sword the law is intended to cover. I'd find something else.