Zxthinger wrote: »

It doesn't discharge anything so this pert of the act is not relevant. It do however closely resemble a cross bow so.

The revised firearms act states “ firearm ” means —

( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,

( b ) an air gun (including an air rifle and air pistol) with a muzzle energy greater than one joule or any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile can be discharged with such a muzzle energy.

Both these definitions would catch you out as the company making these air guns/dart gun (not sure what you would call it) are advertising it as a hunting weapon, “The company is promoting this as a hunting gun for use at ranges out to 30 Yards.” I personally don’t hunt but I think it would be a safe assumption to say that you’re meant to kill what you’re hunting, so it would constitute a lethal weapon then.

The second definition also gets you as it uses air as it’s propellant so I’m fairly sure that would count as an air gun and this is where you really get caught out. According to the website “the Ranchero Arrow fires a 230 Grain bolt/arrow with a Muzzle Velocity of up to 240 FPS. That’s close to 30 Ft/Lbs of Muzzle Energy”. If you run the numbers you come out to nearly 40 Joules of Kinetic Energy (39.87), so it’s probably best not to try buy one.

Zxthinger wrote: »

On the contrary, both definitions rely on the principle that the items therein discharge.
To reiterate, 'discharge' is the expulsions from a closed area or an orifice.

I will again state that this device comes under the crossbow. As such there is no definition so anything goes.

A poor barrister would have little difficulty defending agains your two definitions provided and I dare say say they'd have little difficulty demonstrating the weaknesses in trying to draw parallels to the crossbow..

I see what you’re saying but your defense is on the basis that there is only one definition for discharged but there isn’t. Another definition of discharge that is relevant here is “to fire a gun or shoot an arrow etc”. If your definition was the legal one then someone would have made a legal zip gun by just tying a bullet to a plank and having a crude trigger. To be honest you have made a decent point but no judge or Garda is going to agree with your definition and let’s not forget how you can probably stick a nail inside the barrel and hence making it a firearm by your definition. At $1,000 a gun, it’s not a risk anyone should really want to be taking.

CorkScrew98989 wrote: »

In theory its legal but in practice i would get in alot of trouble for possesing one?

Its like reloading. Its not illegal, its just you're not allowed to do it :rolleyes:

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

I see what you’re saying but your defense is on the basis that there is only one definition for discharged but there isn’t. Another definition of discharge that is relevant here is “to fire a gun or shoot an arrow etc”. If your definition was the legal one then someone would have made a legal zip gun by just tying a bullet to a plank and having a crude trigger. To be honest you have made a decent point but no judge or Garda is going to agree with your definition and let’s not forget how you can probably stick a nail inside the barrel and hence making it a firearm by your definition. At $1,000 a gun, it’s not a risk anyone should really want to be taking.

Firstly, my advise is to licence this and treat it as a firearm under Irish law.. take no chances on such an item.
Secondly, let me draw you attention to a few issues which we don't agree on;
A firearm is an arm that produces fire!
This definition is expanded to cover all arms that discharge. i.e air power
An arrow is not propelled by fire nor is it discharged thus the need to specifically legislate for the crossbow in the 1990s criminal justice act (IIRC)
This oddity is not a crossbow, nor is it a discharging firearm.

I known that the spear gun issue was similar in that persons using a rubber powered spear gun required no licence but other variants required licences..
I suppose that sets the stage. ...

Im just wondering if those spear guns that required licences where loaded internally or externally slid over a shaft etc etc

Zxthinger wrote: »

Im just wondering if those spear guns that required licences where loaded internally or externally slid over a shaft etc etc

I'd assume they are/were the compressed air versions,not the rubber powerd versions?
The way these can still be bought in Germany until Sept1st when the legislation changes,and the way Jeorg Sprave originally designed [of slingshot channel fame]is that the arrow is launched from OVER the barrel,not through it,which makes it a firearm there.

Nope
,because it is a magazine device and

[2] we don't have a legal definition of what a crossbow is in the act.

[3] By the same logic of it having a trigger mechanism making it a "crossbow" somehow,and lacking a shoulder stock of some type Bow wrist triggers would be making a normal bow into an X bow as well.

4] By the time Georg gets this thing into production,it will be so expensive it will be like those air arrow devices an expensive toy.