The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the information about the Weapons Act, 1990. The purpose of the Weapons Act, 1990 is –
Section 142 of Part 6: The Right of review of decisions
Prohibitions
Section 127: Obligations of security organisation in respect of use and possession of weapons
Section 128: Obligations of security organisation in respect of register
Section 129: Obligations of the members of governing body of the security organisation
Members of the governing body of security organisation must make sure that security organisation conforms to this division.
How to achieve objects for weapons:
The Weapons Act, 1990 has amended many times by the government, and the overriding objective of this act is to stop the misuse of weapons by people and organisations. This objective is likely to through the legislation that regulates usage, storage and possession of weapons.
The main unintended consequence relating to the Weapon Act, 1990 is the regulatory burden. The guidelines issued by the act are time-consuming, and it has a number of regulations which are not essential to this act. Although the act has few discrepancies, it creates a fair balance between the competing interests which are affected by its provisions. Efficiency in the guidelines of this act is necessary which would result in improving the effectiveness of this act.
In the given case, the respondent had two Browning semi-automatic pistols and one Jennings .22 pistol. Darryl white made an application to make the transfer of Jennings semi-auto pistol and browning semi-automatic pistols from category H concealable firearms licence to collector’s weapons licence. The authorised officer rejected the application because he did not agree with the procedure of transfer of two Browning semi-automatic pistols and a Jennings .22 rim fire pistol.
The authorised officer had denied the Darryl white’s application to make the transfer of these three weapons as he disagreed that browning semi-automatic pistols and Jennings semi-auto pistols were in the category of collectable firearms as per section 77(2) of the Act. Also, the authorised officer had no reasons to believe that appellant had his sincere interest in the prevention and collection of the firearms as per the section 138(3) of the Act. The WLB party line described that concealable licence is not an adequate reason to decide to assemble modern weapons.
White Darryl had made a submission that there was a mistake of law on the part of a judge because she had misjudged the question which is required to be responded on the appeal before her. The police acknowledged the fact that the judge had not applied the correct test in respect of one weapon, ‘Jennings semi auto pistol’.
The respondent appealed to the magistrate court, and a further appeal was made to the district court for the hearing. The District Court agreed with white and would have none of WLB submission.
When the authorised officer rejected the Darryl White’s application for transfer of two Browning semi-automatic pistols and one Jennings semi auto pistols from concealable firearms licence to his collector’s licence, some issues were raised whether the applicant had reasonable, valid grounds to have and hold these three weapons, two Browning semi-automatic pistols and one Jennings .22 rim fire pistol. Another legal issue was whether these three weapons were transferable. Whether the Browning semi-automatic pistols and Jennings semi auto pistols were collectable firearms as defined under the Weapons Act, 1990 (Queensland). Furthermore, the legal issue is whether an appeal should be entertained by the magistrate court or the district court.
Appeal to the Magistrate Court:
When the authorised officer had denied the application of transfer, the respondent used his right of appeal against the decision of authorised officer. The respondent had made an appeal to the magistrate court. The notice was accompanied by letter in which white had made his arguments. But the letter was not the part of records of appeal made in the magistrate court. The respondent argued that the browning pistols had both significance and thematic value and on the other hand Jennings semi auto pistol’s major characteristic was constructed with cheapness. Further respondent justified the use of firearms and his participation in film and cinema.
On the basis of finding, the magistrate gave a decision that historic theme of firearms has not been established and Jennings semi auto pistol is not collectable firearms as per the act. Based on this fact, the judge decided to dismiss the appeal which was made by the appellant. The court further made an opinion that the rights regarding having or holding a weapon should be balanced against the public interest.
Later, the decision was appealed to the district court as per the section 149 of the Weapons Act 1990. The judges in the district court considered the decision given by the judges of the magistrate court. The district court judges made a conclusion that the appeal should be allowed. The magistrate made an opinion that firstly, the respondent already held the authorisation of weapons and the question of public interest is not so much relevant in this case.
The District Court followed the observation of the honour McGill, DCJ in Phillips v Woolcock case and awarded cost against the WLB.
As per the critical view, there are some errors in the appeal decision. The judgement made by the judges of the district court was based on a wrong ground. It was not right to say that the magistrate treated the particulars that weapons were purchased for some specific purpose excluding the fact that weapons could not have historic or thematic value.
The mistake in the reasoning of the district court judge is to necessitate a grant of leave to appeal and keeping the appeal on hold. But the question raised that whether this decision can view in any other matter or incident because the respondent already had the authorisation of these weapons and licence was permitted accordingly.
One of the key issues which remained debatable is whether the Jennings semi auto pistol and the Browning semi-automatic pistol are collectable firearms or not. The issue regarding whether the respondent had some genuine grounds for having and holding of such weapons remained unclear. It can be seen in this case that the procedure of fact finding backfired. As per these grounds, the matters could be heard again in the court.
As per the opinion of the district court judges, the magistrate court judges did not give final conclusion because the magistrate court failed to decide whether the Jennings semi auto pistol and browning semi-automatic pistol are collectable firearms. Further, the district court found that magistrate court judges took into consideration, only the facts of no significance or less significance. The decision given by the judges of the magistrate court was wrong because the test applied by the court was not correct.
Furthermore, magistrate court judge raised the question of public interest and needed to maintain the balance between public interest and the rights of the collector. The District court judges also took some wrong view in regarding of decision whether weapons are collectible firearms.
The Dangerous Weapons Control Act 2017 (Qld) is implemented by the Queensland Parliament regarding dangerous weapons and their purchase, possession, use, carrying and sale. The act focuses on regulating or prohibiting the sale or use of an unregistered weapon for the public interest. Section 5 (1) of the act provided that a person is prohibited from supplying, acquiring, possessing and using a firearm which is not properly registered by the authorities. The supply of the firearm means the transfer of its ownership which can be done by sale, gift, barter, exchange or any other purposes which include an offer for supply, conduct negotiations, deliver for supply and allow supply. The Minister of Justice clearly provided in his speech that the act prioritise public and individual safety which will be improved by imposing strict regulations on the use and possession of the weapons. Furthermore, this act also focuses on imposing strict provisions on safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons and to prevent the misuse of weapons.
Helen inherited the personal effects of his father, after his death, in which an unregistered pistol was included as well. Helen put the pistol into a box along with other things of his father and gave it to her friend, Tom, for taking them to her place. As per section 5 (1), as discussed above, a person must not supply, acquire, possess or use an unregistered firearm. Helen did not acquire, possess or use the firearm. The dictionary meaning of supply as discussed above provide that it means transfer of ownership by way of sale, gift, barter, exchange or otherwise which include an offer, negotiations, deliver and allow for supply for an unregistered firearm. Helen gave the box to Tom who did know pistol was in the box. Helen did not have an intention to sell the pistol to Tom, and there was no agreement between the parties. Therefore, Helen did not supply the unregistered pistol to Tom based on which she cannot be held liable under section 5 (1) of the Dangerous Weapons Control Act 2017 (Qld).
As provided by the Minister of Justice in his speech, the main purpose of this act is to ensure public and individual safety by imposing strict regulations on possession and safe storage and carriage of weapons. In this case, Helen put the pistol in the box with other things and gave it to Tom without telling him that there is an unregistered piston in the box which can be very dangerous. Therefore, based on the speech of the Minister of Justice, Helen can be held liable for not taking appropriate measures for improving the safety of storage and carriage of the pistol and the court can provide a judgement to imprison her for five years. Furthermore, Helen can also be held liable for misusing the weapon of her father by not submitting it to the appropriate authority right after she found the pistol.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download