You're liable to get arrested for it.
CANBERRA (Reuters) - An Australian movie fan on his way to pose for a Star Wars 30th anniversary photo shoot was arrested by police after his replica laser pistol was mistaken for a more earthly machine gun, media reported on Friday.
The 32-year-old man, dressed in black and carrying a backpack with a replica laser blaster poking out the side, alarmed diners at a food court in central Melbourne.
"It was a replica gun. We weren't sure what we were dealing with," Senior-Constable Daniel Sage told the Herald Sun newspaper. Photographs showed a gun closely resembling the weapon carried by Star Wars rogue Han Solo in the cinema classic.
The man had been on his way to pose for a community newspaper ahead of the 30th Star Wars movie anniversary when he was surrounded by armed police, forced to the ground and handcuffed.
Police said despite being a harmless replica and a close match to a weapon from a galaxy far, far away, the man would be charged with possessing an unregistered firearm.
What makes this stupid is that it was a fake gun. A FAKE GUN. As in, it not ony resembles the fake gun, it actually doesn't work. And they're still charging him with a felony.
WTF!?
Maybe it was the token dumb cop.
Cooki, a lot of states in America have laws that do not distinguish brandishing or keeping visible a firearm, if the firearm is real or not. There are many states where, if you point a toy at someone, it can carry the same charge as pointing an actual firearm.
Because we have stronger gun control laws. n.n
And civilization's collective IQ few another few points.
~Tobe
I don't see what all the negative comments are about, here.
It's not like John. Q. Sixpack on the street is going to recognize that it's a replica of a fake gun. Something like this could cause panic, and that's, you know, sort of what Policemen are supposed to prevent?
Preventing panic and trumping up false charges are two different things.
~Tobe
When you're walking around in public with a fake gun that is not explicitly marked as such it's perfectly reasonable to get charged for such.
I think if carrying around a fake is illegal then it should be its own law, with a different charge.
Eh, it's debatable.
Personally, if a gun is REALISTIC, then I don't really think there should be much difference. If I saw you on the street and pointed a clear blue plastic water pistol at you, you probably wouldn't really care too much, right?
But if I pointed a toy gun that is easily mistakable for a real gun, you'd be terrified until you knew it was a toy, right?
Terrifying people is different from being a threat. That's like saying a person who claims to have committed a crime or appears to be doing so should be charged with that crime just for causing the perception.
Ironically enough the police chief of the nearby town was in the paper the other day saying how he wanted replica toy guns banned as they are dangerous and can lead to accident shootings and cause fear. Geez, would you rather a guy hold up a bank with a non working replica or the real thing?
Errr, I think the point is NO banks robbed, whether the weapon is fake or not.
Terrifying people is different from being a threat.
...Uh, okay...
Quote:
Terrifying people is different from being a threat.
Wrong. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is a felony also.
It's also a different crime than arson in a theatre.
SX, your skills at taking a few words out of context, here and in MG, have inspired me.
Quote:
If I saw you on the street and pointed a clear blue plastic water pistol at you, you probably wouldn't really care too much, right?
Obviously you are being silly, because I wouldn't want to get squirted. Duh.
Would you care as much as if I pointed a REAL[istic enough] pistol at you?
Vec's point is that threatening your life and inadvertantly causing you to feel threatened should be treated seperately. I.E. Yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre is something bad, but that something bad is not arsen.
If you already understand this, I have no idea why you are posting the things you are. =0
Well, one thing to note: if you yell "FIRE" in a theater or other public place and there is, indeed, a fire going on, then you aren't likely to be charged with anything.
However, for doing the same thing without an actual fire, it is illegal.
I... just totally lost where the hell we are/were going with this topic >>
The law is brandishing a weapon, and in many states does not distinguish if the weapon is capable of firing a lethal projectile or not.
There's nothing to argue here. That's fact. o.o
SX, everyone in this topic knows the law by now. How else would half the people posting here be disagreeing with it?
No-one was debating the specifications of the law, they were expressing their opposition to it. An exception I think is Rico and "trumping up false charges" but that was like 786876897 posts ago.
I'd really need to see the gun before deciding if it looks like a real gun or not.
o_O
*Tries to hold it in*
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!
*runs away laughing*
I don't have a picture o Han Solo's blaster handy. o.o
The gun in question, as a point of reference.
....Honestly? I don't see how it can be contrived as a real gun. It looks way to complicated to be one. ^^;
It looks like it was pieced together out of various household objects, which it probably was.
Although, like I said, your average person on the street probably wouldn't be able to tell it's not REALLY a gun.
Besides, they had to be careful because EVERYBODY in the universe knows Han shot first.
Except George Lucas.
But to be honest that guy's a douche and can't be trusted with his own fictional universe.
...That thing looks like the bastard child of a Mauser C96 and an old Luger.
Mounted with some kind of scope looking thing and a model rocket nozzle.
