stated in the research proposal presented to the executive team of AccorHotels, the following four research questions would be examined:
- Is each of the six hotel attributes rated by Ibis or Mercure guests as important or very important?
- Is age significantly associated with how important each of the six hotel attributes is evaluated?
- Is there a significant difference in the importance attributed to each of the six hotel attributes by customers travel for different purposes?
- Is there a significant difference in importance attributed to each of the six hotel attributes between guests who travel with kids and those who travel without kids?
Background of the Weapons Act of 1990
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the information about the Weapons Act, 1990. The purpose of the Weapons Act, 1990 is -
- To regulate weapons other than firearms.
- To prevent the misuse of weapons.
- To regulate body armour.
- To give possession of weapons to ensure public and individual safety.
- To confirm that weapons must not supply unlawfully to other person.
- To improve the safety of individual and public by imposing strict control on the custody of weapons.
- To ensure the secure storage of weapons.
- To make sure that weapon must carry with safety.
- To ensure integrated license and registration for all weapons.
Section 142 of Part 6: The Right of review of decisions
- This section applicable -
- To the decision to refuse an application to obtain a license of weapons, endorsement, permit or authority under the Weapons Act, 1990.
- To the decision of refusing amendments of conditions applicable to license, permit, approval or authority of this legislation.
- To the decision given to refuse to representative notice under section 92.
- To the decision of refusing nomination by an applicant for shooting club permit.
- To the decision to refuse renewal of license of weapons.
- To a decision given to suspending a license, approval, permit or authority of this act.
- To a decision given for revoke a license, permit approval or authority of this act.
- Under section 18D (2), to a decision of revoking the license.
- Under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) Act, if a person aggrieved by the decision, then a person may apply for the review of the decision.
- A person is not allowed to carry prohibited weapons into premises of Victoria without an exemption under section 8B or approval under section 8C. [section 5(1)(a)]
- A person must not be the reason for sending the prohibited weapons into the premises of Victoria without an exemption under section 8B or approval under section 8C. [section (1)(b)]
- A person must not manufacture the prohibited weapons without an exemption under section 8B or approval under section 8C. [section (1)(c)]
- Prohibited weapons must not display for trading and advertisement must not give for selling the prohibited weapons without an exemption under section 8B or approval under section 8C. [ section 5 (1)(d) ]
- Prohibited weapons must not sell to a person other than a child without an exemption under section 8B or approval under section 8C.[ section 5(1AA) ]
- A person other than a child must not acquire prohibited weapons without an exemption under section 8B or without approval under section 8C. [ section 5(1AB) ]
- A prohibited weapon must not sell to a child. [ section 5(1AC) ]
- A prohibited weapon must not by a child. [ section 5(1AD) ]
- Prohibited weapons must not carry, keep or use in licensed premises or in public places next to licensed premises without an exemption under section 8B or without approval under section 8C. [ section 5(1A) ]
- A person who is guilty of an offence against section 5(1A) in respect of an act or omission then that person will not be liable to be guilty of an offence against subsection 1(e) with regard to same act or omission. [ section 5(1B) ]
- Prohibited weapons must not sell unless purchaser has reasonable grounds to believe that buyer has an exemption under section 8B or approval under section 8C allow the buyer to keep weapons. [ section 5(2) ]
- Subsections (1), (1AA), (1AB), (1A) and (2) do not apply to an employee of a person having approval under section 8 (c). It is necessary that employee is acting in the employment of this person. [ section 5(3) ]
Section 127: Obligations of security organisation in respect of use and possession of weapons
- A security organisation must not hold a weapon, or it must not allow its employees to have physical possession of a firearm while they are performing their duties in the corporation unless security organisation has security license. [Section 127(2)]
- A security organisation has the right to poses or uses a weapon as per the guidelines issued by the regulation. [section 127(3)]
- A security organisation must make sure that employees have only physical possession of weapons. [ section 127(4) ]
Section 128: Obligations of security organisation in respect of register
- Security organisations must have registered in the prescribed manner. [ section128(1)(a) ]
- All the information of employees and weapons must record in a prescribed manner in the register. [ section128(1)(b) ]
- Untrue information must not place in the register. [section 128(2)]
- A regulation may prescribe the time, procedure and type of information. [section 128 (3)]
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:
- Object of this act is to achieve for weapons by creating combined licensing and registration scheme.
- Object may be accomplished by providing strict requirements for the weapons and its license.
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’.
Prohibitions under the Weapons Act of 1990
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.
Obligations under the Weapons Act of 1990
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).
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2019). Weapons Act Of 1990: Prohibitions, Obligations And Right Of Review. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/foundations-of-law-structure-of-the-weapons-act.
"Weapons Act Of 1990: Prohibitions, Obligations And Right Of Review." My Assignment Help, 2019, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/foundations-of-law-structure-of-the-weapons-act.
My Assignment Help (2019) Weapons Act Of 1990: Prohibitions, Obligations And Right Of Review [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/foundations-of-law-structure-of-the-weapons-act
[Accessed 22 February 2024].
My Assignment Help. 'Weapons Act Of 1990: Prohibitions, Obligations And Right Of Review' (My Assignment Help, 2019) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/foundations-of-law-structure-of-the-weapons-act> accessed 22 February 2024.
My Assignment Help. Weapons Act Of 1990: Prohibitions, Obligations And Right Of Review [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2019 [cited 22 February 2024]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/foundations-of-law-structure-of-the-weapons-act.