OK the brits have gone nuts banning 'weapons'......


A man caught carrying a large gobstopper in a sock has been fined £400 after it was found to be an offensive weapon.

Jamie Harvey, 20, said he needed it for protection after he was attacked.

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court he admitted carrying the snooker ball-sized gobstopper and sock at a city leisure centre on 19 December last year.

Defence agent Matthew Nicholson said the sweet was "a substantial piece of confectionary" which could be eaten.

The court heard how unemployed Harvey, from the Maybury area of Edinburgh, kept the gobstopper under his car seat.

He was caught at Drumbrae Leisure Centre by police who were searching for cannabis.

Sheriff Kenneth McIver told him that, even though it was not in the same category as a knife or axe, it was capable of inflicting a nasty injury.

"You will be aware of the ongoing national debate on offensive weapons including knives," he told Harvey.

"But all too often this court has to consider other improvised weapons like this."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7554912.stm

"You will be aware of the ongoing national debate on offensive weapons including knives," he told Harvey.

so claim it as a defensive weapon

It was an evil black gobstopper

I guess this means that Carolyn McCarthy will now wish to ban high capacity socks.

If he had 2 gobstoppers in the sock would it be considered automatic seeing as it fired 2 times with one pull:confused:

quick hide your sock shrouds. Wait...is a sock a shroud?

The problem was the sock had a shoulder thing that goes up

I was nasally assaulted by dirty socks. :eek:

Seriously, WTF? If the guy wants to carry something with which to defend himself, he's going to, whether it be a gobstopper in a sock, an umbrella, a kitchen knife, a 2x4... although I suppose shortly in Britain, the most "offensive" weapon still legal will be a wet noodle.

If he had 2 gobstoppers in the sock would it be considered automatic seeing as it fired 2 times with one pull:confused:

no, that would be a double barrel and completely legal. but seeing as how the overall length of the sock is less than 18" he would need a tax stamp.

no, that would be a double barrel and completely legal. but seeing as how the overall length of the sock is less than 18" he would need a tax stamp.

Only by our standards.

I'm going to start my collection of evil assault gobstoppers now, before they ban them.

If he hadn't concealed it in a sock it would have been legal with the open carry laws.

Buy them now before the price on pre-ban gobstoppers gets out of control.:shaking:

Gus

doesnt US milspec call for the use of soap?

Padlocks are an acceptable substitute.

Padlocks are an acceptable substitute.

Until some unlucky British subject uses a bike lock to beat back a mugger; then they'll be going to jail for it, free-range locks will be outlawed, only outlaws will have bikes (because the law-abiding won't be able to own locks to keep their property their own), and eventually, the French will arrive to take over the country, equipped with nothing more dangerous than a fondue set (but still better-equipped than all of Britain by then).

OK, maybe not, but good grief... Britain's well positioned to take over France's position as the butt of the rest of the world's jokes, and the situation isn't improving.

mmmmm, gobstopper.