Tactical Edge Hobbies challenges gel blaster ban in SA Supreme Court

A businessman who shut down his shop over gel blaster rules says he expects the Supreme Court to agree police lacked power to restrict them.

A gel blaster store owner who closed it down after the devices were declared imitation firearms is challenging the new regulations in the Supreme Court.

Peter Clark shut down Tactical Edge Hobbies at Dudley Park on October 8, the day SA Police announced gel blasters would be categorised as imitation firearms.

That meant anyone who owned or sold gel blasters had to obtain firearms licensing and registration, as was already the case for paintball guns, or hand them in to a police station within a six-month amnesty period.

It was estimated South Australians owned 62,000 gel blasters. Multiple businesses protested that it would kill their industry.

Mr Clark has filed documents requesting a full sitting of the Supreme Court hear his case and consider the validity of the new regulations

In court documents accessed by The Sunday Mail, Mr Clark’s legal team argues a crucial section of the Firearms Regulation Act, which the Registrar of Firearms used to declare gel blasters imitation firearms, is invalid.

They argue the section conflicts with the strict definition of a firearm set out in the separate Firearms Act.

Gel blasters have officially been declared imitation firearms and owners must obtain gun licences under regulations introduced by SA Police. Picture: Gabriel Polychronis

Mr Clark has asked the Supreme Court to rule that both the section and the subsequent gel blasters declaration are invalid.

In a statement of defence filed with the court, the Crown Solicitors Office, on behalf of the Registrar and the State Government, argue the law is valid and gel blasters fall under the definition of a firearm.

The Crown also argues Mr Clark would be able to continue running his business legally if he sought a licence.

It has asked the court to dismiss Mr Clark’s case and order he pay the government’s legal costs.

Mr Clark told the Sunday Mail he had to let go of four staff members and had suffered significant financial loss since closing his store.

“I can’t see there not being a win for us (in court). In fact there is no argument to our argument, that’s why we’re quite confident with it,” he said.

“They don’t have the power to do what they did. It just needs the clarification from a judge, and for a judge to say ‘that is correct’.”

He said he also intended to seek compensation for his losses and those of other gel blaster businesses.

Gel Blasters Association of Australia treasurer Chris Sinclair has backed Mr Clark, raising more than $22,000 to assist with legal costs through crowd funding.