|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:02 pm
We all know that Mr. Weasley used to work in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department--ironic because he loves tinkering with Muggle objects. However, exactly what counts as 'misuse'? He says that the law states that it only counts if the wizard has intentions of using the object(s)...
We have seen him get into trouble because he tinkered with a car, and it seems that Flying Carpets are not allowed because carpets are muggle artifacts.
What about the ministry cars? Broomsticks? Suits of armor?
The ministry cars are obviously magical--they can jump to the front of a line of traffic and everything.
What about broomsticks? They were once muggle artifacts, as were carpets.
Suits of armor are most likely also a muggle invention, and yet the Hogwarts suits are charmed to sing Christmas carols. How is this not a breach of the Muggle Artifacts department?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 5:29 pm
I always thought the whole purpose behind the "misuse" law was more of a cautionary guard...to keep the boundaries between muggle-kind and wizard-kind intact.
Cause if some muggle thing is tinkered with and it manages to slip into muggle society... well...um...oops? *chaos* Oh noes! They've found out about magic! I mean...say Mr. Weasley drove that car into muggle society...parked it...walked off somewhere....then a few minutes later some theiving bloke breaks into the car and steals it...
That'd be realllly bad.
In the case of ministry cars...er...well...they're from the ministry...they wouldn't lose them so easily methinks...
Broomsticks...uhh...maybe its a wizard culture thing...and they just don't see them as muggle artifacts...I'm sure the flying broomsellers make their own brooms after all...
Suits of armor? ...well...they're at Hogwarts...just when do muggles ever get to see Hogwarts? Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:49 pm
And Sirius's motercycle? It flies and can be left somwhere that muggles could steal it, but it seems to be fairly common knowledge that he had it. Hagrid knew enough of it to know that Sirius "loved that bike", and Mr. Weasley is asked for a report on all flying vehicles around in book five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 12:58 pm
Hmmm...I wonder whatever happened to that bike...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:44 pm
Me too. I don't think Hagrid caught back up with Sirius to return the bike--probably couldn't find him--so he either left it where Sirius used to live, or he completely and utterly destroyed it in a fit of rage, thinking that Sirius was the traitor. The ministry definitely doesn't have it, or Shacklebolt's "lead" that Sirius might be using his motorbike would be very obviously false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:00 pm
I think only talking about muggle artifacts that could be a harm to people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:19 pm
But then why would Mr. Weasley be in trouble for his flying car? It wouldn't cause harm to people, and the whomping willow caused the car more harm than vice-versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:52 pm
Alutian But then why would Mr. Weasley be in trouble for his flying car? It wouldn't cause harm to people, and the whomping willow caused the car more harm than vice-versa. Good point but it was seen by mugs and that is breaking a law. Well i don't know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:29 am
tistis102 I think only talking about muggle artifacts that could be a harm to people. I second the opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:20 pm
tistis102 Alutian But then why would Mr. Weasley be in trouble for his flying car? It wouldn't cause harm to people, and the whomping willow caused the car more harm than vice-versa. Good point but it was seen by mugs and that is breaking a law. Well i don't know? yea, he wasnt in trouble for owning the car, or having it, more the fact that he let muggles see it fly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:49 pm
Maybe because they have permission, the school, to let the armor sing and move and make fun of the students, and they are not damaging a muggle or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:56 pm
I think it's considered misuse when it's purpose is to be released into muggle society. biting teacups, shrinking keys, etc were all intentionally created to harm/confuse the muggles that use them. Whereas the cars, broomsticks, etc were meant to stay within the wizard society, not to be released to be detrimental to the non-magical world. Junimaia Hmmm...I wonder whatever happened to that bike... randomly I have a friend who has a theory that the bike was transfigured into Buckbeak. Completely off the wall sounding, until he explains it, and then it almost makes sense (note the word almost). It'd be cool, but entirely unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:52 am
I, more or less, aree with miss fawcett about things like flying cars, but about the suits of amor in Hogwarts...
...wouldn't the magic of the castle cause the armor to move? It's teeming in that place; hence why the stair cases move, solid wall can preted to be doors, and Peeves can't be expelled from the castle. I mean, non of those things could have possibly been done on perpous. Unless Rowena Ravenclaw was more deranged than she let on... sweatdrop
OK, I realize J.K. describes Peeves as an equivelent of dry-rot. But wouldn't that mean that there would have to be large quantities of something to make it rot in the first place? I always sorta see Peeves as the product of all the jinx and hex magic as well as the ill-preformed magic just hanging around in the air, it's gotta go somewhere, doean't it? I think like-wise is similar with the armor. They already moved before they were taught how to sing the Christmas Carols.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:33 am
i always thought it was like just as long as muggles arent involved
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:37 am
Yes, I think muggles are the key-word here. At Hogwarts, there's alot of enchanted things, armours, stairs, doors, paintings and so on, but they are at Hogwarts, where no muggle will ever set foot. So, that's considerd safe. And it's the same thing with the ministry of magic, and their cars (the cars are probably enchanted somehow, maybe they look really old, or perhaps they're invisible).
Mr Weasley got in trouble because people saw his flying car, I don't think that the ministry eas likely to do a razzia in his house from time to time.
So it's a crime if: a) any muggles are harmed b) wizards are harmed (by that particular enchanted muggle-object) or c) muggles see/hear/feel/experience something unusual, that could make them discover the magical society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
