Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

know anything about this belgian revolver
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Gun and Ammunition Collecting
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bob



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone just entering this thread I'd like to summarise the last 10 or so (and probably next 10 or so pages)

Is
Isn't
Is
Isn't
Is
Isn't

Debate is healthy but at this point all we're arguing about is Mick's personal view of what constitutes an antique and we are not going to change his mind.

Come on guys, can't we find something new to argue about?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, I've started a new thread so we can have a really good argument about something that will go on for ages and ages. Well it did last time!

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Seemed more like you were saying I was a liar


I wasn't saying you were a liar, it was the lack of context that bothered me. I've been involved in discussions with the Home Office myself, the point is that they are usually asking a specific question, it doesn't mean I agree with the question.

The Home Office has been using this "obsolete calibre" thing for ages, so if the Home Office came to me and said: "What calibres do you think are obsolete?" My answer would be as per Bill Harriman, etc. If they asked me for a sensible interpretation of section 58(2) then my answer would be very different.

Okay, in this situation the HO didn't ask the question, but it was in accordance with HO thinking on the issue.

I do recall Bill saying to me that he was very surprised at how generous the Home Office had been with their list of obsolete calibres, so its not an entirely unhelpful definition. I just think that using that definition isn't really entirely in the spirit of the law, because an antique isn't defined by obsolesence alone. It can be a factor, but like I said, a cup from 2,000 years ago isn't obsolete but no-one would say it's not an antique.

And it does raise the question Carrot aluded to - if you have something defined as an antique by reason of obsolete calibre, and you rechamber it, how does it then not become an antique? It's still the same age.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
I do recall Bill saying to me that he was very surprised at how generous the Home Office had been with their list of obsolete calibres, so its not an entirely unhelpful definition.

As I said, it's likely to be increased, but I'll let others produce rabbits from their hats.
cybershooters wrote:
I just think that using that definition isn't really entirely in the spirit of the law, because an antique isn't defined by obsolesence alone. It can be a factor, but like I said, a cup from 2,000 years ago isn't obsolete but no-one would say it's not an antique.

I don't think anyone has said obsolescence is the entire factor, other wise .276 and 4.85mm would be there. It's a consideration, as is age, as is archaic etc.
cybershooters wrote:
And it does raise the question Carrot aluded to - if you have something defined as an antique by reason of obsolete calibre, and you rechamber it, how does it then not become an antique? It's still the same age.

We've got that with Martini's in both .22RF and .303
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
Edited as I'm a spelling mong Embarassed
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:

We've got that with Martini's in both .22RF and .303
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)


Not really the best example Mick. Martini Henry's were converted to .303 in the 1890's, and the .22 conversions were done (usually by Bonehill's in Birmingham for the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs) ca. 1904-06.
So they'd still be antiques under a 100 year rule.

Prior to that the army had used Morris tubed rifles when they wanted small bore, (.297/.230) and after that they had the WO Pattern .22.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see that section 36 of the VCRB defines a "modern" firearm as one made after 1870.
Seems to me that once this becomes law then we will have, by default and by exception, a legal definition of an antique firearm, viz. one that is not "modern", i.e. pre-1870.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you got the text of that Carrot Cruncher?

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's in relation to the appearance of an imitation, not whether its an antique. I thought to myself when I originally read that definition that it disagreed with the HO's own definition of an antique firearm. But technically the two are entirely separate. Whether that holds up in court though I'm not sure.

Section 38(8) of the VCR Bill:

Quote:
(8) In subsection (7) “modern firearm” means any firearm other than one the appearance of which would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before the year 1870.

_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neil, Steve has quoted the paragraph, but you will find it in it's full context in the amended VCRB he attached as a .pdf file to a post a few days ago.

I appreciate the difference Steve, but don't you think the definition would be - as the lawyers have it - "persuasive" ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possibly, but it's not a Firearms Act, it doesn't mention antiques and it's talking about the appearance of an imitation, so its only tenuously related to the subject.

And I'm not sure it's a wise choice to use it to support anything in court, because the argument usually starts about things more modern than 1870. There are plenty of things even the HO consider to covered by section 58(2) that were made after 1870. (This is the current text of the VCR Bill.)
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Mick F wrote:

We've got that with Martini's in both .22RF and .303
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)

Not really the best example Mick. Martini Henry's were converted to .303 in the 1890's, and the .22 conversions were done (usually by Bonehill's in Birmingham for the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs) ca. 1904-06.
So they'd still be antiques under a 100 year rule.

Prior to that the army had used Morris tubed rifles when they wanted small bore, (.297/.230) and after that they had the WO Pattern .22.

Thanks Carrot, I know that but I was answering Steve's point that he alluded you made about firearms in an 'obsolete calibre' being chambered in a modern one. I think the case below is of some help in deciding:
Quote:
C owned two old pistols, which were hung on the wall of his house. He only kept them as ornaments and believed that he had bought them from a registered firearms dealer. He did not have a firearm certificate for either of them. Neither had been fired, C did not wish to fire them and did not possess any ammunition for them.

He was charged with possessing them without a certificate and evidence was given that one could be fired if the hammer was hit hard with a hammer, and the other could be made to fire with some work, but was in poor condition. The prosecution alleged that although the law did not define antique in relation to firearms, it was defined under old legislation which still applied. The justices found that the firearms were antique and the prosecution appealed.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

The Court held -

1 The old definition of 'antique firearm' in legislation that had been superseded did not apply unless the new legislation specifically catered for it. In this case s.58(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 did not define antique.

2 Whether a weapon was antique or not was a matter of fact for the justices to decide in a particular case. There cannot be any hard and fast rules such as the age of the weapon. The purpose of possession must also be looked at.

These points had all been considered in this case therefore the appeal by the prosecution was dismissed.

Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was at the range today and shared a lane with a chap who had a nice .303 sporter. He had dated it to 1907, or thereabouts, and was happily refering to it as an antique (without any prompting from me, I might add).

J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Was at the range today and shared a lane with a chap who had a nice .303 sporter. He had dated it to 1907, or thereabouts, and was happily refering to it as an antique (without any prompting from me, I might add).
J.

Good for him. Seems he doesn't even go by the 100 year rule. Oh well, here we go................ Wink
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
JonathanL wrote:
Was at the range today and shared a lane with a chap who had a nice .303 sporter. He had dated it to 1907, or thereabouts, and was happily refering to it as an antique (without any prompting from me, I might add).
J.

Good for him. Seems he doesn't even go by the 100 year rule. Oh well, here we go................ Wink
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)


I rather thought it helped to back up your interpretation that what constituted an antique was largely doen to personal opinion.

J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Mick F wrote:
JonathanL wrote:
Was at the range today and shared a lane with a chap who had a nice .303 sporter. He had dated it to 1907, or thereabouts, and was happily refering to it as an antique (without any prompting from me, I might add).
J.

Good for him. Seems he doesn't even go by the 100 year rule. Oh well, here we go................ Wink
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)

I rather thought it helped to back up your interpretation that what constituted an antique was largely doen to personal opinion.
J.

Errr, thanks, I think.... Wink
Did you ask him about railway tracks? Very Happy
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Gun and Ammunition Collecting All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16
Page 16 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group