| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bob
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 176
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
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 |
|
 |
NeilMac
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carrot Cruncher
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Carrot Cruncher
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
NeilMac
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have you got the text of that Carrot Cruncher?
Best wishes,
Neil Mac' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Carrot Cruncher
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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................ 
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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................
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 |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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................
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....
Did you ask him about railway tracks? 
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
