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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Gun and Ammunition Collecting
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut


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

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
I think you may be thinking of R v Thompson, QBD 1994. It was unreported/not stated. Carries no weight


Don't think so. I'm sure I rememebr reading a report of it somewhere and that it was earlier than that. It was a case involving a .22 War Office rifle made around 1904, if memory serves. The case may date from the early '80's?

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


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

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're right, it was Thomson. I knew I'd read about it somewhere. Can't find it on the web anywhere but it was in an article by Bill Harriman that I'd saved. Thr relevent bit is;

"The case of R v Thomson (1994) is important in that it appears to have over-ruled the legal principles set down in Bennet v Brown. In the Thomson case, the defendant was charged with possessing a .22 RF London Smallarms Co War Office Pattern miniature rifle made in 1906, without being the holder of a firearms certificate. The prosecution called expert evidence from the FSS and I gave the evidence for the defence. In the end, the magistrates acquitted Mr Thomson as he has satisfied both of the tests that Section 58(2) exemption demanded. However, the CPS took the matter to appeal to the Divisional Court, probably due to pressure from the FSS's expert whose nose had been put out of joint by the magistrates' decision!

The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court upheld the magistrate's decision and disallowed the appeal. The judge's comments created no legal precedent and I believe that she was careful not to say anything that might be interpreted as such.

Nonetheless, R v Thomson is an important case in that it has driven coach and horses through the stance of the Home Office and the FSS. The eminent weapons lawyer Barry Hill, in his book Weapons Law, has stated that he considers that the test in Bennet v Brown is now over-ruled by Thomson. I agree with his opinion, particularly as we are now within three years of the new century and much of what the judges said concerning Bennet v Brown hinged on firearms used in warfare in this (the 20th) century. Furthermore, the courts do not seem averse to using the 100-year test that was rejected in Richards v Curwen. This case is nearly 20 years old and its influence declines with every passing year.
"

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: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
You could say exactly the same about shooting associations. the fact that their 'losses' are not so well publicised doesn't mean they don't happen.

Perhaps, but we're discussing the Home Office here.

I know we're discussing the Home Office. I can't make an appropriate remark?

JonathanL wrote:
The HO are the ones who issue the guidance and people may, or may not, get prosecuted on the strength of it. Also, people may end up disposing of, or destroying, valuable firearms that they need not have on the strength of it.

On the former point, you may recall the guidance was drawn up with representation from all three inteested parties. The fact that some individuals and orgamnisations want to move away from that is a fact of life. That's why i think it should be an SI. Anyone who has a valuable firearm (by who's reasoning and valuation?) can always get a permit to submit it to auction or wherever (you'd be amazed at how many people think their fifty year old AYA is worth something, but it doesn't stop us letting them find out for themselves). Simply because it's held on FAC or SGC means it's locked up. If it's really worth something, guess what? You'll lock it up.
JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
One, on a rifle which had no bolt and quite clearly was being kept as a curio or ornament, albeit it was stuck at the back of a cupboard.


So, it benefitted from the exemption as it was being kept according to the provisions in Sec.58 of the Act then.

Yep, the bolt missing being the case in point.

JonathanL wrote:
The fact that it had no bolt is beside the point, other than possibly to back up the guys reason for possessing it. The fact that it was inoperable is not relevent to whether it's legal to possess or not as it's still a firearm.

But it was the whole point, he quite clearly held it as a curio because it had no bolt and he'd made no attemt (tmk) to acquire one.

JonathanL wrote:
Point is that the HO clearly say that no firearm chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges should benefit from the exemption yet this case clearly contradicts that.

"8.6 Old firearms which should not benefit
from the exemption as antiques are set out
below. This list is not exhaustive and there
may be other types and calibres of firearms
that should be considered “modern” rather
than “antique”:

b) Rifles and handguns chambered for 4mm,
5mm, .22 inch, .23 inch, 6mm or 9mm
rimfire ammunition;
"

Signed up to and put in place by which organisations?
JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
Source? Or conjecture?

The source is the case at hand, which I can't find reference to but have read in the past and that you obviously know exists. It's not that recent so surely the HO know about it and should have included it in the guidance?
J.

Surely the shooting organisations would have wanted it to be included? There was a long debate about antique calibres to my knowledge and that's the list we have. It should be a living document, as should the guidance as a whole and I particularly wanted it to read like the COER and MSER guidance ie legislation one side, guidance on the other. As CC says, the updated version is on the website. problem is, how do we know when it's been updated?

This case was simply dealt with on it's own merits and each one should be treated the same imv, which Courts tend to agree with. I have got a transcript somewhere. I'll dig it out along with all of the others I promise to, one day! 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
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"As CC says, the updated version is on the website.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)[/quote]"

Please, call me Carrot.
[/quote]
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: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Mick F wrote:
As CC says, the updated version is on the website.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)


Please, call me Carrot.

Why not cruncher? 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: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So, it benefitted from the exemption as it was being kept according to the provisions in Sec.58 of the Act then.


Yep, the bolt missing being the case in point.[/quote]

The fact that the bolt was missing is nothing to do with whether it's an antique or not, or whether or not it automatically benefits from the exemption in Sec.58 or not. It may have had a bearing on whether the guy held is as a cusiosity or ornament, and thereby going part way to proving he held it under the exemption but that's all.


Quote:
JonathanL wrote:
The fact that it had no bolt is beside the point, other than possibly to back up the guys reason for possessing it. The fact that it was inoperable is not relevent to whether it's legal to possess or not as it's still a firearm.


But it was the whole point, he quite clearly held it as a curio because it had no bolt and he'd made no attemt (tmk) to acquire one.


Like I said, it goes part of the way to proving the exemption, but he still needs to show that it's an antique and it's chambering was not taken into account.

JonathanL wrote:
Point is that the HO clearly say that no firearm chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges should benefit from the exemption yet this case clearly contradicts that.

"8.6 Old firearms which should not benefit
from the exemption as antiques are set out
below. This list is not exhaustive and there
may be other types and calibres of firearms
that should be considered “modern” rather
than “antique”:

b) Rifles and handguns chambered for 4mm,
5mm, .22 inch, .23 inch, 6mm or 9mm
rimfire ammunition;
"

Signed up to and put in place by which organisations?
JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
Source? Or conjecture?

The source is the case at hand, which I can't find reference to but have read in the past and that you obviously know exists. It's not that recent so surely the HO know about it and should have included it in the guidance?
J.


Quote:
There was a long debate about antique calibres to my knowledge and that's the list we have.


The whole point I'm making is that a list of chamberings of what should benefit from the exemption or not has zero basis in law. Nor does the HO statement that any firearms in .22 shoudl never benefit from it.

The Act refers to "Antique firearms possessed as curiosities or ornaments." It says nothing about what they have to look like, whether they have to be comeplete, specifically how old they have to be or what calibre they have to be in. Nethier does any of the case law mention anything of the sort. When establishing what is an antique all the cases show that the Courts has come to their decisions based on age alone and has mentioned calibres only in passing, simply as a matter of fact to identify the guns.

The HO are saying quite clearly that certain firearms should never benefit from the exemption (like .22's), whereas they clearly should according to the Courts. It dosen't matter how the guidance was formulated, by whom, or how sensible it may be, the fact is that it is wrong in law.

Quote:
It should be a living document, as should the guidance as a whole and I particularly wanted it to read like the COER and MSER guidance ie legislation one side, guidance on the other.


Yes, but the guidance should not be contradicting the legislation. You can't just decide that you'ver got a better idea than what Parliament has enacted and start telling people to do what you say rather than what Parliament has said they may do.

Quote:
As CC says, the updated version is on the website. problem is, how do we know when it's been updated?


Precisely the problem with having a list of allowed chamberings. Don't get me wrong I think it's actually a good idea on the face of it. The problem is that I can't see how it can really be a "living" document as you refer to it. Lets say we did have a list, created by statutue, and maintained by SI. It's all very well keeping something like this under review, and adding to it is simple and straight forward enough, but how do you in all good conscience remove something when poeple have bought guns in good faith perfectly legally one day only to have them made illegal the next?

At present a chambering gets on the list basically because ammunition isn't readily available. .450/577MH and .577 Snider are on the list yet recently have become available. .400-3" Purdey is available, yet is also on the list. If your list is truly a "living" document that chamberings are removed from if the criteria for inclusion on the list no longer applies, then surely these should now come off as these chamberings are available commercially again? What do you do then? Does the Government write to every household in the Country to tell them to check if they've got a .577 Snider on the wall?

The market for antique guns would collapse because no one would ever possess them for fear of getting prosecuted or, at the very least, having thei property confiscated.

Quote:
This case was simply dealt with on it's own merits and each one should be treated the same imv, which Courts tend to agree with.


Of course they are dealt with on their own merits. But if you look ast the cases you can see that the Courts are dealing with them on their own merits according to what Parliament has said, not what the HO thinks the law should be.

J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but the guidance should not be contradicting the legislation. You can't just decide that you'ver got a better idea than what Parliament has enacted and start telling people to do what you say rather than what Parliament has said they may do.


No, the Home Office and Police would never get away with that!

"Taking the guidance into their own hands?"

Half of the problem is that most shooters are terrified of rocking the boat in case they get their certificates revoked. This means that not only do the HO and police (if they choose to) get away with saying practically anything (You must notify us when you are shooting at night, you can't have more than one rifle of the same calibre, you must have a cabinet in the boot of your car, 308 is not allowed for shooting foxes, you must give us the names of everyone attending your club guest day in advance) it also means that many shooters become so paranoid that they start imagining similar silly restrictions - (Fig. 11 targets are banned, probationers can only use club guns etc.) as well as believing what the HO and Police are feeding them.

Mick and EJ are still arguing elsewhere on "law" but what we have in this arena is the replacement of the "Rule of Law"with the rule of the bureaucrat.

Many people just give in in the face of this even though they could win if the argument was brought to law.

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'
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: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
J wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but the guidance should not be contradicting the legislation. You can't just decide that you'ver got a better idea than what Parliament has enacted and start telling people to do what you say rather than what Parliament has said they may do.


No, the Home Office and Police would never get away with that!

"Taking the guidance into their own hands?"

Half of the problem is that most shooters are terrified of rocking the boat in case they get their certificates revoked. This means that not only do the HO and police (if they choose to) get away with saying practically anything (You must notify us when you are shooting at night, you can't have more than one rifle of the same calibre, you must have a cabinet in the boot of your car, 308 is not allowed for shooting foxes, you must give us the names of everyone attending your club guest day in advance) it also means that many shooters become so paranoid that they start imagining similar silly restrictions - (Fig. 11 targets are banned, probationers can only use club guns etc.) as well as believing what the HO and Police are feeding them.

Seeing as nine times out of ten we're telling them what the law says or what the guidance does. As for the other ten percent, I assume you have evidence otherwise?

NeilMac wrote:
Mick and EJ are still arguing elsewhere on "law" but what we have in this arena is the replacement of the "Rule of Law"with the rule of the bureaucrat.

Many people just give in in the face of this even though they could win if the argument was brought to law.

And they could also lose, costing them and the public a lot of money.

So in a nutshell, we should make the guidance law? There's no ambiguity then. Or do we still discuss things and treat each case on it's own merits?
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
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Quote:
So, it benefitted from the exemption as it was being kept according to the provisions in Sec.58 of the Act then.


Yep, the bolt missing being the case in point.


The fact that the bolt was missing is nothing to do with whether it's an antique or not, or whether or not it automatically benefits from the exemption in Sec.58 or not. It may have had a bearing on whether the guy held is as a cusiosity or ornament, and thereby going part way to proving he held it under the exemption but that's all.

I think you've answered your own argument

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
JonathanL wrote:
The fact that it had no bolt is beside the point, other than possibly to back up the guys reason for possessing it. The fact that it was inoperable is not relevent to whether it's legal to possess or not as it's still a firearm.


But it was the whole point, he quite clearly held it as a curio because it had no bolt and he'd made no attemt (tmk) to acquire one.


Like I said, it goes part of the way to proving the exemption, but he still needs to show that it's an antique and it's chambering was not taken into account.

As we only have one transcript on here, I'll have to dig it out but not in the next week or so as I'm away. The case before the High Court was definitely on calibre, which found against the Police.

JonathanL wrote:
JonathanL wrote:
Point is that the HO clearly say that no firearm chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges should benefit from the exemption yet this case clearly contradicts that.

"8.6 Old firearms which should not benefit
from the exemption as antiques are set out
below. This list is not exhaustive and there
may be other types and calibres of firearms
that should be considered “modern” rather
than “antique”:

b) Rifles and handguns chambered for 4mm,
5mm, .22 inch, .23 inch, 6mm or 9mm
rimfire ammunition;
"

Signed up to and put in place by which organisations?
JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
Source? Or conjecture?

The source is the case at hand, which I can't find reference to but have read in the past and that you obviously know exists. It's not that recent so surely the HO know about it and should have included it in the guidance?
J.


Quote:
There was a long debate about antique calibres to my knowledge and that's the list we have.


The whole point I'm making is that a list of chamberings of what should benefit from the exemption or not has zero basis in law. Nor does the HO statement that any firearms in .22 shoudl never benefit from it.

The Act refers to "Antique firearms possessed as curiosities or ornaments." It says nothing about what they have to look like, whether they have to be comeplete, specifically how old they have to be or what calibre they have to be in. Nethier does any of the case law mention anything of the sort. When establishing what is an antique all the cases show that the Courts has come to their decisions based on age alone and has mentioned calibres only in passing, simply as a matter of fact to identify the guns.

The HO are saying quite clearly that certain firearms should never benefit from the exemption (like .22's), whereas they clearly should according to the Courts. It dosen't matter how the guidance was formulated, by whom, or how sensible it may be, the fact is that it is wrong in law.

It's guidance, with each case being taken on it's own merits. That's the reason there's guidance otherwise one person say's it's an antique, the other not. At least there is some reasoning behind the HO document, whether you agree with it or not, unlike the say so of Joe Bloggs.

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
It should be a living document, as should the guidance as a whole and I particularly wanted it to read like the COER and MSER guidance ie legislation one side, guidance on the other.


Yes, but the guidance should not be contradicting the legislation. You can't just decide that you'ver got a better idea than what Parliament has enacted and start telling people to do what you say rather than what Parliament has said they may do.

It's not contradicting the law, it's interpreting it.

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
As CC says, the updated version is on the website. problem is, how do we know when it's been updated?


Precisely the problem with having a list of allowed chamberings. Don't get me wrong I think it's actually a good idea on the face of it. The problem is that I can't see how it can really be a "living" document as you refer to it. Lets say we did have a list, created by statutue, and maintained by SI. It's all very well keeping something like this under review, and adding to it is simple and straight forward enough, but how do you in all good conscience remove something when poeple have bought guns in good faith perfectly legally one day only to have them made illegal the next?

That's the problem, I agree, but if you want a list of antique chamberings, surely if someone goes into commercial production it should be taken off? I can say, all that will happen otherwise is a cut off date and the date mentioned is nearer the French one than one some people would want (1876 not 1939)

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
This case was simply dealt with on it's own merits and each one should be treated the same imv, which Courts tend to agree with.

Of course they are dealt with on their own merits. But if you look ast the cases you can see that the Courts are dealing with them on their own merits according to what Parliament has said, not what the HO thinks the law should be.

J.

There will always be judgements that go against the guidance same as the majority (90+% tmk) go with the guidance. The reason why they're trumpeted so much, or at least partly is because it favours the shooter. There's hardly a Police Firearms Licensing Manager's mag that 'celebrates' wins against cert holders. Now there's a thought ..............
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
NeilMac



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AS far as the HO talking out of their is concerned, take a look at this: (emphasis is mine)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/firearms/?version=1

Quote:
Firearms
Firearms

We will not tolerate any crime involving firearms. The police have powers to arrest anyone carrying a firearm – they don’t have to wait until the gun is fired or used to threaten someone.
Firearms and stop and search

If police suspect anyone of committing, or planning to commit, any offence, including firearm offences, they can search them under stop and search laws.

If they find a prohibited firearm, an unlicensed firearm or a replica firearm, the individual will be arrested regardless of whether they own the firearm or not.

The weapon will be confiscated and used as evidence when the individual is charged. It won’t be returned after the trial, and may be destroyed.

Prohibited firearms, licensable firearms and replica firearms

Firearm law is very complicated with varying sentences for carrying a firearm depending on:

*
the type of firearm
*
the age of the offender
*
whether the firearm was licensed
*
whether the firearm was carried with intent to endanger life or cause fear

Here’s an overview of the different types of firearms, and the penalties if the police find one in your possession.
Prohibited firearms

Some firearms are completely prohibited including machine guns, sub-machine guns, most self-loading rifles, short-barrelled “assault shot guns” and stun guns.

No member of the public is allowed to own a prohibited firearm under any circumstances. If the police find you with a prohibited firearm, you’ll be arrested and will go to jail for at least five years.

Licensable firearms and shotguns

Some firearms and shotguns may be legitimately owned with an appropriate licence issued by the police. These include most hunting and target-shooting high-powered air rifles and muzzle loading pistols, and most long-barrelled shot guns used by farmers and others for vermin control and recreational shooting.

Carrying an unlicensed firearm or shotgun warrants a maximum seven-year jail sentence and/or an unlimited fine.
Replica firearms

Replica firearms are not prohibited and you don’t need a licence to own one. However, if the police find you with an imitation firearm in a building or a public place, and you don’t have a reasonable excuse, you will be arrested and could go to jail for seven years and/or receive an unlimited fine.

The complete laws surrounding firearms are listed in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Firearms Act 1968.



Quote:
The weapon will be confiscated and used as evidence when the individual is charged. It won’t be returned after the trial, and may be destroyed.

What, even if you're acquitted?

Quote:
No member of the public is allowed to own a prohibited firearm under any circumstances.

This will come as a surprise to lots of RFDs, certificated SCGC pistol owners, S7 collectors, shot pistol owners, deer stalkers with pistols etc etc.

Quote:
If the police find you with a prohibited firearm, you’ll be arrested and will go to jail for at least five years.

No trial then, no exceptions for certificate holders or Mr Thomson?
Quote:

an appropriate licence issued by the police


Really? I don't know anyone with a firearms licence.

Quote:
These include most hunting and target-shooting high-powered air rifles and muzzle loading pistols, and most long-barrelled shot guns used by farmers and others for vermin control and recreational shooting.

No cartridge rifles then?

Quote:
if the police find you with an imitation firearm in a building or a public place, and you don’t have a reasonable excuse, you will be arrested

A building like my house perhaps?

Quote:
The complete laws surrounding firearms are listed in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Firearms Act 1968

Are they really?

They haven't got a clue, they just make it up as they go along and are not fit to hold public office.

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, Jason still wonders what sort of Belgique Gat he's got . . . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Meanwhile, Jason still wonders what sort of Belgique Gat he's got . . . . .


Yes, there is a bit of a trend towards this happening on here isn't there?

Having said that, I think we'd gone about as far as we could in identifying it.

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps this throws some light:

Quote:
Section 7: Firearms of historic interest:

(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm which -

(a) was manufactured before 1 January 1919; and

(b) is of a description specified under subsection (2) below,

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have a firearm in his possession, or to purchase or acquire it, subject to a condition that he does so only for the purpose of its being kept or exhibited as part of a collection.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify a description of firearm for the purposes of subsection (1) above if it appears to him that -

(a) firearms of that description were manufactured before 1 January 1919; and;

(b) ammunition for firearms of that type is not readily available.

(3) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection 1(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm which -

(a) is of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest; or

(b) is of historical importance.

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have the firearm in his possession subject to a condition requiring it to be kept and used only at a place designated for the purposes of this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(4) This section has effect without prejudice to section 58(2) of the 1968 Act (antique firearms).


Now that suggests to me that the list of calibres applies to Section 7 pistols held on a certificate and not to S58 firearms held without one.

So I can't have a .45 Long Colt pistol under Section 7.1 because the Home Secretary has declared in a Statutory Instrument that it is a calibre that is readily available but I could have said pistol as an antique or Curio (proper wording above) Very Happy

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'
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: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
AS far as the HO talking out of their is concerned, take a look at this: (emphasis is mine)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/firearms/?version=1

Quote:
Firearms
Firearms

We will not tolerate any crime involving firearms. The police have powers to arrest anyone carrying a firearm – they don’t have to wait until the gun is fired or used to threaten someone.
Firearms and stop and search

If police suspect anyone of committing, or planning to commit, any offence, including firearm offences, they can search them under stop and search laws.

If they find a prohibited firearm, an unlicensed firearm or a replica firearm, the individual will be arrested regardless of whether they own the firearm or not.

The weapon will be confiscated and used as evidence when the individual is charged. It won’t be returned after the trial, and may be destroyed.

Prohibited firearms, licensable firearms and replica firearms

Firearm law is very complicated with varying sentences for carrying a firearm depending on:

*
the type of firearm
*
the age of the offender
*
whether the firearm was licensed
*
whether the firearm was carried with intent to endanger life or cause fear

Here’s an overview of the different types of firearms, and the penalties if the police find one in your possession.
Prohibited firearms

Some firearms are completely prohibited including machine guns, sub-machine guns, most self-loading rifles, short-barrelled “assault shot guns” and stun guns.

No member of the public is allowed to own a prohibited firearm under any circumstances. If the police find you with a prohibited firearm, you’ll be arrested and will go to jail for at least five years.

Licensable firearms and shotguns

Some firearms and shotguns may be legitimately owned with an appropriate licence issued by the police. These include most hunting and target-shooting high-powered air rifles and muzzle loading pistols, and most long-barrelled shot guns used by farmers and others for vermin control and recreational shooting.

Carrying an unlicensed firearm or shotgun warrants a maximum seven-year jail sentence and/or an unlimited fine.
Replica firearms

Replica firearms are not prohibited and you don’t need a licence to own one. However, if the police find you with an imitation firearm in a building or a public place, and you don’t have a reasonable excuse, you will be arrested and could go to jail for seven years and/or receive an unlimited fine.

The complete laws surrounding firearms are listed in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Firearms Act 1968.



Quote:
The weapon will be confiscated and used as evidence when the individual is charged. It won’t be returned after the trial, and may be destroyed.

What, even if you're acquitted?

Unless you've got a certificate for it, in which case you're unlikely to be charged or prosecuted in the first place. A Court can make an order as well.

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
No member of the public is allowed to own a prohibited firearm under any circumstances.

This will come as a surprise to lots of RFDs, certificated SCGC pistol owners, S7 collectors, shot pistol owners, deer stalkers with pistols etc etc.

Who is this aimed at again? You've also missed the bit before this about 'some.' Not like you to misquote something.

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
If the police find you with a prohibited firearm, you’ll be arrested and will go to jail for at least five years.

No trial then, no exceptions for certificate holders or Mr Thomson?

Again, who is this aimed at? What message are they trying to send?

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
These include most hunting and target-shooting high-powered air rifles and muzzle loading pistols, and most long-barrelled shot guns used by farmers and others for vermin control and recreational shooting.

No cartridge rifles then?

Oooh, let's all misquote something. Again you've missed out the beginning:
Quote:
Some firearms and shotguns may be legitimately owned with an appropriate licence issued by the police.


NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
if the police find you with an imitation firearm in a building or a public place, and you don’t have a reasonable excuse, you will be arrested

A building like my house perhaps?

They're talking about a public place. Is your house a public place?

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
The complete laws surrounding firearms are listed in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Firearms Act 1968

Are they really?

No, but I guarantee the POPCUnit at the Home Office didn't write this. Perhaps you should e-mail them some amendments. Just mentioning the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997 will do.

NeilMac wrote:
[They haven't got a clue, they just make it up as they go along and are not fit to hold public office.

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'

Nothing like winning friends or influencing people. Then again, if you like to misquote or take sentences out of context.......
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
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
Perhaps this throws some light:

Quote:
Section 7: Firearms of historic interest:

(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm which -

(a) was manufactured before 1 January 1919; and

(b) is of a description specified under subsection (2) below,

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have a firearm in his possession, or to purchase or acquire it, subject to a condition that he does so only for the purpose of its being kept or exhibited as part of a collection.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify a description of firearm for the purposes of subsection (1) above if it appears to him that -

(a) firearms of that description were manufactured before 1 January 1919; and;

(b) ammunition for firearms of that type is not readily available.

(3) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection 1(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm which -

(a) is of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest; or

(b) is of historical importance.

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have the firearm in his possession subject to a condition requiring it to be kept and used only at a place designated for the purposes of this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(4) This section has effect without prejudice to section 58(2) of the 1968 Act (antique firearms).


Now that suggests to me that the list of calibres applies to Section 7 pistols held on a certificate and not to S58 firearms held without one.

So I can't have a .45 Long Colt pistol under Section 7.1 because the Home Secretary has declared in a Statutory Instrument that it is a calibre that is readily available but I could have said pistol as an antique or Curio (proper wording above) Very Happy

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'

If you could get a Court of Law to agree a .45LC revolver was an antique, yes. As it's not on the obsolete calibres list, the guidance and accordingly my advice is no.

There's an SI listing 7(1) and 7(3) calibres (chapter 9) which is in the guidance and there's also a list of 'obsolete calibres' (chapter 8 and appendix 5).
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  Next
Page 2 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