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, 4 ... 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
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
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'

I was about to say, other than physically examining it and getting some measurements, I don't think anyone'll get any further.
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 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick, the leaflet is aimed at the general public and is full of inaccuracies and misleading statements. I haven't misquoted any of it.

Quote:
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.
Or unless it's not subject to certification which does cover quite a lot as you know.

Quote:
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.


No Mick, you're wrong, the word "some" does not qualify the sentence I quoted. Read the full thing again.


Quote:
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?


Again it is aimed at the general public. There is no excuse for presenting these lies and half truths as the law and I would have thought that in your position you would know that.

Quote:
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.

Issued many Licences lately? So it's OK for the Home Office to misquote the law?

Quote:
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?


no they are not it says " a building or a public place"

I honestly do not know how you can defend this rubbish.


Quote:
Nothing like winning friends or influencing people


Quite!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The obsolete calibre list didn't get produced on a Home Office whim. It came via the Firearms Consultative Committee where the interests of antique collectors were more than adequately represented - one thinks of Harriman and Penn. Be fair - the HO Guidance (para 8.1) does say "each case on it's merits" so good for Thompson, but as he creates no useable precedent it's reasonable enough to ignore his case in Guidance.

It occurs to the anorak in me that it isn't really an obsolete calibre list; it's an obsolete cartridge list. Anybody who wants to try and get an antique (undefined term) weapon in one of the chamberings not on the list is, imo, welcome to try so long as they appreciate the dangers and are prepared both to argue the point in court and go to gaol if they fail. Jolly good luck sez I, and I hope you win, but if you don't you can't say you weren't warned. It is immoral to pass on such a firearm as "legal off-ticket" to somebody who may not be au fait with the risks, and who would not wish to take them if he were.
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 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
Mick, the leaflet is aimed at the general public and is full of inaccuracies and misleading statements. I haven't misquoted any of it.

misquote = quote wrongly, so I guess you're right, but you have taken a lot of it out of context imo. It's aimed at the general public, but comes under crime, so guess what; send a strong message that possessing illegal firearms can get you into a lot of trouble.

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
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.
Or unless it's not subject to certification which does cover quite a lot as you know.

They're talking about firearms in general. If you want to go into specifics, there's loads of exemptions. Do you really think a long list of them on a website page is going to help?

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
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.


No Mick, you're wrong, the word "some" does not qualify the sentence I quoted. Read the full thing again.

This is the whole section, not just your sentence. Please feel free to read it again:
Quote:
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.

Am I really wrong? In general terms? Or do you wish to include some (very few in fact) firearms dealers predominantly in the export trade who have permission from the Home Secretary etc and because we banned SCGC's and didn't want to pay compensation there's a few of them out there as well as some handguns, I could go on, but I guess you see the point.

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
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?


Again it is aimed at the general public. There is no excuse for presenting these lies and half truths as the law and I would have thought that in your position you would know that.

Personally, I think the website is poor (I deleted my initial thoughts word), but I submitted comments on it when first redirected about a year ago. In my view, they're trying to get a short simple message across which is carrying on the Govts message. Short and simple. We all know there's an exemption to 5(1)(aba), but in geberal terms, you will go down for five or more.

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
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.

Issued many Licences lately? So it's OK for the Home Office to misquote the law?

Potato, potato. We've had many a discussion on here (predecessor) about wording and terminology. Seeing as shooters call it a ticket with slots, shall we use that terminology?

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
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?


no they are not it says " a building or a public place"

I honestly do not know how you can defend this rubbish.

Easy, it stops your 'rant' in mid flow. There's ways of saying things Neil and I think you summed up your stance at the end rather than saying it's a poor website which needs some amending, which we could all agree on.
NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
Nothing like winning friends or influencing people

Quite!

Never a truer word spoken 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
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
The obsolete calibre list didn't get produced on a Home Office whim. It came via the Firearms Consultative Committee where the interests of antique collectors were more than adequately represented - one thinks of Harriman and Penn. Be fair - the HO Guidance (para 8.1) does say "each case on it's merits" so good for Thompson, but as he creates no useable precedent it's reasonable enough to ignore his case in Guidance.

It occurs to the anorak in me that it isn't really an obsolete calibre list; it's an obsolete cartridge list. Anybody who wants to try and get an antique (undefined term) weapon in one of the chamberings not on the list is, imo, welcome to try so long as they appreciate the dangers and are prepared both to argue the point in court and go to gaol if they fail. Jolly good luck sez I, and I hope you win, but if you don't you can't say you weren't warned. It is immoral to pass on such a firearm as "legal off-ticket" to somebody who may not be au fait with the risks, and who would not wish to take them if he were.

Nice to see CC (sorry, Carrot) Pretty good advice from an RFD imv, and unlikely to be disagreed with by some on here. However, if I'd said it! Wink But I would have said jail though.
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: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Mick F"][quote="Carrot Cruncher"]The obsolete calibre list didn't get produced on a Home Office whim. It came via the Firearms Consultative Committee where the interests of antique collectors were more than adequately represented - one thinks of Harriman and Penn. Be fair - the HO Guidance (para 8.1) does say "each case on it's merits" so good for Thompson, but as he creates no useable precedent it's reasonable enough to ignore his case in Guidance.

It occurs to the anorak in me that it isn't really an obsolete calibre list; it's an obsolete cartridge list. Anybody who wants to try and get an antique (undefined term) weapon in one of the chamberings not on the list is, imo, welcome to try so long as they appreciate the dangers and are prepared both to argue the point in court and go to gaol if they fail. Jolly good luck sez I, and I hope you win, but if you don't you can't say you weren't warned. It is immoral to pass on such a firearm as "legal off-ticket" to somebody who may not be au fait with the risks, and who would not wish to take them if he were.[/quote]
Nice to see CC (sorry, Carrot) Pretty good advice from an RFD imv, and unlikely to be disagreed with by some on here. However, if I'd said it! Wink But I would have said jail though.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)[/quote]

Then I would have to say "gaol if they faol" - and I reckon you mean "unlikely to be agreed". Am I right ?

Still can't do this quoting bit. Could I have turned something off in my profile ? Or am I a dickhead ?
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: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Carrot Cruncher wrote:
The obsolete calibre list didn't get produced on a Home Office whim. It came via the Firearms Consultative Committee where the interests of antique collectors were more than adequately represented - one thinks of Harriman and Penn. Be fair - the HO Guidance (para 8.1) does say "each case on it's merits" so good for Thompson, but as he creates no useable precedent it's reasonable enough to ignore his case in Guidance.

It occurs to the anorak in me that it isn't really an obsolete calibre list; it's an obsolete cartridge list. Anybody who wants to try and get an antique (undefined term) weapon in one of the chamberings not on the list is, imo, welcome to try so long as they appreciate the dangers and are prepared both to argue the point in court and go to gaol if they fail. Jolly good luck sez I, and I hope you win, but if you don't you can't say you weren't warned. It is immoral to pass on such a firearm as "legal off-ticket" to somebody who may not be au fait with the risks, and who would not wish to take them if he were.

Nice to see CC (sorry, Carrot) Pretty good advice from an RFD imv, and unlikely to be disagreed with by some on here. However, if I'd said it! Wink But I would have said jail though.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)


Then I would have to say "gaol if they faol" - and I reckon you mean "unlikely to be agreed". Am I right ?

Yup and yep.
Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Still can't do this quoting bit. Could I have turned something off in my profile ? Or am I a dickhead ?

Dunno, PM Steve. Far be it from me to pass comment....... To be honest, I haven't edited the main part of this post, so it must be something your end. Your IE explorer?
Cheers
Mick Fidegon:-)
_________________
"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: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

It's not interpreting it. The Courts have said that .22rf's can benefit from the exemption in Sec.58, the HO "guidance" specifically says otherwise. Thats a contradiction to me. The HO are wrong.

Quote:
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)


I've said, the list is sensible on the face of it but I can't see how it can work unless something stays on permenently once it's been put on. I don't particularly want a list of chamberings as I can't see what's wrong with the current law as interpreted by the Courts - an antique firearm that is held as a curiosity or ornament being exempt.
Quote:

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.


Have there been any cases that have gone with the guidance on the subject of antiques as far as this type of thing is concerned? How many cases of people owning antique .22rf's have gone before the Courts that have resulted in convictions as the guidance says they all should?

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: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
[quote="Carrot Cruncher"]The obsolete calibre list didn't get produced on a Home Office whim. It came via the Firearms Consultative Committee where the interests of antique collectors were more than adequately represented - one thinks of Harriman and Penn. Be fair - the HO Guidance (para 8.1) does say "each case on it's merits" so good for Thompson, but as he creates no useable precedent it's reasonable enough to ignore his case in Guidance.


Wherever it came from, or whatever we personally think about how good it is is largely beside the point. The fact of the matter is that is bears little relation to what the law actully says on the matter.

Sec.58 says that you can possess, buy sell, or acquire an antique firearm as long as you do so as a curiosity or ornament. It does not say that it has to be in any particular chambering or of any particular type. It definately dosen't say that antique firearms in certain chamberings should not benefit from the exemption.

It's not about how well certain interested parties were represented it's about how well the guidance represents the state of the law. You can't just formulate a set of rules that have no basis in law on the grounds that "some people agree that they are good idea, so this is how it should be done" because that's not what Parliamet has said is how it should be done.

Parliament has said that if you have an antique firearm that you possess as a curiosity or ornament then your possesssion of that firearm is exempt from the provisions contained in the Act. It did not see fit to qualify that exemption by type, chambering or calibre, or whether it was complete or not. Any of which it could easily have done had it chosen to. Parliament chose to create a blanket exemption for all antique firearms and that's the law we have.

Quote:
It occurs to the anorak in me that it isn't really an obsolete calibre list; it's an obsolete cartridge list.


It's an obsolete chamberings list, to be precise. Actually, depends on how you define "obsolete" really. Lots of those chamberings may not be produced anhy more but some are and many are still used in some form or another so can you really call them obsolete?

Quote:
Quote:
Anybody who wants to try and get an antique (undefined term)weapon in one of the chamberings not on the list is, imo, welcome to try so long as they appreciate the dangers and are prepared both to argue the point in court and go to gaol if they fail. Jolly good luck sez I, and I hope you win, but if you don't you can't say you weren't warned.

If there were something you really wanted that the HO and police were telling you dosen't qualify for the exemption you could always go to judicial review and find out that way.

It is immoral to pass on such a firearm as "legal off-ticket" to somebody who may not be au fait with the risks, and who would not wish to take them if he were.


The risks do not seem to be as great as the HO are implying. How many people have ben convicted for having antique firearms simply because they don't appear on the sacred list? How many people have been convicted for having antique .22rf's because the HO say they should never qualify? The only case on the latter subject is Thomson who was acquitted, and rightly so, becuase the Court applied the law as Parliament intended it to be applied, not how the HO would like it to be applied.

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: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
[quote="Carrot Cruncher"]The obsolete calibre list didn't get produced on a Home Office whim. It came via the Firearms Consultative Committee where the interests of antique collectors were more than adequately represented - one thinks of Harriman and Penn. Be fair - the HO Guidance (para 8.1) does say "each case on it's merits" so good for Thompson, but as he creates no useable precedent it's reasonable enough to ignore his case in Guidance.


Wherever it came from, or whatever we personally think about how good it is is largely beside the point. The fact of the matter is that is bears little relation to what the law actully says on the matter.

Sec.58 says that you can possess, buy sell, or acquire an antique firearm as long as you do so as a curiosity or ornament. It does not say that it has to be in any particular chambering or of any particular type. It definately dosen't say that antique firearms in certain chamberings should not benefit from the exemption.

It's not about how well certain interested parties were represented it's about how well the guidance represents the state of the law. You can't just formulate a set of rules that have no basis in law on the grounds that "some people agree that they are good idea, so this is how it should be done" because that's not what Parliamet has said is how it should be done.

Parliament has said that if you have an antique firearm that you possess as a curiosity or ornament then your possesssion of that firearm is exempt from the provisions contained in the Act. It did not see fit to qualify that exemption by type, chambering or calibre, or whether it was complete or not. Any of which it could easily have done had it chosen to. Parliament chose to create a blanket exemption for all antique firearms and that's the law we have.

Quote:
It occurs to the anorak in me that it isn't really an obsolete calibre list; it's an obsolete cartridge list.


It's an obsolete chamberings list, to be precise. Actually, depends on how you define "obsolete" really. Lots of those chamberings may not be produced anhy more but some are and many are still used in some form or another so can you really call them obsolete?

Quote:
Quote:
Anybody who wants to try and get an antique (undefined term)weapon in one of the chamberings not on the list is, imo, welcome to try so long as they appreciate the dangers and are prepared both to argue the point in court and go to gaol if they fail. Jolly good luck sez I, and I hope you win, but if you don't you can't say you weren't warned.

If there were something you really wanted that the HO and police were telling you dosen't qualify for the exemption you could always go to judicial review and find out that way.

It is immoral to pass on such a firearm as "legal off-ticket" to somebody who may not be au fait with the risks, and who would not wish to take them if he were.


The risks do not seem to be as great as the HO are implying. How many people have ben convicted for having antique firearms simply because they don't appear on the sacred list? How many people have been convicted for having antique .22rf's because the HO say they should never qualify? The only case on the latter subject is Thomson who was acquitted, and rightly so, becuase the Court applied the law as Parliament intended it to be applied, not how the HO would like it to be applied.

J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4621

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Still can't do this quoting bit. Could I have turned something off in my profile ? Or am I a dickhead ?


Just in case you don't see the other post, you've got the "disable BBCode in this post" turned on in the "post a reply" window, you need to turn it off. I've turned it off in your profile so it should work by default now. You should check your profile settings, you've turned various things off that may cause problems by the looks of it.
_________________
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: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Still can't do this quoting bit. Could I have turned something off in my profile ? Or am I a dickhead ?


Just in case you don't see the other post, you've got the "disable BBCode in this post" turned on in the "post a reply" window, you need to turn it off. I've turned it off in your profile so it should work by default now. You should check your profile settings, you've turned various things off that may cause problems by the looks of it.


Thankyou. I don't know what BBCode is, so I thought I'd better decline.

Looks OK now doesn't it.
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: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Mick F wrote:
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.


It's not interpreting it. The Courts have said that .22rf's can benefit from the exemption in Sec.58, the HO "guidance" specifically says otherwise. Thats a contradiction to me. The HO are wrong.

No they aren't. There's Counsel's opinion and even a Court case where they've said paintball guns are Section 5. It's not a binding case, the same as the .22RF rifle with no bolt is or the Humberside case on humane despatch. Whatever you say, I'll have to disagree, sorry.

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
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)


I've said, the list is sensible on the face of it but I can't see how it can work unless something stays on permenently once it's been put on. I don't particularly want a list of chamberings as I can't see what's wrong with the current law as interpreted by the Courts - an antique firearm that is held as a curiosity or ornament being exempt.

If you bring in 'one off cases' which have no precedent, you'll be taking cases to the High Court or even Court of Appeal, maybe the HoL every time. As I posted on another thread (and as it says in the guidance), each case on it's own merits.
JonathanL wrote:
Mick F wrote:
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.


Have there been any cases that have gone with the guidance on the subject of antiques as far as this type of thing is concerned? How many cases of people owning antique .22rf's have gone before the Courts that have resulted in convictions as the guidance says they all should?

J.

About a dozen that I know of and have been involved in, why?
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
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4621

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been other cases where stuff more recent or in readily available calibres has been held to benefit from the exemption under section 58(2). Jonathan Spencer mentioned a couple IIRC. And there was a guy on the list who had actually been prosecuted and successfully defended himself, he had been prosecuted for possession of a Russian .25 semi-automatic pistol made in the 1920s. It was a longer cartridge than .25ACP, but the FSS said .25ACP chambered and fired in it.

I think one of the other ones was a guy who had a trigger group for a Maxim machinegun. Another one involved a derringer.

The more relevant question is: how many cases have you been involved in where section 58(2) was claimed as a defence for an old .22 or whatever and the guy had a really good barrister?
_________________
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: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
The more relevant question is: how many cases have you been involved in where section 58(2) was claimed as a defence for an old .22 or whatever and the guy had a really good barrister?

None, in fact most are taken as read ie my statement that say's it's a Section 1 firearm in those cases.

I'd have to say, and bear in mind who I discuss things with or am asked questions by, cases like that start worrying certain people who think we need to talk about dates. The big test for that would be 'antique' firearms turning up in crime rather than rarely as they are now.
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, 4 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 3 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