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 ... 13, 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
NeilMac



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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arthur Negus must be turning in his grave Laughing

Best wishes,

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



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sadly, I've been thinking about this. Would I consider a carriage (eg stage coach) from 1880 to be an antique. Personally, no. Would I consider a Budicca chariot an antique, yes. Would I consider a piece of railway track an antique from 1880? No. Would I consider a locomotive from that era an antique? Yes, pretty much. However, would I feel the Flying Scotsman was an antique? No.


Obviously Mick, you cannot say whether, in the absence of s58, you would consider an 1880 .45LC revolver to be an antique, hence this odd digression into stage coaches.

For what it's worth, I am sure that 99% of all artefacts made in the 1880's and 1890's no longer exist, and those that survive are antiques. A carriage from the 1880's would be a highly valuable antique, and a piece of railway track from the period would certainly be of interest to collectors of railway memorabilia (and there's a lot of them).

I have been trying to find definitions of "antique", and the period of 100 years is commonly mentioned. The US government accepts that items over 100 years old are antiques for tax and duty purposes. The only reason why we are having this discussion is because the powers that be have a piece of law they don't like, so are twisting language and logic so that the law is along the lines of what they would like it to be, not what it says. That's the long and the short of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the powers that be have a piece of law they don't like, so are twisting language and logic so that the law is along the lines of what they would like it to be, not what it says. That's the long and the short of it.


I can't see how anyone can conclude differently if they look at the legislation. Clearly Mick is one of "the powers that be" so he's never going to state that he's administering the law incorrectly. If he did the HO would probably come down on him like a ton of bricks.

Best wishes,

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


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
And a fair bit of it and it's primary amendment, the 1883 Act, is still in place awaiting COER II.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_a.html#_Toc44580524


Largely binned: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2005/20051082.htm#sch6 (look at Schedule 6).

Remember some sections of it had already been repealed. I know some bits are still in force, but my point was valid.
_________________
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: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
I disagree on the track bit. At the end of the day, it's a bit of metal rail. Maybe because trains of that era don't interest me. You show 1,000 people a lump of railway track and say it's an antique, my guess is they'll think you're a nutter.


I would think they would agree it's an antique, to be honest. I don't like a lot of the **** that turn up on the Antiques Roadshow but it dosen't mean it's not antique ****.

Ask 1,000 people if that lump of train track that looks exactly the same as one fifty years ago and the one built yesterday if it was an antique? Good luck, because most will want to know where the hidden camera is.

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
JonathanL wrote:
I still don't follow your logic though. An 1880's locomotive you consider an antique, but not the track - why? You would not consider the flying Scotsman to be an antique yet it is utterly redundant technology and has been for decades. How are you arriving at these opinions?
J.

As I said, personal experience, like most of us. I agree, the flying Scotsmans old, and the technology is ancient, doesn't make it an antique in my eyes. As for the track, it's a lump of metal, so unless I was particularly fixated about trains of that era, it remains a lump of metal to me. In fact, the lump of metal that Stevenson's Rocket went on, remains that imv, a lump of metal.

As I've said, I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority of people would disagree with you. Like my analogy before - a broken 1920's radio is not more of an antique than one made on the same day because the latter still works.

Funnily enough I strongly disagree with you. I guess, most people would call the 1920's wireless an antique because of its construction and technology, which leads me back to my point on technolgy. It's a guess, but a very reasonable one imho.

JonathanL wrote:
What you are saying - if applied to firearms - is that basically you could never have a universal definition of "antique" as it's too personal to the individual. That being the case then surely any firearm an individual said was an antique must beniefit from Sec.58.
J.

Surely an antique is in the eye of the beholder and each one is taken on it's own individual merits? At the end of the day, only a Court of Law can make that final judgement.
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: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
Arthur Negus must be turning in his grave Laughing

Best wishes,

Neil Mac'

Who? Now he has to be an antique (meaning no disrespect to the dead.)
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: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
Sadly, I've been thinking about this. Would I consider a carriage (eg stage coach) from 1880 to be an antique. Personally, no. Would I consider a Budicca chariot an antique, yes. Would I consider a piece of railway track an antique from 1880? No. Would I consider a locomotive from that era an antique? Yes, pretty much. However, would I feel the Flying Scotsman was an antique? No.

Obviously Mick, you cannot say whether, in the absence of s58, you would consider an 1880 .45LC revolver to be an antique, hence this odd digression into stage coaches.

That's just it, how can you ask me something which doesn't exist? I can only go on my own personal knowledge, obviously. If you don't realise I'm trying to explain the situation, then obviously it was wasted on you.
Rob wrote:
For what it's worth, I am sure that 99% of all artefacts made in the 1880's and 1890's no longer exist, and those that survive are antiques. A carriage from the 1880's would be a highly valuable antique, and a piece of railway track from the period would certainly be of interest to collectors of railway memorabilia (and there's a lot of them).

This is my point, as I'm sure many people would not agree with you and only those with an obvious interest in trains would find anything remotely appealing, let alone call it an antique. There's probably a lot more 'train spotters' than there are firearm cert holders.
Rob wrote:
I have been trying to find definitions of "antique", and the period of 100 years is commonly mentioned. The US government accepts that items over 100 years old are antiques for tax and duty purposes. The only reason why we are having this discussion is because the powers that be have a piece of law they don't like, so are twisting language and logic so that the law is along the lines of what they would like it to be, not what it says. That's the long and the short of it.

It's not the long and short of it, but there we go, around the merry go round yet again. Anyway, just dismissing it to fall in with your own logic, doesn't make your view right. Then again, the same phrase could apply to me.
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: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
And a fair bit of it and it's primary amendment, the 1883 Act, is still in place awaiting COER II.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_a.html#_Toc44580524


Largely binned: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2005/20051082.htm#sch6 (look at Schedule 6).

Remember some sections of it had already been repealed. I know some bits are still in force, but my point was valid.

Someone should tell the CPS Shocked Anyway, those were predominantly orders in council or secretary of state orders, not the primary legislation.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt


Last edited by Mick F on Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:46 am; edited 1 time in total
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: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
Very, but we've had this discussion before and there's no political will simply because they don't have to deal with it day in and day out. 'We' do and know the problems and possible solutions, albeit 'we' are poles apart on a number of things.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)

When you talk to David ask him what he honestly thinks about it. I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that representatives from the BSSC have suggested such and such a list of calibres, because they are simply working within the context of what the Home Office has laid down for them. I.e. the Home Office asked them for a list of calibres to improve the antiques guidance and that's what they came up with.

It's not the same as saying they agree with the basic logic behind the HO guidance.

You like that word, disingenuous, rolls off the tongue very easily it seems.

I will ask him, but as I said earlier, we were in a stage of some Forces accepting 'out of proof' cartridges, others not and nobody really having an idea where to put it all. IIRC, it was decided by the shooters together with the FSS to come up with a list of CF calibres that could be considered 'off ticket.' I agree, it's in line with what the HO wanted, to accord with the guidance, but my discussions with the FSS at the time indicate this is what happened. I don't recall the HO asking them for a list, more the other way round ie "How can we solve this problem?" "How about a list?" "Okay, make the list and we'll consider it at the FCC." In a nutshell obviously.

Could be wrong, but that's my genuine recollection
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)

Hmmmm, had my chat with David and funnily enough my recollection was correct. Still, maybe someone on here will believe me. Very Happy

The conversation progressed and basically, a date for antiques may be forced upon us by Europe (looking at amending and increasing the EWD) and 'the list' is due to be expanded. Also had quite a long conversation on antiques with David.
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: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeilMac wrote:
Quote:
the powers that be have a piece of law they don't like, so are twisting language and logic so that the law is along the lines of what they would like it to be, not what it says. That's the long and the short of it.

I can't see how anyone can conclude differently if they look at the legislation.

13 pages of explanation wasted. Still, that's nothing new on here.
NeilMac wrote:
Clearly Mick is one of "the powers that be" so he's never going to state that he's administering the law incorrectly.

Get real. I'm not, but if you feel like a challenge, move to Essex and get a dealer to give you an 1880 .45LC revolver.
NeilMac wrote:
If he did the HO would probably come down on him like a ton of bricks.
Best wishes,
Neil Mac'

That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages. You should go on the stage 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
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Obviously Mick, you cannot say whether, in the absence of s58, you would consider an 1880 .45LC revolver to be an antique, hence this odd digression into stage coaches.


That's just it, how can you ask me something which doesn't exist? I can only go on my own personal knowledge, obviously. If you don't realise I'm trying to explain the situation, then obviously it was wasted on you.


It's not "something which doesn't exist", it's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question, and one which you can't answer. Under s58 the law allows antiques firearms held as curios or ornaments to be held without cerificate. Their status as "antiques" therefore has meaning in law. If that were not the case, and antique status gave no such privileges, would you have any trouble describing a 120 year old revolver as an antique? It's a question you cannot answer because it cuts to the heart of this entire problem.

Quote:
Quote:
For what it's worth, I am sure that 99% of all artefacts made in the 1880's and 1890's no longer exist, and those that survive are antiques. A carriage from the 1880's would be a highly valuable antique, and a piece of railway track from the period would certainly be of interest to collectors of railway memorabilia (and there's a lot of them).

This is my point, as I'm sure many people would not agree with you and only those with an obvious interest in trains would find anything remotely appealing, let alone call it an antique. There's probably a lot more 'train spotters' than there are firearm cert holders.


I congratulate you for changing the terms of debate from the objective status of an object to "what many people think". I expect many people are not too excited by shards of pottery, but if they are ancient archeologists find them fascinating. This has nothing whatever to do with this debate. The fact is, that for reasons which have no logical merit, you would say that you could have two revolvers made in the same year, and one would be an antique and the other not, based simply on which round they were chambered for. That is not how antiques are defined. If one revolver from 1880 is an antique, all revolvers from 1880 are antiques. The only reason you cannot accept this obvious point is because antiques can be owned without a certificate, and the plain fact is that the powers that be won't have it, and hence they have to bend the law, language and logic to achieve the ends they desire. That's just it. You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face but you won't change my mind. It's a stitch-up by the authorities. End of story.
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: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously Mick, you cannot say whether, in the absence of s58, you would consider an 1880 .45LC revolver to be an antique, hence this odd digression into stage coaches.

That's just it, how can you ask me something which doesn't exist? I can only go on my own personal knowledge, obviously. If you don't realise I'm trying to explain the situation, then obviously it was wasted on you.

It's not "something which doesn't exist", it's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question, and one which you can't answer. Under s58 the law allows antiques firearms held as curios or ornaments to be held without cerificate. Their status as "antiques" therefore has meaning in law. If that were not the case, and antique status gave no such privileges, would you have any trouble describing a 120 year old revolver as an antique? It's a question you cannot answer because it cuts to the heart of this entire problem.

the problem is you're not reading posts:
Quote:
Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Please don't put words in my mouth. As you know, the question would not arise. If it did, we'd have a definition of one.

I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'll ask the question: If there were no s58, would you have any trouble saying an 1880 revolver in .45LC was an antique or not?

Under present legislation and guidance, yes I have trouble saying that. We discussed this ages ago. However, each case is treated on it's own merits and if presented with one, I'd do a comprehensive report on the options available.

Rob wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
For what it's worth, I am sure that 99% of all artefacts made in the 1880's and 1890's no longer exist, and those that survive are antiques. A carriage from the 1880's would be a highly valuable antique, and a piece of railway track from the period would certainly be of interest to collectors of railway memorabilia (and there's a lot of them).

This is my point, as I'm sure many people would not agree with you and only those with an obvious interest in trains would find anything remotely appealing, let alone call it an antique. There's probably a lot more 'train spotters' than there are firearm cert holders.

I congratulate you for changing the terms of debate from the objective status of an object to "what many people think". I expect many people are not too excited by shards of pottery, but if they are ancient archeologists find them fascinating. This has nothing whatever to do with this debate. The fact is, that for reasons which have no logical merit, you would say that you could have two revolvers made in the same year, and one would be an antique and the other not, based simply on which round they were chambered for. That is not how antiques are defined. If one revolver from 1880 is an antique, all revolvers from 1880 are antiques. The only reason you cannot accept this obvious point is because antiques can be owned without a certificate, and the plain fact is that the powers that be won't have it, and hence they have to bend the law, language and logic to achieve the ends they desire. That's just it. You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face but you won't change my mind. It's a stitch-up by the authorities. End of story.

I don't mind whether I change your mind or not. At least I read your posts and only repeat, yet again, the whole argument which is antique is not decided solely on age, that it is one mans antique, anothers curio and yet anothers lump of metal, and finally that each case is taken on it's own merits. As for stitch up, about as much as you want it to be and fits with your agenda.
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
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the problem is you're not reading posts:


I am, I just don't agree with them.

Quote:
Please don't put words in my mouth. As you know, the question would not arise. If it did, we'd have a definition of one.

I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'll ask the question: If there were no s58, would you have any trouble saying an 1880 revolver in .45LC was an antique or not?

Under present legislation and guidance, yes I have trouble saying that. We discussed this ages ago. However, each case is treated on it's own merits and if presented with one, I'd do a comprehensive report on the options available.


You are either not getting the point I am making, or deliberately avoiding it. If there were no s58, all firearms regardless of age would be subject to certification. Whether a firearm was antique or not would not affect its legal standing. There would be no definition of antique because it would not be needed. I'm not talking about "present legislation and guidance", but a hypothetical situation. I understand quite well why you can't answer this hypothetical question, but frankly the idea that a 126 year old artefact is not an antique is ridiculous.

Quote:
the whole argument which is antique is not decided solely on age


And that's my point; it should be. There is no other valid way of deciding whether something is an antique other than by its age. The only reason firearms authorities cannot accept this is because it would mean certain firearms could be owned without a certificate, and they can't accept that, so they bend the law accordingly.
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: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
the problem is you're not reading posts:

I am, I just don't agree with them.

Funnily enough, I have the same feeling.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Please don't put words in my mouth. As you know, the question would not arise. If it did, we'd have a definition of one.

I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'll ask the question: If there were no s58, would you have any trouble saying an 1880 revolver in .45LC was an antique or not?

Under present legislation and guidance, yes I have trouble saying that. We discussed this ages ago. However, each case is treated on it's own merits and if presented with one, I'd do a comprehensive report on the options available.


You are either not getting the point I am making, or deliberately avoiding it. If there were no s58, all firearms regardless of age would be subject to certification. Whether a firearm was antique or not would not affect its legal standing. There would be no definition of antique because it would not be needed. I'm not talking about "present legislation and guidance", but a hypothetical situation. I understand quite well why you can't answer this hypothetical question, but frankly the idea that a 126 year old artefact is not an antique is ridiculous.

You seem to find it difficult to understand that your 100 year rule or anything else other than taking each case on it's own merits is a valid point. A wireless from 1920 or a tank from 1916 could be considered to be an antique, because of the change in technology. A piece of railway track from 1880 would not in my view, again because it's the same as modern railway track. In fact I find it very hard to believe even an enthusiast would believe a piece of railway track from 1880 is an antique, but I'll take yours and J's word for that.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
the whole argument which is antique is not decided solely on age

And that's my point; it should be. There is no other valid way of deciding whether something is an antique other than by its age. The only reason firearms authorities cannot accept this is because it would mean certain firearms could be owned without a certificate, and they can't accept that, so they bend the law accordingly.

Age is a consideration, it's not a final judgement. Whilst you may not agree with it, it's a valid argument; like it or (obviously) not.
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: 4587

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Someone should tell the CPS Shocked Anyway, those were predominantly orders in council or secretary of state orders, not the primary legislation.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)


Nope, it's predominantly the primary legislation. And then the OICs based on that legislation.
_________________
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
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 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 14 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