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
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

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

Quote:
The conversation progressed and basically, a date for antiques may be forced upon us by Europe


They've decided not to bother as they couldn't reach an agreement as different countries have different cut-off dates and others have some sort of nebulous open-ended definition as we do. The main bone of contention as I understand it is whether the cut-off should be 1870 or 1899. The UN was quite keen on 1899 because it introduced a limit that didn't exist before in many parts of the world and the EU wants to implement the UN Programme of Action as "best practice", but of course that is less restrictive than what the UK, Ireland and France (in practice) currently have.

However I've never really understood what all the fuss was about, because it wouldn't be a pre-emptive definition even if it was in the EFD. It would be the minimum required, France could still use 1870 if they wanted and we could still have our silly open-ended definition.
_________________
Steve.

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


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

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
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.

If you read my original point, which you've singularly missed out, it said:
Quote:
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

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 Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:25 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: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
The conversation progressed and basically, a date for antiques may be forced upon us by Europe


They've decided not to bother as they couldn't reach an agreement as different countries have different cut-off dates and others have some sort of nebulous open-ended definition as we do. The main bone of contention as I understand it is whether the cut-off should be 1870 or 1899. The UN was quite keen on 1899 because it introduced a limit that didn't exist before in many parts of the world and the EU wants to implement the UN Programme of Action as "best practice", but of course that is less restrictive than what the UK, Ireland and France (in practice) currently have.

However I've never really understood what all the fuss was about, because it wouldn't be a pre-emptive definition even if it was in the EFD. It would be the minimum required, France could still use 1870 if they wanted and we could still have our silly open-ended definition.

Funnily enough, why was it discussed a while ago and still on David's mind when I saw him? Those two dates were proposed last time there was a discussion on the subject and it's adoption may have prevented 14 pages of debate (okay, maybe five) on here.

I note you have no comment on my point about genuine recollection of what happened re the list. Says it all really Rolling Eyes
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: Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


Despite quoting the OED definition of "antique", you do not seem to have got to grips with this concept at all.

Quote:
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.


Age is not the final judgment when you are trying to skew the definition of an antique so as to exclude certain firearms which you wish to keep under certification. In all other walks of life, age is exactly what constitutes an antique. The question of a change of technology does not arise. A stirrup was once cutting edge technology; yet stirrup design has hardly changed, and a stirrup several hundred years old would work perfectly well as a stirrup. To suggest therefore that a 500 year old stirrup is not an antique makes as much sense as claiming a 120 year old revolver is not an antique. And that is no sense whatsoever.
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 25, 2006 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
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.

Despite quoting the OED definition of "antique", you do not seem to have got to grips with this concept at all.

Why's it so difficult to understand. You just don't like people disagreeing with you? IIRC it says archaic. 'of old times;existing since old times; old fashioned; archaic.' You've not said anything new since the 17th October post, so I can only assume you 'need' to have the last word. So long as it's not your usual slagging of Police, Home Office etc. or directed at me, or opening another train of thought, feel free......... Even if it's just to agree to disagree.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
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.

Age is not the final judgment when you are trying to skew the definition of an antique so as to exclude certain firearms which you wish to keep under certification. In all other walks of life, age is exactly what constitutes an antique. The question of a change of technology does not arise. A stirrup was once cutting edge technology; yet stirrup design has hardly changed, and a stirrup several hundred years old would work perfectly well as a stirrup. To suggest therefore that a 500 year old stirrup is not an antique makes as much sense as claiming a 120 year old revolver is not an antique. And that is no sense whatsoever.

I'd agree a stirrup from 500 years ago would be an antique in most peoples books, albeit an ECW stirrup an antique? Quite possibly, from the 100 years war or war of the roses, definitely. But would one from 120 years ago be? Not in my book. How about a nail? Again, from Roman times, yes. From ECW period, possibly. From 120 years ago, I doubt it. Age is simply a consideration, like many other things.

By your definition, a wireless from 1920 would not be an antique, yet in most peoples books, it would be. Age is a consideration, not the final answer imo.
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: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
albeit an ECW stirrup an antique? Quite possibly


You think a surviving artefact from the English Civil War is "quite possibly" an antique? Gee thanks. I don't think we'll be seeing you on Time Team in the near future then.

Quote:
But would one from 120 years ago be? Not in my book.


Then how can I put this? You're reading from the wrong book.

Quote:
By your definition, a wireless from 1920 would not be an antique, yet in most peoples books, it would be.


Unlike you, I don't claim to know what "most people" think. They might just as well think a 1920 wireless is a piece of useless junk. FWIW, I think a 1920 wireless is a vintage collectible, but not necessarily an antique quite yet. The US government would not accept it as a bona fide antique until its 100 years old if that helps. Probably not.
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 25, 2006 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
albeit an ECW stirrup an antique? Quite possibly

You think a surviving artefact from the English Civil War is "quite possibly" an antique? Gee thanks. I don't think we'll be seeing you on Time Team in the near future then.

Funnily enough, I'm quite glad about that. In fact, it's probably down there with soap opera's in my book.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
But would one from 120 years ago be? Not in my book.

Then how can I put this? You're reading from the wrong book.

Yep, the OED
Rob wrote:
Quote:
By your definition, a wireless from 1920 would not be an antique, yet in most peoples books, it would be.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know what "most people" think. They might just as well think a 1920 wireless is a piece of useless junk. FWIW, I think a 1920 wireless is a vintage collectible, but not necessarily an antique quite yet. The US government would not accept it as a bona fide antique until its 100 years old if that helps. Probably not.

Doesn't help in the slightest. I'll repeat again if it helps you (which I doubt too), that age is a consideration. That 100 year rule is to do with tax. On firearms IIRC it's 1899 in the US.
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: 4589

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Funnily enough, why was it discussed a while ago and still on David's mind when I saw him? Those two dates were proposed last time there was a discussion on the subject and it's adoption may have prevented 14 pages of debate (okay, maybe five) on here.


Because you asked the question probably. He himself wrote recently in the HBSA report that the EFD wouldn't be amended to include a clear definition of an antique.

Quote:
I note you have no comment on my point about genuine recollection of what happened re the list. Says it all really Rolling Eyes
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)


Neil's right, you are a grumpy bugger.

My point was that the suggestion for a list was made in the context of the Home Office asking for something. It doesn't mean that it has any actual legal standing. It's just "guidance". And that's what everyone on here has been arguing about, whether the guidance has any legal standing.

I'm not disagreeing with your recollection. Which is why I didn't comment about it. I just have a different opinion on the implications 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
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Funnily enough, why was it discussed a while ago and still on David's mind when I saw him? Those two dates were proposed last time there was a discussion on the subject and it's adoption may have prevented 14 pages of debate (okay, maybe five) on here.

Because you asked the question probably. He himself wrote recently in the HBSA report that the EFD wouldn't be amended to include a clear definition of an antique.

What many people publish in journals is not always what they mean. Anyway, as before, I can only go by the conversation I had.

cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
I note you have no comment on my point about genuine recollection of what happened re the list. Says it all really Rolling Eyes
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)

Neil's right, you are a grumpy bugger.

That's a good one coming from you Razz I think the only more dour person is J with Rob coming a close second Laughing
cybershooters wrote:
My point was that the suggestion for a list was made in the context of the Home Office asking for something. It doesn't mean that it has any actual legal standing. It's just "guidance". And that's what everyone on here has been arguing about, whether the guidance has any legal standing.

They've not been arguing about it, they're all clear it's unlawful
cybershooters wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with your recollection. Which is why I didn't comment about it. I just have a different opinion on the implications of it.

That's not how it came across to me. Seemed more like you were saying I was a liar:
Mick F wrote:
cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:

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:-)
_________________
"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: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Funnily enough, I'm quite glad about that. In fact, it's probably down there with soap opera's in my book.


That's a nice swerve, but the point stands that you are unsure whether an artefact surviving from the English Civil War is an antique or not. Here's a hint: everything that survives from the 1640's is an antique, and yes, that includes nails and shards of pottery. Everything.

Quote:
Yep, the OED


I'm not saying you have not read the OED definition, simply that you do not seem to have understood it.

Quote:
That 100 year rule is to do with tax. On firearms IIRC it's 1899 in the US.


That 100 year rule is to do with tax in the context that anything over 100 years old is deemed to be an antique, and therefore not subject to import duties. I'm sure if the US government deemed 200 years to be the threshold for antique status you would quote that fact at me, but they do not, it's 100 years. The 1899 date is a function of the GCA 1968. Any gun which predates 1899 is not subject to the GCA. The fact remains, the US government has an official definition for an antique: anything over 100 years old. It did not come from nowhere, it's the generally accepted definition of an antique, and one which I would be surprised any court could ignore. Obviously that's not something which the gun control fetishists of British law enforcement want to hear, which is why they came up with ze list.


Last edited by Rob on Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total
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 25, 2006 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
Funnily enough, I'm quite glad about that. In fact, it's probably down there with soap opera's in my book.

That's a nice swerve, but the point stands that you are unsure whether an artefact surviving from the English Civil War is an antique or not. Here's a hint: everything that survives from the 1640's is an antique, and yes, that includes nails and shards of pottery. Everything.

Like many on here, you have an inability to carry the quote on, just use the last one posted. It's not hard.

In whose book? Yours? This is the same as the train track argument. It's a nail and the difference between it and one ten years ago is? My guess is that if you show them a nail from 1640's and one from ten years ago and ask the great soap opera watching public if they can tell which is an antique and why, they'll definitely be looking for the hidden camera's.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Yep, the OED

I'm not saying you have not read the OED definition, simply that you do not seem to have understood it.

How can that be? It's fairly plain isn't it? Seems to me that you can't comprehend why the OED hasn't put an age on it either and try to justify it by saying my reading is wrong.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
That 100 year rule is to do with tax. On firearms IIRC it's 1899 in the US.

That 100 year rule is to do with tax in the context that anything over 100 years old is deemed to be an antique, and therefore not subject to import duties. I'm sure if the US government deemed 200 years to be the threshold for antique status you would quote that fact at me, but they do not, it's 100 years. The 1899 date is a function of the GCA 1968. Any gun which predates 1899 is not subject to the GCA. The fact remains, the US government has an official definition for an antique: anything over 100 years old. It did not come from nowhere, it's the gernerally accepted definition of an antique, and one which I would be surprised any court could ignore.

Seeing as HMR&C (surprised nobody's quoted this yet, shows how much real interest is taken rather than the standard Police and HO slagging) use the same rule..................
The GCA may say 1899, so does that supercede the 'rule' that anything over 100 years is an antique for tax purposes? Perhaps Steve or EJ know? My guess is it doesn't.
Rob wrote:
Obviously that's not something which the gun control fetishists of British law enforcement want to hear, which is why they came up with ze list.

Obviously that's not something which the gun holder fetishists of British shooters want to hear, which is why they disagree with ze list.
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 25, 2006 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That's a good one coming from you Razz I think the only more dour person is J with Rob coming a close second Laughing


Woo-hoo, I've won something! Do I get a prize?

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: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
Quote:
That's a good one coming from you Razz I think the only more dour person is J with Rob coming a close second Laughing

Woo-hoo, I've won something! Do I get a prize?
J.

Yep, free post on any subject you like that I won't come up with an alternative viewpoint! Wink

Actually, in view of the above, the prize might have to go to Rob as it shows you do have a sense of humour 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: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Actually, in view of the above, the prize might have to go to Rob as it shows you do have a sense of humour


Sorry if I've had a sense of humour failure, but given that you have to write reports on what constitutes an antique firearm, the fact that are unsure whether a surviving artefact of the English Civil War is an antique is no laughing matter.
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 25, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
Actually, in view of the above, the prize might have to go to Rob as it shows you do have a sense of humour

Sorry if I've had a sense of humour failure, but given that you have to write reports on what constitutes an antique firearm, the fact that are unsure whether a surviving artefact of the English Civil War is an antique is no laughing matter.

As I've repeatedly said, it's all down to the individual and based on their life experiences. If you sincerely think I'm going to go to Court and say a nail from a fence dated (can you date it?) 1642 is an antique but a nail from 1970 is not, you've got another think coming. Now if we were talking nails for horses hooves, that might be a different kettle of fish as the whole concept of shoeing horses is pretty much alien to 90+% of the population and gained solely from what they've seen on the telly or in films.

I'll reiterate that age is a consideration, not an absolute deciding factor, although you quite obviously disagree.

Anyway, if you can show me one post where there has been humour on any subject, J can have his title back Shocked
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 15 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