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 

Panorama programme on smuggling antique guns

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Crime
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:00 am    Post subject: Panorama programme on smuggling antique guns Reply with quote

Click here.

Bit late aren't they? Already in the process of implementing the Policing and Crime Act 2017.
_________________
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
dhart



Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't aware of any changes in Section 58, either already or impending - so thanks for drawing my attention to Policing and Crime Act 2017.

I'm no legal scholar or particulary adept at reading/understanding these sorts of documents but, as far as I can see the only change appears to be very subtle and of no real significance (i.e. the purpose of and exemption granted by S.58 remains essentially the same).

The only changes I see are....

An explicit clarification that an antique gun's chamber(s) must be as originally manufactured? (I thought that was already the case)

AND (perhaps more significantly)

A provision for the Home Secretary to impose (by way of Statutory Instrument?) a minimum age requirement to individual types of gun? As compared with previous year 'cut off' dates to qualify as antique (e.g. 1939) for entire categories (e.g shotguns).

Am I correct? OR are the changes more significant and have greate impact than I understand it? Have any new Statutory Instrument regulations relating to antiques yet been implemented?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The changes are very significant, because courts have disagreed with HO guidance on numerous occasions and found people not guilty that the police didn't like. So the changes in the legislation are effectively enshrining HO guidance in law. There has been at least one person found not guilty of possessing a WW2-era Browning Hi-Power.

So in essence people who have guns that don't comply with the guidance but are antiques will have to get an FAC to keep them, but won't have to show "good reason" or pay a fee.
_________________
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
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This missive from Richard Law might clarify things a bit:

Quote:
Panorama - BBC One Monday 20th at 20.30 BST 'legal weapon'.
This arises from RFD Paul Edmunds buying obsolete calibre revolvers in the US and selling them with homemade ammunition to the scrote community, for which he got a 30-year sentence last November.
The Beeb have been sitting on this programme for months waiting for another case to hit the courts - and that case ended on Wednesday with the dealer acquitted. Edmunds was a one-off rogue dealer, judging by the number of his 'associates' to have been rolled over by the police and come up clean.
The Law Commission have recommended that antique firearms should not change hands for cash - a restriction that has applied to the scrap metal trade for sometime - and the Policing and Crime Act 2017 empowered the Home Office to introduce regulations to define an antique: which they haven’t yet.
That's at the heart of this: the first Firearms Act in 1920 exempted antiques from controls, subject to being possessed solely as curiosities or ornaments. These two words had been used in conjunction with each other to advertise 'Exchange and Mart' magazine (founded 1878) in other publications, so in 1920 everyone knew what they meant.
The landmark prosecution was Richards v Curwen in 1977 - which acquitted him of possessing two early mark (1890s) Webley revolvers. To be an antique, the firearm has to be kept as a curiosity or ornament after which its obsolescence by age is the question of fact and degree. The court rejected the prosecution argument that the Webleys used 'modern' ammunition on the basis that using ammunition type as a definition would mean they'd never become antiques, but also said that 20th century firearms probably wouldn’t be antiques.
Naturally, the Home Office ignored the Court of Appeal and continued to rely on ammunition as defining antique versus modern. The secret memorandum of guidance to police (1969) suggested that obsolete ignition systems were antiques and carried that thinking through to the published version in 1989 with advice that possession of ammunition might indicate that something wasn’t a curiosity or ornament. Then in 1992, pressured by the passage of time, came the obsolete calibre list. That caused some prosecutions: one of our members had a collection of Martini Henry rifles on the wall and one on his firearm certificate for target shooting. So when the police rolled him, he was prosecuted for all the antiques because he had ammunition. They dropped that at the court door.
Most of the prosecutions I dealt with (as an expert witness) were people who kept old guns as curiosities or ornaments and the prosecution challenge was that the stuff couldn’t be antique because it took ‘modern ammunition’. Acquittals included a pre-1893 .410” shotgun, a 12 bore 1910 Greener GP, loads of black powder proofed hammer shotguns and a few really old revolvers: all predating 1900, so the acquittals were in line with Richard v Curwen and the anomaly was the prosecutions – driven by guidance to the CPS that didn’t tell them how to decide whether to prosecute or not.
In 1994 R v Brown, the Court of Appeal acquitted him – he had a .22” War Office pattern rifle – and said that time had moved on and so must the definition. Bill Harriman was the defence expert in that one.
Prosecutors continued to apply guidance that did not take account of case law to their decisions. I had a case in which magistrates convicted a dude of all his collection – a Luger pistol, a 19th century blank firing single shot pistol and two flare pistols. These came to him as frames only: he made the stocks, trigger and locking latch and ‘barrelled’ them with copper tube. They looked quite smart, but the obsessive prosecution ‘expert’ insisted that they were lethal barrelled weapons. We didn’t appeal, as the magistrates gave him a conditional discharge and instructed police to give me the exhibits for deactivation so that the defendant could have them back.
In another case, the exhibit was a Colt New Service revolver that had been changing hands round a shooting club for the previous 20 years or so. Police traced it back to when Army and Navy stores sold it new in 1915. The officer buyer gave it to his son for WW2 and he gave it to his daughter’s boyfriend in the 1970s – as he belonged to the club. The club secretary was convicted and fined £150. That was typical in such circumstances and remained so until the 2003 Anti-social Behaviour Act brought in a mandatory five-year sentence for possession of a prohibited small firearm. Handguns were banned in the UK in 1997.
That had the effect of making a defence of ‘antique’ a bigger deal, because instead of £150 fines, five years inside would be a life changing experience. Our early experience of antiques cases post 2003 was prosecutions being dropped if a robust antique status argument was put up. These mostly related to obsolete calibres that weren’t on the Home office list. That list didn’t include .320, for example until the 2003 revision and still doesn’t include .455” – the ammunition that the Richards v Curwen revolvers (1977 acquittal) took.
Then attitudes hardened – we think that the Home Office needed convictions for old tat to make gun crime look as though it were on the up. Juries didn’t want to convict collectors of obsolete stuff with a five year gaol term in the offing: significant acquittals included a 1942 Lanchester submachine gun and a 1946 Inglis Browning GP35 – David Dyson was the defence expert in those cases.
That got the Law Commission into paranoid overdrive and led to clauses in the Policing and Crime Act 2017. Meanwhile, Paul Edmunds was buying old revolvers in the US, making the cartridges and selling into the black market. The case against the section 5 dealer that finished Wednesday started in January 2016 with police burning the electronic locks off his driveway gates. More than thirty police vehicles convoyed in to disgorge over 100 policemen who searched the house in the presence of his young family. He had a small antiques collection and was charged with possessing them without the authority of the secretary of state (which he has) on the strength of ammunition in his armoury might be suitable for use in them.
Such is the paranoid obsession that drives the Home Office. Separating firearms licensing from the police and Home Office to a competent agency is long overdue in the UK.
The jury acquitted him after the traditional two-hour lunch break. So what now? We’ll have to watch the programme and see.
RL

_________________
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
dhart



Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting read. Many thanks.

Still interested to find out what are the latest developments/action that may be coming down the road (if not already?).

I did not watch the TV programme but I read elsewhere that the current 1939 cut-off date for qualifying as antique is proposed to be rolled back to 1900? Presumably when (IF?) this happens it will be an almost 'overnight' affair done by statutory instrument?

I note that, unless I misread/misunderstand, the new legislation includes a clause that will not require EXISTING owners to provide a good reason to be granted an FAC to keep such items when the goalposts are moved and they are required to be held on certificate.

The problem, of course, is that there will be legions of people likely caught out by such a change in cutoff date rule and not have any idea they need to get an FAC to keep it/them - especially so given the likely lack of publicity that will precede the implementation of such a cutoff date change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The relevant section is this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/section/126/enacted

Says quite clearly no good reason is needed for an FAC.

This is the consultation document. Now that the BBC has made a stink about it, expect them to actually do something soon.
_________________
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
dhart



Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks again.

My parting two pennies worth.....

I didn't see the TV programme in question (and I have no intention of wasting X mins of my life, that I will never get back, on a typically shoddy piece of TV journalism!) but I'll wager that;

a. the guns featured were either all pre-1900 - and thus will remain exmpted from certification if the qualifying cutoff date is rolled back from 1939 to 1900, as per consultation proposal.

or

b. guns were post 1939 and thus already illegal regardless.

As we all know by now, whenever the HO talk about 'proposals' you know that they have already made their minds up on the matter and the consultation is just a matter of going through the motions and being seen to go through 'due process' - and no matter what 1900 WILL be the new qualifying cutoff date.

The sad thing is that once the date is shifted, and such guns will require certification, we can expect to see in due course numerous prosecutions of otherwise perfectly decent law abiding people (probably many elderly) who, through pure ignorance of this niche area of law, will fall foul - and given the irrational and often hysterical public stance on all things firearms related (as the comments from the trial judge demonstrate) receive hefty sentences?! Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081815/Antiques-firearms-dealer-guilty-supplying-guns.html

Quote:
He side-stepped UK laws on importing old guns for which ammunition was commercially available, by falsely declaring to the authorities in customs paperwork they were obsolete 'antiques'.

The guns, whose importation is subject to complex rules, were not checked in any detail at UK customs.

Trial judge Richard Bond described how he had been 'aghast to hear evidence of one dealer being waved-through on occasion by customs at Heathrow'.

Self-confessed 'ammunition freak' Edmunds made 37 trips to the United States, checking the guns into airlines' holds as 'antiques and curiosities'.

Many of the guns were antique revolvers but he also imported Colt pistols from the 1950s following trips to Chicago, Las Vegas and Denver.


The BBC imported a pre-1898 gun which is not subject to control in the US.
_________________
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 -> Crime All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
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