12 bore s/s hammer gun with damascus barrells

[Guest Mass_G3nocide]

I agree with Sean in proof maybe 500-600 Just the gun as it is i would say 300-400 not much more,Hammer guns are not a sought after gun nowadays and i have been on a few shoots where the keeper wont allow them for safety reasons.

[rjimmer 4]

I think I would prefer to take Bill Harriman's advice:

 

"Until there is some root and branch review of the matter, my advice to potential collectors of antique firearms is to stay within the Home Office Guidelines, although this may seem irksome. If you want to collect old firearms that fall outside of these, then apply for a firearm or shotgun certificate as appropriate. They can be granted for the purposes of collecting providing that the guns are not to be fired and no ammunition is possessed for them. Generally, most police licensing departments are not normally too difficult about granting such certificates."

 

This is all very well (and I agree with it to an extent) but what about if you want to collect pistols? If you want a 100 year old pistol which isn't on the HO obsolete list then what do you do because you cannot be issued with an FAC for a pistol as they are Sec.5, not Sec.1?

 

Sec.58(2) is very clear. It exempts anitque guns from all the provisions of the Act and the home office accept in their guidance that that includes Sections 1, 2 and 5.

 

Remember also that Bill Harrimans article is about 12 years old now and we have had Mick Shephards case since then. Although that was just a first instance case so does not create a binding precident on the courts, it will probably be pursuasive. The bottom line is that he was acquited of possessing a Luger in a non-obsolete chambering, and there was at least one other semi-auto pistol involved too. There is no way of geting round that.

 

Bill Harriman is right about the ammo. The exmption applies only to antique firearms, not to antique ammunition.

 

Admittedly, if it were me I would be very wary of looking like I was trying to take the p!ss on this matter, quite honestly. It doesn't change the law though. Antique firearms are exempt from all the provisions of the Firearms Act. If it were my antique 12bore and I didn't want it on cert - or didn't have one - then I think I would be keeping it off ticket. Personally, I'd be tempted to pend a fw quid and do a judicial review and seek a declaration from the Court that the gun benfitted from the exemption.

 

J.

 

 

None of those cases have been tested in other than the lower courts.

 

"Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 creates the concept of "Firearms of historic interest" which, although prohibited weapons, may continue to be held on a firearm certificate but not used. Broadly speaking, these are pistols made before 1919 for which ammunition is not readily available." Bill Harriman

 

This thread is about a shotgun, for which, ammunition is readily available.

 

I wonder what plod would say if they saw, through the window, an old 12-bore hung on the front room wall and, on entering the house, found it to be usable and that elsewhere in the house, not under lock and key, was ammunition that fitted it.

If I were plod, I would persue a prosecution all the way to the top court in such a case and I doubt the BASC would be willing to pay the defence costs as the defendant had gone against Bill Harriman's advice.

 

I doubt a court would take much notice if the defendant said that an anonymous poster, presumably without professional indemnity insurance, on an internet forum, had told him he was OK not to have it on certificate and therefore not under lock and key.

[JonathanL 4]

None of those cases have been tested in other than the lower courts.

 

And none resulted in a conviction, nor leave to appeal! That says a lot.

 

"Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 creates the concept of "Firearms of historic interest" which, although prohibited weapons, may continue to be held on a firearm certificate but not used. Broadly speaking, these are pistols made before 1919 for which ammunition is not readily available." Bill Harriman

 

This thread is about a shotgun, for which, ammunition is readily available.

 

So what? Just because the HO say one thing doesn't automatically mean it's true. You aren't putting up any rational argument, you are just taking the attutide that the HO says it, therefore it must be true. You have to look beyond what you are being told.

 

I've already reproduced the wording of Sec.58(2) - how on earth can you go from that to the HO's position about obsolete chamberings? You can't, you just can't. Not by any rational application of the English language. The Section says that ALL antique firearms are subject to the exemption if they are possessed for the relevant purposes. Please explain to me the legal rationale that results in the HO interpretation because there isn't one as far as I can see. More importantly, can you show me a case of someone being convicted where a gun was gneuinely possessed as a curiosity or ornament yet was in the "wrong" chambering accoding to the HO? I can't and Mick Shepherd was acquitted of possessing what the HO explicity say you cannot have under that section.

 

If someone wants ot point me towards a piece of case-law which says that "Antique" actually means "only if it's on some aritrary government list" then please feel free.

 

It's also noteworthy to point out that no one is mentioning the fact that I have an antique rifle which the cops were perfectly happy to put on and then talke off ny cert. You cannot just ignore this stuff - unless everyone thinks I'm spinning some sort of line that is and the police know fine well that I'm not going to lie to them about something like that.

 

I wonder what plod would say if they saw, through the window, an old 12-bore hung on the front room wall and, on entering the house, found it to be usable and that elsewhere in the house, not under lock and key, was ammunition that fitted it.

If I were plod, I would persue a prosecution all the way to the top court in such a case and I doubt the BASC would be willing to pay the defence costs as the defendant had gone against Bill Harriman's advice.

 

You don't need to wonder. My .380 Rook rifle has been knocking around my gun room for years and the cops are well aware that I have an authority for .38 Special ammo for another gun on my ticket so if there were anything untoward then I would have been nicked and prosecuted years ago. I haven't been though because my genuine reason for possessing it is a curiosity or ornament.

 

You can't just take a case to the higher courts because you feel like it - you need leave. Why aren't there antique possession cases in the higher courts? It's because there is no case to take to them. There's no pont of law to argue so they don't get leave - or, more likely, they never try because they know they can't win.

 

I doubt a court would take much notice if the defendant said that an anonymous poster, presumably without professional indemnity insurance, on an internet forum, had told him he was OK not to have it on certificate and therefore not under lock and key.

 

They don't need to because it's exactly the line a defence Barrister would take. Do you really think a Court is going to interperet that section as meaning anything other than relating to all firearms?

 

To mention, again, that is exactly the line that Mick Shepherds Barrister took and he was acquitted because he wasn't breaking the law. The same line that the defence in all the other cases I've posted took. The lock and key thing is a red-herring because the security condition only applies to guns held on certificate - although I'm certainly not going to tell people that leaving guns and suitable ammo lying around is a clever idea.

 

Like I say. Show me a case which, on appeal, has reculted in a conviction on the basis that the gun wasn't in the "right" calibre. There aren't any.

 

J.

Edited January 15, 2010 by JonathanL

[rjimmer 4]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy the shotgun without putting it on a SGC.

[JonathanL 4]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy the shotgun without putting it on a SGC.

 

Because then I wouldn't be possesing it as a curiosity or ornament - I would be doing it as part of a sad bet -meaning it wouldn't benefit from the exemption.

 

Why don't you stop ignoring what I've written? I already have a rifle which I have have had off FAC, then on FAC, and now off FAC. Why do I need to do the same thing with another gun? Not only that but it's a rifle which easily chambers and fires readily available ammunition. I also have an antique muzzle-loading shotgun (amongst other stuff) which is not on SGC.

 

How about actually putting up a good legal argument as to why what the HO say is right, even though it appears to be contrary to what the guidance (and the Courts) says, rather than trying to make childish bets?

 

Are you telling me that all the dealers out there who specialise in antique guns are breaking the law?

 

J.

Edited January 16, 2010 by JonathanL

[Guest Mass_G3nocide]

I have never heard nothing like this before.

[rjimmer 4]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy the shotgun without putting it on a SGC.

 

Because then I wouldn't be possesing it as a curiosity or ornament - I would be doing it as part of a sad bet -meaning it wouldn't benefit from the exemption.

 

Who is betting? Just try buying an old gun from a SGC holder without producing your SGC on the grounds that you are only want it to look at. Every blagger in the country would be doing it.

 

Why don't you stop ignoring what I've written? I already have a rifle which I have have had off FAC, then on FAC, and now off FAC. Why do I need to do the same thing with another gun? Not only that but it's a rifle which easily chambers and fires readily available ammunition. I also have an antique muzzle-loading shotgun (amongst other stuff) which is not on SGC.

 

Do you actually have a SGC?

 

How about actually putting up a good legal argument as to why what the HO say is right, even though it appears to be contrary to what the guidance (and the Courts) says, rather than trying to make childish bets?

 

I am not a lawyer, are you?

 

Are you telling me that all the dealers out there who specialise in antique guns are breaking the law?

 

I am not a lawyer, are you?

 

 

 

J.

[SEAN3513 7]

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/HO-Firearms-Guidance2835.pdf?view=Binary

 

interesting reading (page 34)

 

each case to be taken on its own merits......???

 

make your own minds up

[rjimmer 4]

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/HO-Firearms-Guidance2835.pdf?view=Binary

 

interesting reading (page 34)

 

each case to be taken on its own merits......???

 

make your own minds up

But:

 

8.3 In making recommendations on this issue,

the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC)

started from the premise that public safety

considerations must be uppermost, and those

arms which are commonly used in crime

should remain subject to certificate control,

irrespective of age.

 

 

Old firearms which should not

benefit from the exemption as

antiques under section 58(2) of

the Firearms Act 1968

8.6 Old firearms which should not benefit

from the exemption as antiques are set out

below. This list is not exhaustive and there

may be other types and calibres of firearms

that should be considered “modern” rather

than “antique”:

a) Shot guns and smooth-bored guns,

including shot pistols, chambered for

standard shot gun cartridges,

[JonathanL 4]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy the shotgun without putting it on a SGC.

 

Because then I wouldn't be possesing it as a curiosity or ornament - I would be doing it as part of a sad bet -meaning it wouldn't benefit from the exemption.

 

Who is betting? Just try buying an old gun from a SGC holder without producing your SGC on the grounds that you are only want it to look at. Every blagger in the country would be doing it.

 

The poster I replied to said "put your money where your mouth is" and buy an old gun - sounds like a bet to me. Like I said, if anyone did that then they would open themselves up to prosecution because their reason for acquiring it would not be because the gun was a curiosity or ornament.

 

Besides, as I've said, I already own loads - one of which has been on and off FAC, a fact that everyone seems to be conveniently side-stepping. If you won't accept one instance of owning a firearm under that exemption they why is one more going to make any difference?

 

Why don't you stop ignoring what I've written? I already have a rifle which I have have had off FAC, then on FAC, and now off FAC. Why do I need to do the same thing with another gun? Not only that but it's a rifle which easily chambers and fires readily available ammunition. I also have an antique muzzle-loading shotgun (amongst other stuff) which is not on SGC.

 

Do you actually have a SGC?

 

It's irrelevant whether I have or not. It's irrelevant whether the gun in question is subject to licensing under sections one two or prohibition under section five. All antique firearms are exempt from controls under the '68 Act if they are possessd for the stated reasons.

 

How about actually putting up a good legal argument as to why what the HO say is right, even though it appears to be contrary to what the guidance (and the Courts) says, rather than trying to make childish bets?

 

I am not a lawyer, are you?

Again, it's irrelevant. I don't need to be an astro-physicist to know that the moon isn't made of blue cheese or that the sun is hot. I don't need to be Lord Denning to be able to read and understand a straightforward piece of legislation like Sec.58(2).

 

You don't need any special skills to interperet the section. Just use the regular rules of how to interperet the English language and tell me the section in question can be used to say that only some antique guns benefit from the exemption contained in it when in fact it actually says all antique guns do.

 

Are you telling me that all the dealers out there who specialise in antique guns are breaking the law?

 

I am not a lawyer, are you?

 

You're not a lawyer (and neither is anyone else here) yet you're telling me I'm wrong!

 

Answer the question, are all the traders out there who sell antique guns every day of the week breaking the law? Surely, they should all be locked up by now as it's an easy nick?

 

J.

 

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/HO-Firearms-Guidance2835.pdf?view=Binary

 

interesting reading (page 34)

 

each case to be taken on its own merits......???

 

make your own minds up

 

Precisely! Those merits are considered in light of the law (Sec.58(2)), not what the HO would like the law to be.

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/HO-Firearms-Guidance2835.pdf?view=Binary

 

interesting reading (page 34)

 

each case to be taken on its own merits......???

 

make your own minds up

But:

 

8.3 In making recommendations on this issue,

the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC)

started from the premise that public safety

considerations must be uppermost, and those

arms which are commonly used in crime

should remain subject to certificate control,

irrespective of age.

 

 

Old firearms which should not

benefit from the exemption as

antiques under section 58(2) of

the Firearms Act 1968

8.6 Old firearms which should not benefit

from the exemption as antiques are set out

below. This list is not exhaustive and there

may be other types and calibres of firearms

that should be considered “modern†rather

than “antiqueâ€:

a) Shot guns and smooth-bored guns,

including shot pistols, chambered for

standard shot gun cartridges,

 

This is a statement of what the HO would like the law to be, not what it currently is.

 

The section covering antiques in the current guidance started out as an excercise by the Firearms Consultative Committee in the early 1990's. The Home Office asked them to come up with a new regeime for control of antiques because there was a planned consolidation of the relevant Firearms Act in the works which in the event never happened. The FCC was never assked to base this report on the current law relating to antiques. If you notice in chapter 8 of the guidance, no where does it actually relate the guidance to the actual wording of the Act, nor to any case-law, in all the other sections it does. Why? Because it has no logical relation to the wording of Sec.58(2), nor to any case-law - indeed, R v Thompson dirtectly contradicts it. If they were genuinely giving guidance as to what the law is then why don't they mention R v Thompson, especially as it pre-dates it by 8 years?

 

Also, why was Mick Shepherd acquitted of possessing firearms that clearly do not fall within what the HO says the guidance is?

 

Why do I have a rifle which the cops have actually put on and taken off FAC without any fuss what-so-ever?

 

Why are there numerous businessess out there selling antique guns every day of the week without getting closed down and jailed?

 

All these questions are answered with the very simple answer, "because it isn't illegal"

 

You can't just keep shouting "you're wrong" in the face of evidence like this.

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

Phoenix Arms

 

Are these people breaking the law? Their home page says that nothing on their site requires a licence in the UK.

 

Lots of guns there in chamberings for which ammo is available. There's even a 10 gauge damascus barreled hammergun - 10ga ammo is readily available and relatively common.

 

J.

Edited January 17, 2010 by JonathanL

[rjimmer 4]

Phoenix Arms

 

Are these people breaking the law? Their home page says that nothing on their site requires a licence in the UK.

 

Lots of guns there in chamberings for which ammo is available. There's even a 10 gauge damascus barreled hammergun - 10ga ammo is readily available and relatively common.

 

J.

 

Not one 12 bore centre-fire shotgun there.

 

10 bores with 2&5/8 inch chambers are considered obsolete.

[JonathanL 4]

Phoenix Arms

 

Are these people breaking the law? Their home page says that nothing on their site requires a licence in the UK.

 

Lots of guns there in chamberings for which ammo is available. There's even a 10 gauge damascus barreled hammergun - 10ga ammo is readily available and relatively common.

 

J.

 

Not one 12 bore centre-fire shotgun there.

 

10 bores with 2&5/8 inch chambers are considered obsolete.

 

It isn't on the HO list though. Besides, there are other guns on that page for which ammo is commercially produced.

 

It's irrelevant though. The HO guidance is not law, various cases have shown that to be the case, including the one in which a guy was not convicted of possessing and selling a 7.65mm Luger which is not on the list. You're still ignoring the fact that I have a rifle which chamberes and fires .38 Special ammo. All you are doing is parroting the HO line even though I have provided evidence of cases (including me) that shows it to be runnish.

 

J.