Jump to content

JonathanL

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    333

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JonathanL

  1. JonathanL
    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 th
  2. JonathanL
    Precisely! Those merits are considered in light of the law (Sec.58(2)), not what the HO would like the law to be. J.
  3. JonathanL
    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 b
  4. JonathanL
    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 w
  5. JonathanL
    A very good idea. I only ever travel directly to the range and back again so I don't have anything spcial, I just lock my guns in the boot. If I were regularly travelling long distances or had to leave them for any length of time in an unattended vehicle then I would be looking at doing something similar to you. Leaving ammo knocking about your car and on show is just stupid, quite honstly. Actually, did anyone see the Holland & Holland Range Rover on TG the other week? Well cool! J.
  6. JonathanL
    And none resulted in a conviction, nor leave to appeal! That says a lot. 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
  7. JonathanL
    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 firs
  8. JonathanL
    Nope, it applies to any antique gun of any description. The first paragraph of the guidance reads; " 8.1 Section 58(2) of the 1968 Act exempts from the provisions of the Act including certificate controls under sections 1 and 2 and prohibition under section 5 all antique firearms which are sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as curiosities or ornaments." My rook rifle was not on my FAC when I first got it. It was my fathers - he bought it from san antique shop when he was a kid or a teenager and never had it on FAC. I had it of off-ticket for years before it got
  9. JonathanL
    The War Office rifle case was R v Thompson 1994. I've read it but can't locate it at thew mo. Think I have a copy on my other computer. The rifle was actually 1906. It's mentiomned here but the page is all screwed up. http://www.btinternet.com/~jmcnair/antiquerules.htm You have to select all the text to se it for some reason. J.
  10. JonathanL
    From the HO guidance; "8.4 It remains the case that where an antique firearm is possessed for any other purpose than as a “curiosity or ornamentâ€, all the provisions of the Firearms Acts from 1968 to 1997 will continue to apply, including those relating to certificate requirements. The intent to fire the gun concerned, even with blank charge or ammunition (for example for the purposes of historical re-enactment displays), would take it beyond the terms of “curiosity or ornamentâ€. This does not preclude the possession of such firearms on certificate for the purposes of col
  11. JonathanL
    It's not relevant what you can see as being right or not. The law is clear. I mean, how else can you interpret Sec.58(2)? You're missing the point though. People get FAC's/SGC's because their guns are NOT possessed only as curiosities or ornaments. If you posseess an antique gun for the purpse of shooting vermin, for instance, it doesn't get the benefit of the exemption. Ys, you can lie to the questions but I'm just stating what the legal issue is. This is the law - like it or not. Google the case I posted above. If it's illegal then why do I have a perfectly usable rook rifle which
  12. JonathanL
    It's easy to see how it doesn't need a cert. The Firearms Act says it doesn't as long as it is only possessed as a curiosity or ornament. If your 100 year old guns are possessed for purposes other than this then they need to be on ticket. As I have already pointed out, I have a perfectly usable rifle in .380 Rook which is not on my FAC but has been in the past so the police know full well I have it and made no objections to taking it off my cert, nor to putting it on in the first place. If it were illegal I would have been nicked when I applied to do so. What other interpretation could you
  13. JonathanL
    Please state those cases. The information might come in handy. I understood that if ammunition was still being made in a bore, then a license was necessary for the weapon. 12 bore ammunition is still readily available, I believe. Firearms 'may' be different, because you have to have the right to possess ammunition on your FAC. There is a case involving a .22rf War Office rifle made in 1903/4'ish. The guidance states in no uncertain terms that firearms in .22rf should not benefit from the exemption in Sec.58(2). The case in question resulted in the guy having his conviction for p
  14. JonathanL
    I'd agree with this. Speak to them first. I don't think you should just apply and hope for a good outcome though. If you get refused you have to state the fact on every application and renewal thereafter and having to do that always looks bad, in my opinion. J.
  15. JonathanL
    You don't need to inform them until you have actually moved. J.
  16. JonathanL
    Or, alternatively, don't listen to div's who don't know the law. The Firearms Act says quite clearly that guns which are possessed as curiosities or ornaments are exempt from all the provisions of the Act. They can be transferred, traded and possessed without any restriction whatever. If the reason for possession changes (like if you want to shoot it) then the exemption does not apply and they are subject to licensing. You can even take them off cert again if you want to possess them under the Sec.58(2) exemption and I have done this very thing with a .380 Rook rifle. It was my fathers and
  17. JonathanL
    Err, why? The one in the pic clearly falls under the examption for antiques in Sec.58 of the 1968 Act. J. I think you will find all firearms/shotguns that are LIVE and NOT deactivated are required by law to go on a license THANKYOU! I think you will find that they aren't. Check out sec.58(2) of the Firearms Act, which says; "Nothing in this Act relating to firearms shall apply to an antique firearm which is sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or ornament". J.
  18. JonathanL
    All depends on the circumstances but I wouldn't have thought so. Basically, it comes down to whether the cops think you are going to be a naughty boy again. The Firearms Act says that the chief officer must not grant a Certificate to a person he thinks is not fit to be entrusted with a firearm. That goes further than just having convictions or cautions so if some chav applies who's well known for causing trouble but has never been convicted of anything then he won't get one. You don't need to declare cautions, just convictions, but you should probably put it in a covering letter becaus
  19. JonathanL
    Setting up won't be too expensive - although, like all these things, if you want to spend a fortune it's not difficult. If you haven't reloaded before its a very good idea to get someone to teach you properly. It's not hard to do but you'll learn a lot faster with a hour or so instruction from an experienced reloader. J.
  20. JonathanL
    The micrometer adjustment doesn't result in more accurate powder throwing, it just makes it easier to return to a previous setting (or close to it) because you can make a note of where it was last time. The only way to get really consistent charges is to throw them through the measure then but set it very slightly short then add the balance in with a powder trickler while it's in the pan of the scales. J.
  21. JonathanL
    Err, why? The one in the pic clearly falls under the examption for antiques in Sec.58 of the 1968 Act. J.
  22. JonathanL
    Oh well I'm so sorry. Please don't shoot me cos if you do I'll cry. Frankly sunshine who gives a monkey's? Perhaps you should google your information before posting it on a forum. It seems a shame to me that you found my post insulting instead you could have used this thread to learn something. I googled Lapua .338. It is described as the only round designed FROM THE START as an anti-personnel sniper round. You yourself state that the .408 chey is based on the .400 Taylor which is in turn based on the .505 Gibbs. Hardly what I would call "designed from scratch". In fact, Dan, I
  23. JonathanL
    There's nowt at all wrong with seeking out lessons, especially if it's a type of shooting you haven't done before. No one knows everything and those who think they do.....don't! J.
  24. JonathanL
    its a trg,the brake stays on wouldn't have thought a moderator would make much difference in that cal apart from wieght,that said quicksilver have or or going to bring 1 out for 338's and 50 cals so if you no anything about them feel free to share.I always apply for moderators to match the rifle to save the£20 if I apply for a variation.cant think were I saw that about quicksilver Im sure it was on here wouldnt bother with a mod .ive used the .338 in the dtates .its an awsom bit of kit you need the brake on them youd never hold them on target otherwise mind dont forget the
  25. JonathanL
    Yeah.....brace your self! J. wanna buy it?????lol Hmmm, tempting. J.
×
×
  • Create New...