Antique Guns

Surely the obvious problem with the obsolete calibre change is that people previously owning items legally are now to be prevented from doing so as a result of the law changing, not as a result of their own actions. Under these circumstances they should be entitled to compensation for the value of the items that they may no longer possess.

This new law has no impact at all on the law abiding, I don't think criminals need compensation for unlawful possession of firearms.

atb Tim
 
I don't see the problem

Laws are not created to prevent crime they are created in response to a need.
If a criminal (former or otherwise) is now caught with antique s28 firearms he is going to the dock on not just whatever he was doing at the time but a new firearms offence.

its the application of "points based" prosecution.
i.e. the more points the CPS/Police or whoever can get applied to you in court the more chance they have of making something stick when it turns out the evidence is fabricated, lost, illegally gathered etc or the legal team in charge screw up the prosecution!
 
This new law has no impact at all on the law abiding, I don't think criminals need compensation for unlawful possession of firearms.

atb Tim

We're talking about ex-criminals who currently own obsolete firearms legally, who will find themselves unable to continue owning them and will not be compensated for that loss.

The precedent it sets of being able to dispossess people without compensation could cost us all very dearly in the future if the legislation changes in our area.
 
We're talking about ex-criminals who currently own obsolete firearms legally, who will find themselves unable to continue owning them and will not be compensated for that loss.

Ex-criminals???? No such thing..... and the law recognises this by deeming them to be "prohibited persons".

I am grateful that HM Govt. is actually taking action against these criminals and IMO it is quite correct and desirable that these crooks receive no compensation for their illegal ownership of firearms, modern or antique.

atb Tim
 
Last edited:
Where as you have no problem with removing replica or antique guns from the ownership of members of the public, who whether ex criminals or not are at this moment in time are entitled in law to own them, with out compensation, would you feel the same if the law was changed tomorrow, regarding the private ownership of guns, and your guns were seized without any compensation. And if you believe that could never happen you are living a dream.
Lets face facts it's just another wedge in the door to ban private ownership of firearms. The amount of crime carried out with antique firearms is negligible , compared to the use of modern firearms, how can I state this ?, easily in the same way that the police say it's a fact, I estimated it.
 
NaBIS is scientific and factual. Their reports are based upon the evidence. NaBIS should be supported by all law abiding shooters as sometimes it provides evidence that does not fit the case of a particular politician or pressure group with their own agenda.

One of Colin Greenwood's favourite phrases, when responding to proposed further restrictions was ' where is your evidence ?' and on more than one occasion that turned out to be a 'show stopper' because there was none.
 
the objection here is the principle of loss of legally held posessions without compensation.
if you are / were a crim and have s58 items then I have no particular problem with them being removed from you provided you are adequetely compensated for the loss of your legal posessions.
I do havea problem with uncompensated removal as that is theft.

However..its not a blanket ban on s58 so the posessions may be sold to others or handed in for compensation... thats fair.
If they go to review and establish the right to and FAC then they are no longer disbarred and that is also fair.
 
The choice for the criminals is firstly whether to carry out a career of crime and secondly whether to possess firearms irrespective of whether they are modern, antique, or imitation.

The fact that at some point the authorities may be able to deprive them of their liberty and weapons is presumably a factor that they must take into to account before the criminal breaks the law in the first place.

I do not believe that this new rule is a thin end of any wedge that will effect us law abiding gun owners ever.

It is well thought out, timely and directed solely at those that thieve, rob, kill and injure in pursuit of their own selfish ambitions.

atb Tim
 
Criminals and firearms (of whatever age or capability) shouldn't mix. If you have been convicted of a crime, you're a criminal.

Of course things are hardly so black and white in reality. That's where the prison sentences come in. As has been said, to get a term of imprisonment for three years or more these days you have to be going some.

As for the passage of time since you were caught being naughty, that may well mean you are now a good person. It may also mean you have got good at being bad.
 
Criminals and firearms (of whatever age or capability) shouldn't mix. If you have been convicted of a crime, you're a criminal.

Of course things are hardly so black and white in reality. That's where the prison sentences come in. As has been said, to get a term of imprisonment for three years or more these days you have to be going some.

As for the passage of time since you were caught being naughty, that may well mean you are now a good person. It may also mean you have got good at being bad.
+1 Well put, I totally agree.
atb Tim
 
sorry but I think perhaps you are missing the point I'm making here Tim.
ignore the 'crims bit' for the moment
I'm saying no removal of lawfully held possessions by changes in the law without compensation.
That is a principle that must not be allowed to erode.
Now the crims bit

If Crims/ex-crims etc disbarred from firearms ownership are now deprived by this change of the right to hold s58 firearms (how sad) then they should be permitted to sell on to those who can lawfully hold them or offered compensation a la '97' for handins.
 
sorry but I think perhaps you are missing the point I'm making here Tim.
ignore the 'crims bit' for the moment
I'm saying no removal of lawfully held possessions by changes in the law without compensation.
That is a principle that must not be allowed to erode.
Now the crims bit

If Crims/ex-crims etc disbarred from firearms ownership are now deprived by this change of the right to hold s58 firearms (how sad) then they should be permitted to sell on to those who can lawfully hold them or offered compensation a la '97' for handins.


With all due respect, once you have benefited from a visit from "ex criminals" with previous convictions numbering 42 and 29 respectively, experienced the devastating emotional impact that this has on your family, and quite aside from all the financial implications of having the tools of your trade from which you earn a living stolen, you might actually realise how insulting your benign attitude to this sort of lowlife is.

atb Tim
 
You're not alone in that respect. My wife was manager of a Building Society branch in Deptford and was closing up for the day when a large well-tanned gentleman suddenly appeared and wanted to make an urgent cash withdrawal. He didn't seem to have an account at the branch and must have come directly from the grouse moors since he had his shotgun still with him, although the barrels were somewhat shorter than normally used. That was many years ago, but hasn't been forgotten.
 
People are missing the point in one sense this has come about because of a LIBERALISATION in our draconian gun laws.

This would have been a "non-issue", indeed before the 1990s as of course ALL CARTRIDGE CHAMBERED WEAPONS REGARDLESS OF AVAILABILITY OR OBSOLESENCE OF AMMUNITION were all considered either s1, s2 or s5 by the Firearms Act 1968 save for a very limited exemption following court rulings in a handful of then becoming stated cases.

So up until that time possession of a 44 Russian revolver or a 300 Sherwood park deer rifle or a 450/477 Martini Henry were still were subject to being possessed under the required FAC or Etc. This exemption was (in the spirit of its enactment in the Guidance Memorandum) for the benefit of the law abiding collector and NOT to assist "prohibited persons"(as defined by the Act) in avoidance from prosecution for unlawful possession of weapons.

This anomaly has therefore now been addressed and remedied. That is all.
 
Last edited:
I totally sympathise with anybody thats had the misfortune to have been burgled or otherwise by thieving scumbags.

It remains imo there is a vast diference and no justification in classifying all "criminals" by definition of a custodial term under the same umbrella..


As a kid we were out up and down the muck stacks around Barnsley and later on the heaths in Poole under age on motorbikes etc etc. The kids these days no doubt would be finger printed and feel the full weight of the law.

Are people seriously suggesting and clasifying all those with a police record as a criminal?

I count myself privelaged to know some old school Marines/SBS some of whome remain the most decorated since the Second World War.

Ironically listening to the snow whites knitting brigade on here not one of you would wish to be in their company as a good few have been incarcerated in military custody.

It seems some think theres no such thing as a teenage mistake. Its something that should be carried and stigmatise all hope of a career and a life forever..

For Sale...
Bodeo 1889 Folding Trigger, Abadie System

Lefaucheux Pinfire Revolver, 1828

Pm if interested
 
Last edited:
I can think of several certificate holders who got themselves into trouble in their teens and early twenties. Too much beer, fighting etc. and someone gets seriously injured and a custodial sentence rightly followed. They grow up, meet the right woman who sorts them out, a couple of kids, a steady job and the police never hear of them again. Now for that type of 'criminal', there has to be a way forward.

As for the persistent career criminal, burglar, robber et al, well I am slightly right wing of Attilla the Hun, in how I think they should be deal with. Sharia law is not all bad.

As said in an earlier post, this is not black and white but many shades of grey.
 
Back
Top