Rifle magazines prohibited objects?
- Thread starter blaven
- Start date
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Errm. Edinburgh Field and Stream? All paper trails will have a moment when a thing destined for "destruction" ceases to exist. When it is "destroyed". It is simply a matter of being there at that moment and an exercising sleight of hand.
Maybe less easy to do nowadays and more usually now with drugs from evidence stores. But to imagine that it can't take place is unwise. It is however more likely with the rifle in this thread topic to be an officer unclear on the law, believing the magazine was controlled, and not at all anything but that. Nothing at all suspicious.
Now the story in Leicestershire that was true was that in one of the 1960s gun amnesties a cased pair of Churchill XXV sidelocks were handed in. They went into the then Chief Constable John Taylor's office and were never seen again. All old enough will know that before 1967 shotguns were not recorded in any way being then not subject to controls.
The Edinburgh firearms dealer who staged eight-hour siege at city gun shop
When police raided Edinburgh's Field & Stream gun shop in November 1985, the owner did not take kindly to the removal of his weapons and decided to stage an eight-hour siege.
Detective who stole £400k of cocaine from evidence store jailed
Greater Manchester Police officer Andrew Talbot, 54, stole the drug and sold it on to dealers.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Exactly this. I don't think there's anything untoward going on. It's probably a case of the officer (with limited firearms knowledge or experience) recognising that a part of the rifle is missing, and not being aware that it's not actually required to be surrendered
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
A detective stealing 400k of cocaine reminded me of when a chap working on the same site as me was raided for growing cannabis. He was well known in the local town for growing a few plants for "home consumption" he knew the rules as well, so to speak, grow in soil, and never more than three plants, and you should get away with it if you have your collar felt...
He grew one plant in his polytunnel one summer.. in his words, "it grew like a trifid".. plod rolled up, sat outside his house for 15 minutes looking at the polytunnel, eventually knocked on his door and did the necessary.. they told him if he had hung a few red ping pong balls on the plant they would have just driven away thinking it was tomatoe plants... he swears to this day that the police were stipping the buds off the plant as they stuffed it into bags... true or not, it's a funny story...
He grew one plant in his polytunnel one summer.. in his words, "it grew like a trifid".. plod rolled up, sat outside his house for 15 minutes looking at the polytunnel, eventually knocked on his door and did the necessary.. they told him if he had hung a few red ping pong balls on the plant they would have just driven away thinking it was tomatoe plants... he swears to this day that the police were stipping the buds off the plant as they stuffed it into bags... true or not, it's a funny story...
Rutland lad
Well-Known Member
Errm. Edinburgh Field and Stream? All paper trails will have a moment when a thing destined for "destruction" ceases to exist. When it is "destroyed". It is simply a matter of being there at that moment and an exercising sleight of hand.
Maybe less easy to do nowadays and more usually now with drugs from evidence stores. But to imagine that it can't take place is unwise. It is however more likely with the rifle in this thread topic to be an officer unclear on the law, believing the magazine was controlled, and not at all anything but that. Nothing at all suspicious.
Now the story in Leicestershire that was true was that in one of the 1960s gun amnesties a cased pair of Churchill XXV sidelocks were handed in. They went into the then Chief Constable John Taylor's office and were never seen again. All old enough will know that before 1967 shotguns were not recorded in any way being then not subject to controls.
The Edinburgh firearms dealer who staged eight-hour siege at city gun shop
When police raided Edinburgh's Field & Stream gun shop in November 1985, the owner did not take kindly to the removal of his weapons and decided to stage an eight-hour siege.www.edinburghlive.co.uk
Detective who stole £400k of cocaine from evidence store jailed
Greater Manchester Police officer Andrew Talbot, 54, stole the drug and sold it on to dealers.
I remember the Edinburgh siege. I had relatives in the City. It was the talk of the place for months.
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
Looks like the Highlands.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Knew the guy and the place well
All my early shooting and camping kit came from there. It was an Aladdin’s cave of a place
He was right royally set up by bent cops. He was a crook as well mind but was thrown to the lions.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
With questions such as what constitutes a controlled or prohibited part it’s always looking at the primary legislation and / or the home office guidance (to which there is a sticky at the head of this section).
If you have a look at the latter is describes
Magazines will be a contentious issue. They hold the cartridges and allow the gun to function as a repeating firearm. Most bolt action guns work just fine without a magazine, but are quite fiddly to load just one cartridge. A magazine dramatically improves the functionality of a firearm. But is it a relevant component part. Probably not by the above legal definition. Some firearms, notably many pistol designs will not function with a magazine in place. In such a case is it a “relevant component part” - probably comes down to argument and judgement.
If you have a look at the latter is describes
“Definition of ‘relevant component part’
2.5 A ‘relevant component part’ of a lethal barrelled or prohibited weapon is a firearm in its own right and is defined in section 57(1D) of the 1968 Act as:- a) a barrel, chamber or cylinder,
- b) a frame, body or receiver,
- c) a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber,
Magazines will be a contentious issue. They hold the cartridges and allow the gun to function as a repeating firearm. Most bolt action guns work just fine without a magazine, but are quite fiddly to load just one cartridge. A magazine dramatically improves the functionality of a firearm. But is it a relevant component part. Probably not by the above legal definition. Some firearms, notably many pistol designs will not function with a magazine in place. In such a case is it a “relevant component part” - probably comes down to argument and judgement.
Lets be fair , most coppers and FEO's are clueless ( not all just most )
not a relevant component part so not contentious at all ?
I would hazard a guess on this one being the reason.
2015 HO guidance to firearms law stated this at paragraph 13.74:
The term “component part” may be held (according to case law) as including (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts. The 9th report of the Firearms Consultative Committee provides additional information on this subject.
In July 2015, the Law Commission tried to get the 30 plus pieces of primary legislation - plus all the other bits of secondary legislation - codified through a consultation paper. The Commission sought views on a change to the definitions in the 1968 act to be:
1, the barrel, chamber, cylinder;
2, the frame, body or receivers upper and lower where present in the complete firearm;and
3, the breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber.
In addition, they proposed that as a matter of law, a component part will remain such so long as it is capable of fulfilling its intended function as part of a firearm. Plus that the Home Sec could add to this definition by order as required.
What did the HO do? Sweet FA.......but did (un) helpfully, remove from their guidance, all paragraphs after 13.68 in their updated document, published in 2022. Bit unfair there, legislative time was tight around this period, due to the election in 2017; and the self absorption Whitehall had with trying to deliver on the 2016 referendum.
Only place that a magazine specifically requires a FAC is in NI; as their Firearms Order 2004 states it does. This is more to do with the history of the six counties though......
The primary Act, the Firearms Act 1968, was a consolidating measure. The 1968 Act was hurried through Parliament. It has been suggested that the Act was enacted without sufficient consultation and preparation first being undertaken which perhaps explains some of the Act’s deficiencies. The Act moved from being a Bill put to Parliament on 21 Jan1965; to receiving Royal Assent in August the same year. For context, a Bill on average, takes about a year to become law. Significant Bills, substantially longer.
So, the upshot in reality about magazines is who the f**k knows.......? Certainly not the HO. Courts haven't wanted to play with that AFAIK - probably as they don't understand firearms legislation....... when the Court of Appeal describes the legislation as “labyrinthine” ( R v L [2015] EWCA Crim 5 ), you know that no one really has a clue what's going on........
At the moment, it seems that common sense has broken out around the sale and transfer of magazines. Hopefully that will continue.
However as soon as the out of date firearms legislation and guidance causes another f**k up, (maybe someone buys one online and uses it as part of a 3D printed weapon?); I'm sure we will get another ill thought out piece of secondary legislation piled on top of a teetering and creaking pile of orders, statue, directives and guidance that forms firearms law and interpretation......
Oh, and just to say, I am one of the minority potentially......an ex copper who has a grasp of firearms legislation/provisions.....
The term “component part” may be held (according to case law) as including (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts. The 9th report of the Firearms Consultative Committee provides additional information on this subject.
In July 2015, the Law Commission tried to get the 30 plus pieces of primary legislation - plus all the other bits of secondary legislation - codified through a consultation paper. The Commission sought views on a change to the definitions in the 1968 act to be:
1, the barrel, chamber, cylinder;
2, the frame, body or receivers upper and lower where present in the complete firearm;and
3, the breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber.
In addition, they proposed that as a matter of law, a component part will remain such so long as it is capable of fulfilling its intended function as part of a firearm. Plus that the Home Sec could add to this definition by order as required.
What did the HO do? Sweet FA.......but did (un) helpfully, remove from their guidance, all paragraphs after 13.68 in their updated document, published in 2022. Bit unfair there, legislative time was tight around this period, due to the election in 2017; and the self absorption Whitehall had with trying to deliver on the 2016 referendum.
Only place that a magazine specifically requires a FAC is in NI; as their Firearms Order 2004 states it does. This is more to do with the history of the six counties though......
The primary Act, the Firearms Act 1968, was a consolidating measure. The 1968 Act was hurried through Parliament. It has been suggested that the Act was enacted without sufficient consultation and preparation first being undertaken which perhaps explains some of the Act’s deficiencies. The Act moved from being a Bill put to Parliament on 21 Jan1965; to receiving Royal Assent in August the same year. For context, a Bill on average, takes about a year to become law. Significant Bills, substantially longer.
So, the upshot in reality about magazines is who the f**k knows.......? Certainly not the HO. Courts haven't wanted to play with that AFAIK - probably as they don't understand firearms legislation....... when the Court of Appeal describes the legislation as “labyrinthine” ( R v L [2015] EWCA Crim 5 ), you know that no one really has a clue what's going on........
At the moment, it seems that common sense has broken out around the sale and transfer of magazines. Hopefully that will continue.
However as soon as the out of date firearms legislation and guidance causes another f**k up, (maybe someone buys one online and uses it as part of a 3D printed weapon?); I'm sure we will get another ill thought out piece of secondary legislation piled on top of a teetering and creaking pile of orders, statue, directives and guidance that forms firearms law and interpretation......
Oh, and just to say, I am one of the minority potentially......an ex copper who has a grasp of firearms legislation/provisions.....
Last edited:
It's got nothing to do with whether it's a pressure bearing part or has a serial number (many Enfield mags have serial numbers), it to do with the fact it is not a firearm or component part.
No certificate required to own or buy/sell.
But to export it could be another matter.
No certificate required to own or buy/sell.
But to export it could be another matter.
I guess they just removed his firearms and not revoked his FAC/SGC.
Otherwise, he's in illegal possession.
Similar threads
