I just sent an email off to TVP to test the waters a little, quoting the recent court case with Jackson Rifles. Title says it all, the email is as follows:
�
Hello,
I intend to sell my .243 rifle at some point in the not too distant future, and as I have had the barrel threaded I am curious about the reproofing, and if it is even necessary at all. From what I can understand, the "need" for reproofing seems to be a successful business strategy by the proofing houses to maintain their revenue outside of initial proofing.
I seek clarification on this matter as I do not wish to fall foul of the law - could I please ask someone to cast their eyes over a relatively recent court case in which the defendant was found not needing to have a rifle reproofed before sale.
Some context, written by the defendant:
On 31 August 2000, the London and Birmingham Proof Houses issued a circular entitled "Screw cutting of rifle muzzles and the fitting of sound moderators and other items". A further circular entitled "Conversion of Barrels and the Fitting of Muzzle Accessories" was issued by the Proof Houses in October 2001.
The contents and inferences of these circulars have been hotly disputed by the gun trade, and we consider that they are misleading to the extent that they convey the impressions:
(a) that there may be a legal requirement to submit all sound moderators for proof and,
(b) that there may be a legal requirement to submit all rifles for proof or re-proof after the cutting of an external screw thread at the muzzle.
Section 122.(3) of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 ("the 1868 Act") creates an offence of selling or exchanging, or attempting to sell or exchange, a Small Arm the Barrel or Barrels of which are not duly proved or marked as proved.
With regard to the cutting of a screw thread on a rifle muzzle (or for that matter any other repair, replacement or modification of a Barrel), there can be no offence committed unless or until the entire Small Arm is subsequently offered for sale, exchange, export etc. Even if/when this were to happen, the requirement to submit a barrel for re-proof only arises if the barrel has been "unduly reduced in Substance or Strength".
In summary, legal counsel has now confirmed that:
With this recent case, I would hope to be able to sell my rifle which by the 2001 definition by the proof houses, would be out of proof - the recent court case shows differently.
I would appreciate input by one of your team on this, I have attached the full report on the court case in this email if you would prefer a more in-depth version.
Kind regards,
Let's see what happens, I'm very curious about their response
�
| 9:14 PM (0 minutes ago) | |||
|
Hello,
I intend to sell my .243 rifle at some point in the not too distant future, and as I have had the barrel threaded I am curious about the reproofing, and if it is even necessary at all. From what I can understand, the "need" for reproofing seems to be a successful business strategy by the proofing houses to maintain their revenue outside of initial proofing.
I seek clarification on this matter as I do not wish to fall foul of the law - could I please ask someone to cast their eyes over a relatively recent court case in which the defendant was found not needing to have a rifle reproofed before sale.
Some context, written by the defendant:
On 31 August 2000, the London and Birmingham Proof Houses issued a circular entitled "Screw cutting of rifle muzzles and the fitting of sound moderators and other items". A further circular entitled "Conversion of Barrels and the Fitting of Muzzle Accessories" was issued by the Proof Houses in October 2001.
The contents and inferences of these circulars have been hotly disputed by the gun trade, and we consider that they are misleading to the extent that they convey the impressions:
(a) that there may be a legal requirement to submit all sound moderators for proof and,
(b) that there may be a legal requirement to submit all rifles for proof or re-proof after the cutting of an external screw thread at the muzzle.
Section 122.(3) of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 ("the 1868 Act") creates an offence of selling or exchanging, or attempting to sell or exchange, a Small Arm the Barrel or Barrels of which are not duly proved or marked as proved.
With regard to the cutting of a screw thread on a rifle muzzle (or for that matter any other repair, replacement or modification of a Barrel), there can be no offence committed unless or until the entire Small Arm is subsequently offered for sale, exchange, export etc. Even if/when this were to happen, the requirement to submit a barrel for re-proof only arises if the barrel has been "unduly reduced in Substance or Strength".
In summary, legal counsel has now confirmed that:
- The cutting of a screw thread on a barrel in order to affix a sound moderator is most unlikely to “unduly reduce it in substance or strength”, although each case will depend on its own facts.
- The pronouncement made by the Proof Authority in October 2001 is misleading and wrong in law in a number of important respects.
With this recent case, I would hope to be able to sell my rifle which by the 2001 definition by the proof houses, would be out of proof - the recent court case shows differently.
I would appreciate input by one of your team on this, I have attached the full report on the court case in this email if you would prefer a more in-depth version.
Kind regards,
Let's see what happens, I'm very curious about their response
