Enfield bolt bodies for sale on e-bay UK FAC holders BEWARE.

[Buccaneer]

Aren't we, I mean the UK based barrack room law experts all getting up our own bottoms a bit here. Just let sleeping dogs lie. We've been along this road before on this forum chaps with regards to boltheads too. And on the basis that you buy the parts as a shotgun part then you can have all the shotgun parts that you like. You buy the bolt as a spare part for your .410" Enfield shotgun and what the heck................

The gun laws in the UK are what they are and not what we want them to be, the reason for flagging this up in the first place was inform UK FAC holders of a potential pitfall in possibly owning something that might, if discovered, cause them problems with their local firearms department, It has been know for someone to loose there FAC for have ammunition that they were not entitled to, one guy even lost his ticket because his 86 year old mother knew where the keys to his gun cupboard was!!!!!
The police can be very picky if they choose to be so why take the risk, yes Sir this spare bolt is for your .410 shotgun but you haven't got one so I will just take away everything else.
Bend the rules no matter how silly they seem to be if you want but is it worth the risk of losing you collection and FAC because of it???????

[Gil Boyd]

If you acquire your relevant Explosives and Firearms Office and send them an email direct they now have to respond to you, with your concerns of serious infringements like this. Better than a "lost or unreported" phonecall. Most aare very good, but many are currently swamped with all this " tri Force and wider markets with less staff" bull ****

[Peter Laidler]

Nooooooooooo Buccaneer....... The laws are what they are and not what YOU want or interpret them to be surely! If you want to possess a bolt or a bolt head for a shotgun, then you CAN. Whether you have one or not is surely academic. A bit like a car. Who says you need to have a driving licence or ANY licence to own one? The law is what it is........

[Peter Laidler]

Just had a chance to speak to my sister, a now retired Barrister, regarding the strange case of end line 3/line 4 thread 21. You do NOT need a FAC of any sort to OWN a firearm. You need one simply to POSSESS a firearm. And if the 86 year old granny also 'possessed' his firearm, then surely she aided, abetted, counselled etc etc the main party in committing the offence of transferring possession. And in any case, especially this, the mere word 'possessed', in legal terms would take up pages and pages and hours of discussion ranging from real possession, implied, actual, etc etc etc and so on and on that even baffles her.........

If this fellow stupidly accepted this pure horse manure of a decision (not by a Court, but by a Constable.....), then his stupidity was duly rewarded. Her statement, based on the above, not mine incidentally.

[Buccaneer]

If this fellow stupidly accepted this pure horse manure of a decision (not by a Court, but by a Constable.....), then his stupidity was duly rewarded. Her statement, based on the above, not mine incidentally.

I don't think that either ownership or possession came into it, it was the fact that someone other than the FAC holder had access to the firearms. Stupid I know but like I said before some police forces will call foul for almost anything so why give them the opportunity.

[Peter Laidler]

Dear o' deary me............ At the risk of prolonging this, can anyone tell me where mere 'access' to a firearm is an offence in law. They were either safely secured or unsafely secured. If he accepted this when she did not possess them (and there is a stated case on this) then he is a clown ..................

Look, every UK FAC holder look, read and learn............. Never, ever, never accept a caution for ANY seemingly trivial transgression of ANY law DECIDED BY A CONSTABLE. It is a CONVICTION, regardless of what you think, or are advised. The ONLY way you could reasonably accept a caution is on the written understanding that the caution will not be followed by ANY further sanction.

Once again, the clown was the author of his own misfortune.
But you CAN possess a bolt body for a shotgun............... The point that I was/am making is that dog doesn't eat dog. You learn that living cheek by jowl in a barrack room or school dormitory for several years. Here endeth the lesson!

[PrinzEugen]

Yes us collectors and enthusiasts must remain United!

Anyway the police love to put the frighteners on us by targeting 86-year-old grannies, or other law abiding collectors. Look at a recent arrest in Manchester of a deactivated gun collector at the start of a 'gun amnesty'. There have also been numerous other instances of law abiding people being targeted to make a point and in general put the frighteners on. It's easier to do this and claim some kind of breakthrough than actually target the lawbreakers and gang bangers which runs a great number of risks of confrontations which may provoke incidents and otherwise spoil crimefighting stats - and bring attention in a way the police DON'T want. It's not about fighting crime either way.

[Peter Laidler]

I saw a picture of a huge arsenal of siezed 'weapons' that were probably from that incident. What it didn't say many month later was that he got the lot back even the two (or was it three?) that didn't have the deactivation papers......... Either way, with or without the certificates, it says much about the value of the paper certificates

[villiers]

Reminds me of long (and fruitless) discussions on a different forum about the "legality" of owning (and/or attaching) the originally issued stock to a German Artillery Luger (LP08), to a Navy (and/or) to a standard Luger pistol. The US tobacco authority (sic!) has deemed the one or the other "illegal" as there is (as yet) no proof that one or more of these weapons was originally issued with the stock. And then the issue arises as to whether one may own the stock without attaching it to the weapon. Or even if it is "!egal" to own and attach the stock, but not to fire the weapon with it attached.

The rectal vortice of this discussion (over many years) impressed me geatly and I still smile whenever I partake in the annual German BdMP DP3 event (LP08 WITH the stock attached)

[Gil Boyd]

One must remember the Police only react to a suspicion of an offence being committed, arising from a complaint made to them by another member of the public. Afterall they are a public service!
It is only when it is fully investigated that the evidence (if there is any) is dealt with in the most appropriate way.
Deactivated certificates have always been a source of debate, and only provide confirmation that a weapon has been deactivated to a "legal standard" at the time, hopefully rendering it to a status that cannot be reactivated easily.
The piece of certificated paper actually does not have to be held in law, it is far more the proof house stamp that has to be clearly marked on the weapon and relied upon as that deactivation has taken place.
From that and the weapons number they can easily be searched on the national database and found to have been "made safe".
So in short there are thousands of deactivated weapons out there without certificates, as they have been lost or stolen, and it is not an offence to sell them without one, but in an ideal world it would be preferred by all.
Similar to the sale of a car without the actual MOT certificate, it is a simple thing to request a replacement, but nevertheless, it is on a national DVLA database and the Police National Computer which can be searched on the roadside.
This guy had his deactivated weapons returned one has to assume, because there was no evidence of any offence whatsoever taking place, and rightly so.
I am not in defence of the Police whan I say this but spare a thought for the Police Officers who had to attend initially and faced with such an arsenal of weapons of all sorts. Most offciers haven't got a clue what they are looking at.

Even if they had ex services training or even if they were firearms experts, it matters not, for one, the alledged persons house is not the place to inspect them nor secondly, is it one where you as an initial investigating officer want to leave weapons at, until you have carried out your investigation.
As far as the stock for a WW2 Luger of whatever is concerned, now we are getting silly and someone needs a reality check there as every weapon has a different tally!
Just my thoughts when I read some of the above threads......and apologies to the poster if this now goes off into the abyss it is IMHO