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

It is an obvious thing to say that to acquire and posses a firearm in the UK you need to have a valid Firearms Certificate with the correct variations, what some people may not be aware of is that you also need a variation to acquire and posses certain pressure bearing parts. These include the barrel, action, bolt and associated parts including the bolt body, head and firing pin.
There are at present two bolt bodies being offered for sale on ebay by someone in the UK, they are not deactivated, I have checked. Do not be tempted to bid for these items as they can not be legally acquired via this route, it can only be done by getting the necessary variation and purchasing the item from an RFD via a "face to face" transfer. Illegal sale or possession could lead to the loss of your license if discovered.
A variation might be authorised if for instance someone wanted to shoot an historic rifle with a shot out barrel, a variation could be authorised for a new barrel whilst keeping the old barrel for collecting purposes.
If you are outside the UK be warned that all "pressure bearing" parts need to be licensed for export, any item found without the necessary paperwork can be confiscated and destroyed by customs,
For what it's worth I reported both items to e-bay but I don't expect it will come to anything
:madsmile:

I have also reported these items, Plus over the last several weeks a seller in another country has offered complete SMLE and No4 bolts (not deactivated) for sale within the UK including the price in British pounds and ships world wide on e-bay. To anyone not knowing our laws on firearm ownership and the buying/selling of pressure baring parts ie bolts this would put them in a heap of trouble.

I saw for sale on a UK auction site a revolver in .44 Russian - now, that's an obsolete calibre, hence this should not be a licenced firearm - except this revolver had a shortened barrel, modified (combat) sights, and was being sold with combat holster rig and 50 empty cases.
Any modification of an obsolete weapon renders it non-obsolete, as far as I know.
I notified the police firearms enquiry team about this and they did not seem interested.

I would hope that most on this forum would be aware of the above but in all my years shooting I am amazed at how ignorant of the Firearms Acts some shooters are. I thought I was pretty clued up on them but have come close to getting caught out by some of the 'odd bits' and to be fair they are so badly written and modified with amendments buried in other legislation it must be a nightmare for new shooters. So well done Buccaneer for pointing this out.

I for one think that the law on the postilion and/or sale of component parts is very clear.

The 1968 Firearms Act clearly states that Section 1 applies to "any component part". Some constabularies have, in the past, interpreted this to literally mean ANY part - and been laughed out of court. However the current interpretation is that Section 57 1 b should be applied to pressure bearing component parts only. For example a Lee-Enfield bolt body. :-)

What if an old deactivated Lee Enfield has a complete bolt body? When I purchased my deac SMLE (I was 13) back in 1990 it came with the bolt body intact from the dealer who deactivated it and it has a London Proof House cert. At the time I never knew what was what but since then I've seen dozens and dozens of older deac (But post 1988) Lee Enfields with intact locking lugs. I don't know when the spec changed but I do know it's not retrospective. Just like Bren locking shoulders, it's a pressure bearing part but up until 1995 there was no need to remove them.

One of the (many) problems with the deactivation specification(s) is the lack of any specifications for component parts. That is to say ONLY a whole, un-mucked-about-with gun can benefit from the legislation; for example there is no specification for the Bren second barrel, only a complete gun. (This specific issue may have been fixed by now.)

So, as I see it, all the time a component is part of a deact it benefits from the status of that gun. Remove it and reverts to being "any component part".

This movement of items between Firearms Act Sections based on context is not unusual e.g. A Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector in .445 can be: Section 5, Section 7(1) or Section 7(3) entirely dependent on context. Alternatively, an SLR is Section 5. Strip it down for components and they become the following types: no license required (e.g. the furniture), Section 1 (e.g. the breech-block), Section 5 (e.g.the gas ported barrel).

The easy way is to go looking for the proof marks. It is the case in the U.K. that any pressure bearing part must bear a proof mark. The law was then quite simple. You needed a condition on your FAC to have any spare / extra proof marked parts such as bolts. When firearms were deactivated after the legal specifications were drawn up the pressure bearing parts had to have a 'Deactivated Proof mark' applied to them. Private imports of Section 1 and Section 2 Firearms and Shotguns were allowed on the appropriate FAC / Shotgun Cert. In recent years this has tightened up and suppliers have been leant on by police to demand sight of an FAC for parts not previously controlled. Last month I had to send a copy of my FAC to a dealer in order to buy a firing pin for a .22 rifle.

Whilst everything said above is true, there is a 'loop-hole' where you can legally buy, own, hold or sell a complete Enfield bolt.

I have a No4 Enfield in 410 (shotgun) calibre, this is on my SGC.
My 303's and 7.62's are on my FAC

I wanted to improve the headspace as the 410 cartridge rims are much thinner than a 303 case, I checked, and was told that for a shotgun I did not need any permissons to hold parts such as bolt head, bolt body, barrel etc (parts that for a firearm would be 'pressure bearing' and require approval)

You can therefore (apparently) legally have a complete bolt (or components) as a spare, as long as you possess a shotgun to which it will fit.

I have already notified my FEO at the Met Police so hopefully they will look in to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bnz41

I have also reported these items, Plus over the last several weeks a seller in another country has offered complete SMLE and No4 bolts (not deactivated) for sale within the UK including the price in British pounds and ships world wide on e-bay.

---

I think the above refers to some items that were based in Canada, I contacted the seller pointing out the problems with sending such items to the UK and received a very nice reply thanking me for the information, unlike the present UK seller who when I contacted him the last time he had one of these items for sale told me that as far as he was concerned he was doing nothing wrong and he was not prepared to pull the item.
I did find out that he was an FAC holder and he had purchased the bolt bodies at an auction, he assured me that the auction house which held an RFD certificate did not consider them to be "Section 1" so we appear to have an "RFD" selling section 1 parts to an FAC holder without the necessary conditions. The FAC holder would not give me details of the auction house as "he did quite a lot of business with them" the mind boggles as to what else they might have sold............:banghead:

Our laws on De-act firearms are - Firing pin cut short, bolt fully welded shut (303's usually they weld up underneath from the mag well) Barrel plugged and welded, one gunsmith I know also slots the barrel underneath and the chamber as well.
Last time I was in his shop @6 months ago there was an all serial matching 1916 Lithgow No 1 Mk III full wood and not to shabby that tlc would remedy lined up for the deactivation train :crying: it was part of a dec estate the new owners wanted it for a wall hanger.
When I returned a week later to collect one of my weapons, he had done the deed on that 1916 Lithgow rifle...... :(

I can understand the reluctance by the Police to enforce some of these laws as if they were to try and fail with a case, it would open the door to others to do the same if that makes sense. For example, if the CPS wanted to go ahead with a case against the seller of the bolt bodies and they failed because a judge was convinced they were not pressure bearing parts (Or some other reason). Would that not become a precedent for others to follow and sell bolt bodies with no fear and therefor rendering that part of the deact spec now redundant too? It's a long time since I was taught law so I may be completely wrong.

It reminds me of ITAR here in the USA. 90% of normal folks are ignorant of the law or simply don't care. What they don't realize is that if by some chance they get caught up in a violation the fines can be $10,000 - $1,000,000. Ouchie!!

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................

Better leave it at that. It's just the thought of one group of enthusiasts running to tell teacher about another group just seems, well...........

I agree with you there Peter, but I guess the seller is still breaking eBay UK rules. Should he be an RFD to sell shotgun parts commercially anyway?

Thanks for that support DRP. I had a PM from another UK forumer who also agreed who suggested that while agreeing, I could have been a tad more diplomatic. That was as diplomatic as I could have been, believe me. In fact, to illustrate what I was going to say really WOULD have broken all obscene publication and wireless and telegraphy rules to boot.

Maybe it's my boarding school sense of fair play - and old age that I say this as one who has actually acted as an expert witness in several cases whereby an innocent could have faced severe penalties should the interpretation of pure waffle gone the other way. But we don't do waffle. The flash eliminator case should ring many bells...........

And ALWAYS remember this. In a democracy, the law doesn't tell you what you CAN do; it tells you what you CANNOT do. Only in a dictatorship does the law tell you what you CAN do

I tend to agree with Peter's running to teacher comments about rushing to inform local firearms officers. Personally I think the law's a bit of an *** on objects like bolt heads etc although I comply with it and would inform any ignorant friends of the pitfalls of sourcing stuff to repair their rifles. Would the informants also report other items banned by eBay which are regularly sold eg magazines (aka boxes)?

The mere thought of those deadly drill rounds that sometimes appear on there... leaves me with sleepless nights. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingercat

The mere thought of those deadly drill rounds that sometimes appear on there... leaves me with sleepless nights. :lol:

---

Yes, or trigger guards that actually have the trigger installed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

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???????

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 ****

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........

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

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.

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!

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.

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

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)

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:)

Trust me one this one, in the case of the "Deactivated weapons collector from Manchester" there is very definitely no smoke without fire. And I'm not speaking from hearsay either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon

Trust me one this one, in the case of the "Deactivated weapons collector from Manchester" there is very definitely no smoke without fire. And I'm not speaking from hearsay either

---

Is this the one from about 4 or 5 weeks ago? If it is, What gets me is that all the items were laid out in his garden for the press photography, before any investigation had been carried out. Then the press had found him guilty before trial regardless of if there was a case to answer or not.

I know that we're well off the subject now but are you SURE that there's a national database for deactivated weapons Gil...........? I don't think so somehow! As for a replacement certificate, that isn't easy either - in fact it is impossible in most cases before a date unknown too (although it might be different now I agree). I tried to get a replacement for a MoD SA80 rifle that had been loaned to and deactivated, stamped and certficated at the time by a film company (remember the TV programme Soldier, Soldier ?). Only to be told that they didn't keep duplicated past records because once the weapon was no longer a weapon and........ Anyway, they couldn't issue a duplicate in spite of it being marked and owned by the MoD.

They DID condescend to say that if I brought it down, they'd just have a quick look and do a simple re-issue - for the new fee of course. Furthermore, it'd have to be re-inspected and certificated to the NEW, totally welded up spec. And if it failed, I couldn't take it away unless I had the correct authority to possess it............ I should coco! So we just gave it away anyway and scrapped the rest

What was shown on TV was there purely for maximum effect for the press. It was the stuff that was found elsewhere that will be his undoing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Certainly Peter I think I can. At the top of my Firearms Certificate and I suspect it is a standard format to all certificates is listed a set of conditions the first paragraph reads:-
"This certificate is issued subject to the following conditions. It is an offence to fail to comply with any of the conditions below. Maximum penalty for non-compliance: six months imprisonment and / or a fine."
There are four conditions listed and condition 4(a) reads:-
"The firearms and ammunition to which the certificate relates must at all times (except in the circumstances set out in paragraph (b) below) be stored securely so as to prevent, as far as reasonably practicable, access to the firearms or ammunition by an unauthorised person"
Paragraph 4(b) goes onto explain the responsibility of the FAC holder where the firearm is in use / transit ect,

I started this thread only to point out that it would be very easy to fall foul of the firearms law without really knowing it, I am sure that the gentleman who allowed his mother to know where his gun cupboard keys were thought he was doing nothing wrong and logic says he was probably right but unfortunately by doing so he allowed access to an unauthorised person contrary to the conditions of his FAC.
This has been quite a lively debate that has wandered away from the point I was trying to make. There have been some very interesting points raised in the way you may or may not "posses" a particular item and that is for the individual to judge however knowing what the firearms law says about any particular item can at least give them a fair chance at staying on the right side of the rules and regulations.

There is no national data base for de-act guns, where all the info is stored on a single computer system. There is now a system in place that has been operating for the last few years, that the proof house both london and birmingham store all the details of the submited de-acted gun, serial numbers etc and the de-act certificate number it was issued. It did not use to be a requirement to store this info so the records only go back so far. The records can be crossed check by the police in connection with an enquiry and by HMRC for compliance checks with dealers who have imported firearms and then de-acted them.

That's just as I thought the system was ZGB. They simply wouldn't just giveme a duplicate.

Buccaneer..... Got that and there are two (there's probably more of course but sisters advice costs a bomb.....) intertwined high Court appeal cases relating to that non-statutory 'The Chief Constable says so' condition on UK licences.. Big kind sister is digging them out (but criminal law wasn't her speciality so wait a bit). But both appeals were allowed. However not to bore the pants off the non interested, I'll PM you. The second one is related to the decision of the first and is local to you too.

Peter,
I was given this info recently when I wanted to have some already deactivated weapons re proofed because the certificates had gone walkabouts when they were passed to me. The info came from the Birmingham Proof house who were going to do the proofing for me that there was such a register so I can only pass on what they told me. It makes infinite sense anyway to have had one from day one.
They charge a flat fee of £28 per weapon you have to TNT it there or if you want to take it in person ie its to big to send .50 for example of which I had two at the time, it could be done on an appointment with one proofer there who specialises in the big stuff.
IMHO the whole mess of deactivation is an absolute joke and totally inconsistant.

I know of an RFD who was passed a 60's deactivated sten gun WITH CERTIFICATE a few years ago which had the firing pin snipped and the barrel filled with lead. Thats how stupid it was then, but one has to hope that the new system is consistant across the proofing house board!

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

Simom,
Apologies, meant to answer you too, yes I am sure there was or is a case to answer somewhere which will come out in the wash I am sure in good time!!!!!!!!!;)

Got that Gil and thanks for the clarification - and that from ZGB which is clear and concise. I wouldn't mind betting that if the spec of your two big 50's had changed inbetween times, they'd want it done to the NEW spec. Just as they wanted with the SA80's

It must have been a much later deact Sten Gil. There wasn't such a legal thin in the 60's. You just took your chance in those days. Like the pre-deac spec but obviously deacted MG42 on the Afrika Corps motorbike and side car I had to attend Reading Crown Court for as an expert witness. But they knew best and STILL took the bloke on.......... Stupid or what......., especially when they were hit with substantial costs afterwards. But you can't win 'em all!

ZGB will be able to correct me on this if I'm wrong but unless an old spec gun has been altered, and as long as the pre 95 deac mark is present, the proof house will issue a new certificate to the original spec. I've a few old spec SMGs that have new certs and have double deac markings, the original and the recert. I personally wouldn't bother but some of the dealers prefer to have them redone (Understandable if it's your lively hood).

I do send quite a few to Birmingham for certification of deactivation, they now apply proof house serial numbers to guns that do not have serial numbers and were previously recorded as NVN (no visible number), thankfully they have the sense to apply the new number below the wood line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

One of the (many) problems with the deactivation specification(s) is the lack of any specifications for component parts. That is to say ONLY a whole, un-mucked-about-with gun can benefit from the legislation; for example there is no specification for the Bren second barrel, only a complete gun. (This specific issue may have been fixed by now.)

So, as I see it, all the time a component is part of a deact it benefits from the status of that gun. Remove it and reverts to being "any component part".

This movement of items between Firearms Act Sections based on context is not unusual e.g. A Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector in .445 can be: Section 5, Section 7(1) or Section 7(3) entirely dependent on context. Alternatively, an SLR is Section 5. Strip it down for components and they become the following types: no license required (e.g. the furniture), Section 1 (e.g. the breech-block), Section 5 (e.g.the gas ported barrel).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

an SLR is Section 5. Strip it down for components and they become the following types: no license required (e.g. the furniture), Section 1 (e.g. the breech-block), Section 5 (e.g.the gas ported barrel).

---

An interesting point regarding Sec 5 firearms.... A stripped down L1A1 is in fact all Sec1, even the gas parts, it only becomes Sec 5 when assembled.

The only Firearms with Sec 5 components are handguns !

Mmmmmmm..... So you are saying that, say, an AR15/M16 barrel is a S.5 component part per-se? Better not tell that to all those who own those 5.56 bolt action CAM rifles then!

If that is fact, that if you take a part OFF a deact then it reverts to its previous spec, (Beery's thread, para 1 and 2 above) such as an L1A1 flash eliminator immediately becoming a prohibited part in its own right. Then someone had better tell the Judge at Winchester C Ct to get reading up his law books because he disagreed and threw out the case of the bayonet collector who had one to illustrate his bayonet collection - taken off a deactivated L1A1.

My lovely sister told me something interesting this morning about laymen and even the Police quoting Criminal Law. You can NEARLY right, but in being so, you can be HOPELESSLY wrong!

Re the deactivated Bren barrels being allowed as a separate entity. Whether that was a mistake or not, the stable door has been well and truly opened and it would need legislation to close. The fact that............. anyway, you simply cannot chop and change to suit the whim of a proofmaster. Think about it........ In short, if that REALLY were the case. you could have the ridiculous situation of a person being sent to prison for possessing one when his neighbour has one - and is legally fireproof because the proofmaster said it'd be OK.

Yep, it's a *** but generally speaking, it works because it is what it is!

Brit Plumber is correct about old spec de-acts being given new certs after inspection by the proof house without having to upgrade the de-act to new spec. At one time it was retrospective and old spec de-acts without a cert had to be upgraded. Common sense prevailed and this is no longer policy. The submited de-act does have to carry a valid de-act proof mark other wise it will have to be upgraded.
Regards component parts I can only quote the 2010 revised de-act specs.
Under Schedule 5
Special deact specs applying to smg's,machine pistols, automatic rifles, centre-fire self loading rifles and carbines and any other arms based upon the design or action of prohitited weapons within this category of firearms.
Page 18 of 47 last paragraph

Unaltered firearm components which are not major components, whilst remaining part of a de-acted firearm, are covered by the Firearms (Amendment) act 1988 and are treated as components of a deactivated firearm.
Should any of these components be removed and no longer remain part of a de-act firearm, it cannot fall within the exemption for de-act firearms in the firearms(Amendment) act 1988 and must revert to its original status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I guess you sister did not specialise in firearms law then Peter because Under Section 1 (a) it is an offence for a person—

"to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate;"

Buying or acquiring moves ownership from one party to another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

The only Firearms with Sec 5 components are handguns !

---

I am afraid that you last sentence could not be more wrong. Section 5 covers a lot more than handguns and even includes devices that are NOT even fireams!

PM sent Beery........... but for clarity, where in this quote (thread 46, para 2) does it say you need a certificate to OWN one. 'OWN' doesn't mean, indicate or imply possession. I could OWN one held on my brothers FAC!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

I am afraid that you last sentence could not be more wrong. Section 5 covers a lot more than handguns and even includes devices that are NOT even fireams!

---

Example :- Soft point bullet heads (components of ammunition) are section 5 and also counts towards you ammunition allowance even when not 'assembled' into ammunition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

PM sent Beery........... but for clarity, where in this quote (thread 46, para 2) does it say you need a certificate to OWN one. 'OWN' doesn't mean, indicate or imply possession. I could OWN one held on my brothers FAC!!!!!!!!!

---

I had a very similar discussion with a couple of RFD's when I was buying a rifle (but not a person to person transfer).

The rifle could not be shipped to me as a 'private individual'. (can only be shipped RFD to RFD)
I was awaiting the grant of an additional 'slot' on my FAC
I (obviously) had to pay for the rifle before the RFD would ship it to my local RFD

It was then pointed out that after I had paid for it , I owned a firearm for which I did not have a licence - technically illegal
If you own a rifle then you must be licensed for it.

As it happened (and apparently a common 'loop-hole') the rifle is shipped to the other RFD, but is not shown as being sold until the grant of the variation and the rifle collected from the receiving RFD

Any person wishing to possess, purchase or acquire any firearm or ammunition must hold
a valid firearm or shotgun certificate (as appropriate) unless exempt under sections 7 to 13,
15, 54 or 58(1) of the 1968 Act or sections 15 to 19 of the 1988 Act,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

PM sent Beery........... but for clarity, where in this quote (thread 46, para 2) does it say you need a certificate to OWN one. 'OWN' doesn't mean, indicate or imply possession. I could OWN one held on my brothers FAC!!!!!!!!!

---

And to think that all I wanted to do when I started this thread was to warn the average FAC holder of the potential pitfalls of buying / acquiring / owning section1 parts without the correct authority.
A simple rule of thumb is this:- If a part of a firearm requires to be deactivated in some way to comply with the deact regs then it's a section 1 part, bolt bodies, bolt heads, firing pins, barrels & actions all have to be modified to make them comply and all are section 1 parts.
I am an RFD and I along with every other RFD that I have spoken to we will NOT sell any section 1 parts to an FAC holder without the correct paperwork regardless of what has been said in parts of this thread.
It is simply not worth loosing a trading license just to try and prove a point in court that could go either way even with previous precedent being set, it would also be a very expensive exercise that I and an awful lot of small trades could not afford.
I come back to the first point that I made is the ownership / possession of a gash section 1 part worth the potential hassle that it may cause when in most cases the part will probably just sit in the spares box just in case.
Oh and don't forget that if you do happen to change your bolt body / bolt head ect it should go to the proof house to be reproofed before you sell the rifle as failing to do so will open another can of worms with the proof house regulations..................

Hey, don't get me wrong on this thread at all. What it does is illustrate that by having a bit of old case law handy some of the rules cannot be easily enforced but can easily be countered. These legal eagles equate the myriad and convoluted hotch-potch of mix and match firearms laws as similar to the driving laws where some laws, rules and orders seem to countermand another......... You know....., you can own a car without a licence! It's like driving your motor bike without a helmet and using the religeous exemptions get-out-of-jail clause - that you are a Sikh. It's an exemption clause, not a turban wearing clause........

Like my sister used to say about her office rules. They never spoke Religeon, Politics - and Law - if you could help it!

But it does make lively, if a tad boring discussion

This thread has been quite interesting and just highlights how hard it is to write Fire Arms Law and for it then to make sense.

We've talked about Enfield Bolts being section 1 and how you can hold one for a shot gun etc. Then I was thinking that a Delisle is section 5 ad it has a modified Enfield bolt so it just gets silly.

Then I was reading about ownership and possession which got me thinking about a guy I used to know who had a live SA80 rifle with no sect 5 auth as it was held in Switzerland (I think)( I know it's outside the UK). When I moved from Cumbria to Lincolnshire I got into trouble for not telling the Chief Constable of Lincs that I had moved to the area in a reasonable time, even though my rifles and shotguns remained in Cumbria. So is it the person who has to be licensed regardless of where the firearm is held?

As a Customs Officer who specialised in Firearms Law I still struggled to keep up with some of the more arcane aspects of it. It did not help that changes to the law were scattered through various amendments / EU regulations / Annual Home Office Panic Measures bills such as the Violent Crime Reduction Act etc. If you want a really good laugh have a look at the section on replica firearms and when a replica is not a replica. Having said all that if you are a shooter in the U.K. I strongly suggest that you download the latest version of the 'Guidance to Police' on Firearms Law. It is worth a read and some of the revisions especially in relation to Pistols held under Sec 7.3 are in fact common sense, very rare these days. I found it useful as by quoting it I was once again allowed to homeload pistol ammunition. Here is the link https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...gLawJune14.pdf

Or just move to NZ!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

When I moved from Cumbria to Lincolnshire I got into trouble for not telling the Chief Constable of Lincs that I had moved to the area in a reasonable time, even though my rifles and shotguns remained in Cumbria. So is it the person who has to be licensed regardless of where the firearm is held?

---

Needless to say, once again the police got it wrong.

I quote: "The holder of this certificate must, without undue delay, inform the Chief Officer of Police by whom this certificate was granted of any change of permanent address."

So you by law have to inform Cumbria. You are not obliged to tell Lincolnshire. Your FAC is valid all over Great Britain, not just where it was issued.

Some years ago, when I moved from one constabulary to another, I duly informed to one who granted my FAC. I soon got a call from the new constabulary telling me that I had get an FAC from them. I pointed out to them that if they wanted to issue me a new FAC, that was up to them but in law, I didn't need one. This went to and fro for months at goodness knows what cost to the tax payers and made not one jot of difference to public safety.

BTW I hop that wherever you have left your guns, they are not in the "possession" of someone without the necessary authority.

Good old "Interpretation" rears its head again......................now lets start on road traffic law, what was this thread about again??:lol:

The biggest problem with many a Police Officer here in Blighty is that they tend to very easily forget that their job is not to "Interpret" the law but to "Enforce" the law.

Which is why it can be good to quote to them from the Guidance to Police as that can shut them up quite promptly. Mentioning Legal Insurance with the NRA can be quite good as well.

Guidance to Police.......now there's a laugh in itself, all 43 Forces interpret the Firearms Law differently as it is, caused by it being badly written in the first place.
Those tasked with writing the legislation should have took council from all bodies concerned including the NRA then perhaps we could all blame ourselves if we no longer liked it, and not the poor sods trying to make it work.
It can be said about a lot of knee jerk written stuff though unfortunately:banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

Or just move to NZ!

---

It is my future plan....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Guidance to Police.......now there's a laugh in itself, all 43 Forces interpret the Firearms Law differently as it is, caused by it being badly written in the first place.
:

---

Some time ago I was discussing with our local Police Firearms Manager the possibility/problems of importing from the US, during the discussions I told him I was looking to re-stock one of my rifles.

A few days later I received a letter from he Firearms Manager informing me that I must now have the rifle (that I was re-stocking) re-proofed as changing the 'furniture' meant it was no longer in proof.

Several letters and a few weeks later he had not moved his position, so I wrote to the proof office asking for guidance, to which they replied (in writing) that they request that all firearms are submitted for proof without the 'furniture' to avoid any potential damage to the woodwork in their clamps.

I submitted the letter to the Firearms Manager suggesting that as I had now fitted the furniture was he proposing that I remove it, submit it for proof, then replace the furniture, at which time it would (according to him) need reproofing.

The matter seemed to go very quiet - I never received anything further on the subject.

Re ZGB's comment, thread 45, para 2 about component parts taken from a deact reverting to their original status, such as a flash eliminator as a point in case, I have been advised that this is an opinion so far and hasn't been tested in law*. And while the enabling legislation for such minor changes, clarifications and amplifications is in place, a change such as this has not been enshrined or incorporated. So as things stand, if you have your bayonet collection mounted on an old ex-deact L1A1 or No5 flash eliminator for example - or have a Vickers thingummyjig or whatsit or a Bren butt slide, it remains legal! And in any case, if/once it IS incorporated into a part of the act, the act is not retrospective. That means if you had yours before that date then it's OK - And you ain't got to prove anything............ I'm trying to scribble notes while sister is chuntering away on the phone so bear with me...........

* it very probably HAS been tested but the case had been defeated and not challenged/appealed. If it HAS been incorporated into law, please let me know and I'll tell her the act and section.

Is it any wonder why noone ever wants to be a solicitor

An interesting thread with 63 posts and most giving an opinion or something they know of from experience...... considering we ( most of us being shooters or collectors) seem to be well ahead of the game regarding the law, there are a few posts that stand out and are news to me, but think the post by Alan # 62, says it all....... I feel for the next generation of shooters/ collectors who will have to deal with managers with such a high level of Incompetence.

Hand picked and specially chosen men to do the incompetent role........"not you Steve by the way, Green Jackets were alright:lol:"

The Police Firearms Department are under a huge amount of pressure (apparently).

I received a letter mid May saying my FAC expired very early July and please send the money and completed forms into them in good time (suggested as being 4 weeks prior to expiry), I sent all the paperwork in before the end of May.
Come the end of June - not having had my 'visit' and my Doctor not having been contacted (although I did get a letter some time ago - that should have gone to my Doctor, asking me to confirm I was fit to hold a firearm certiicate) I contacted the Police Firearm dept and told them that withn a couple of days I would be breaking the law by holding firearms that I was not licenced to hold and what did they propose to do - they confirmed they had received my renewal application but nothing had happened as they appeared to have 'lost it'.

I phoned a couple of days later and told them "I am now illegally holding firearms" and the reply was - dont worry we will issue a "Temporary Permit",

Said permit arrived a few days later allowing me to hold the firearms I already hold until October, however I cannot buy or sell any firearms - despite having variations on my (expired) FAC and I cannot buy any ammunition. (Presumably I can still reload ?)

We are now 6 weeks past my FAC expiry date and I still have not had a visit, and my Doctor has still not been approached.

Our local Police Firearms Dept is 'Managed' by two people on a "job-share" basis so if you call on the changeover day, you have to wait until next week to talk to them again. You can never get to speak to any of the staff more than once as they seem to change almost daily (I think they are on a Government work experience scheme)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

A few days later I received a letter from he Firearms Manager informing me that I must now have the rifle (that I was re-stocking) re-proofed as changing the 'furniture' meant it was no longer in proof.

---

Actually it get worse. You are not obliged to "re-proof" anything no matter what you do to it, unless you sell it or otherwise move it to another party.

BTW, your Firearms Licensing Department are mere amateurs in the incompetency stakes - mine took FIVE MONTHS in 2013.

Yeah mine took I think four months a couple of years ago to reissue. I don't think trying to build up relationships with these people really helps much - not that there's any malice on their part, but it's best just to keep it on a professional basis for all concerned. Don't bother them and...

Yep, absolutely professional. Although I have never had any problems - except for one who tried to get above himself during a variation, saying he would revoke or not renew it it if I didn't elaborate on 'security' at Warminster - many around these parts tape their verbal dealings. He cannot revoke it, only a Chief Officer can and he can't 'not remew it' as renewal ain't on the agenda! But keep it professional I say

When I hear the phrase 'lack of resources' from ANY government department, it simply means '....we want more money.....'

This thread has me gobsmacked! From the perspective of this colony it's hard to believe what you folks in the UK have to put up with: "doctors certificate"; "ammunition allowance"; "variance" and paperwork for certain parts like a bolt-head. Forget New Zealand- move to Canada. You'll think you've died and gone to heaven. Problem is our liberal politicians are probably looking enviously at your laws. Out of interest, has this all evolved slowly or was it essentially put in place decades ago?

Ridolpho

In short Ridolpho, we have a policy of not pursuing and punishing the wrongdoer even if they can find them, but just, well......, banning everything slowly but surely. So said, the Country is awash with weapons. But if you don't know where the unlawful ones are you just clamp down harded and harder on the lawful ones until you end up with a pure hotchpotch of bits of legislation that.............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

It is my future plan....

---

North, South or West island? :)

West island rules are not quite as good as other two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

until you end up with a pure hotchpotch of bits of legislation that.............

---

...... (to helpfully finish off)...... means people competing for their country in events like .22 pistol shooting have to train abroad.

As I said earlier with regards to police targeting illegal guns - community relations and potential disorder backlash means they generally don't do it. Meanwhile the law abiding and easy targets get more and more squeezed. As this debate shows this community is packed with good intentions - the whole point of this thread is an intention to uphold the law. This part of the law makes it harder for law abiding gun enthusiasts to maintain their guns. But it goes to show the level of lawbreaking or even stretching within this community is almost nil - and still they keep introducing more legislation - more lately the extra stuff on deacts.

What's the latest stuff/clampdown on deacts Prinz? That surely must just illustrate the whole point in question.......

It's all to do with the 'firearms amnesty' in the wake of new legislation, so the police say. Not sure I can accurately relay the exact law with regard antique firearms as the police are being less than clear. I think probably so they get deacts etc handed in. The blog post I linked to above (from July) contains:

Quote:

---

This month the law has been made tighter still with the maximum penalty for illegal gun possession having leapt from ten years to life in prison.

Another change is that anyone given a prison sentence, including suspended sentences, of three months or more is now banned from possessing antique firearms which could previously be held as a “curiosity or ornament” with a relevant certificate.

---

All this has led to hand ins like this.

I can't really say how the law has changed - the home office guidelines to the alterations are here. Section 8 is relevant. (Warning the: last link downloads a Home Office pdf of the law).

Can I just say I've had my fair share of problems with Police FireArms licensing however I've never had a problem with Cumbria. They were very knowledgeable and actually pro active rather than reactive and I never felt like I was an inconvenience to them.

An amendment was recently slipped in to the 1968 Firearms Act via an Act that was NOTHING to do with firearms legislation. Essentially, persons who have been sentenced to three years or more in the nick (the old felony definition) can no longer benefit from Section 58 which covers antiques. Henceforth if they are caught with a Section 58, they will be charged with possession of a firearm.

People in high places say that this is because one of Lee Rigby's killers was carrying a Section 58 at the time of the office. However this does not hold water because neither of them had any previous and so the new law would not have applied. Second, because the scrote in question was clearly not possessing the gun in question "as a curiosity or ornament", Section 58 did not apply anyway. Even if it did would he have worried about committing two firearms of fences rather than just one - as he carried out a cold-blooded murder.

In my opinion, the new offence was a sop to ACPO because they could not get the Home Office to remove .44 Russian from the "obsolete calibres" list.

BTW, if you look carefully at the haul of "deadly weapons you will see a "Gat". For it to be included in the photo shoot shows the level of what they actually "seized". It really annoys me that the police hype up these "weapons seizures" because they are not actually removing any guns "off the street" to quote a famous war criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

In short Ridolpho, we have a policy of not pursuing and punishing the wrongdoer even if they can find them, but just, well......, banning everything slowly but surely. So said, the Country is awash with weapons. But if you don't know where the unlawful ones are you just clamp down harded and harder on the lawful ones until you end up with a pure hotchpotch of bits of legislation that.............

---

And silly me thought it was only in Australia that this happened

Be very cautious of any seizure figures. Replicas seized by what was H.M. Customs now UK Border Force are included in Firearms seizures. Any police or UK Borders force seizures are just as likely to include air guns, replicas, DAs, as it's all about numbers and publicity. On a slightly different tack 5 or 10 years ago police would never have tipped off press about a search warrant let alone allowed live TV coverage as they have just done with a well known personality who was abroad at the time the warrant was used.

Beery, The Prinz and ZGB illustrate another most absurd situation that you would never associate with a Nation with democratic law process - not in a thousand years. And perhaps anyone can tell me where it arises in another democracy. They say that it saves Parliamentary time......... as if they don't have enough time on their hands! It's this:

What other nation would incorporate into a forthcoming law or primary legislation, a section that states, in effect that '....... the government of the day or ANY government thereafter don't forget, can at the whim of a protest group, pressure groups, lobby group, change of heart (or an idea) or anyone with enough clout* really, can simply lay an order before parliament and without so much as a discussion or by-your-leave, a change can be encorporated and enacted'! Then, they say, as if it'll all make things OK, that it isn't retrospective so it'll all be OK!

As a reasonably educated layman, it's simply mind boggling complacency by our legislators. Or am I missing something

* It MUST be by these groups by definition, as how would the legislators learn about the events that they're shouting about?

Rewriting the law based on a police rewriting of history is something which seems to happen all the time - and the 'tough on crime' legislators welcome it. Beery's reason (Lee Rigby) for the obsolete calibres thing wasn't something I was aware of - but sums it up perfectly. In a similar case we have top cops using Dunblane as an excuse to arm officers here - even though armed police wouldn't have prevented it happening.

One suspects that in reality the police would like to ban all deactivated weapons, obsolete calibres and firearms - and there are plenty of rentaquote MPs who would entirely agree. Each law creep should probably be seen in this context.

Law-creep, like, as in mission creep. GREAT choice of phrase The Prinz...., I like it!

Instead of dropping the unsuspecting (let us presume) seller "in it", why not send them a message advising them of the facts with a link to confirmatory information?

Or just tell them to carry on selling them as shotgun bolts and be done with it! Everyone is a winner. Like buying a .22 sound moderator for your .22 air rifle instead of your RF rifle.

And you won't believe this you foreign forumers............ Someone, nobody quite knows who, suddenly decreed that a sound moderator for your .22" rifle has to be proofed no less...... Why....? apparently when it is attached to the barrel it forms PART of the barrel, absorbs gas pressure and is subject to the same conditions as a barrel. Yep, proofed at EXTRA cost to boot! You couldn't make it up.........

Where is the physice AND LAW to substantiate this horse manure. A first year Physice student could counter this cow scattology......... And, on the down side, where were the dealers trade organisations that should have stood up, got advice, got counted and said we ain't playing this game. Sue us or shut up!

You've just got me going now...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

And you won't believe this you foreign forumers............ Someone, nobody quite knows who, suddenly decreed that a sound moderator for your .22" rifle has to be proofed no less...... Why....? apparently when it is attached to the barrel it forms PART of the barrel, absorbs gas pressure and is subject to the same conditions as a barrel. Yep, proofed at EXTRA cost to boot! You couldn't make it up..................

---

And - of course you need a variation to buy a silencer, once the silencer (which is now classed as a section 1 fiream) is 'on' your licence, you can do a one-for-one variation and 'swap' it for an L42, or an L96, or whatever.