SMLE without deac certificate

[WiltshireSpud]

Can anyone out there give me a definitive answer as to what the implications are of buying a deactivated weapon without a deac certificate? Deactivation was carried out in the 60/70s and no cert issued. I realise this will make it more difficult to sell on later but what are my legal responsibilities?

Happy New Year!

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

The only thing you need to concern yourselkf with is this............... I know that there will be a hundred others who come oin board, but as one who has been in the courts as a so-called expert witness, it's this. Is the rifle you possess capable of discharging a shot, bullet or other like missile and/or, does it contain any unaltered load bearing parts that are themselves firearms in their own right, capable of bearing the load or pressure of discharge. These parts include the bolt, barrel and body.

For example, many dealers sold on skel;etonised No1's and No4's for years before the law on deacts was formalised. Equally, hundreds were welded up and then sold on as wall hangers. The deact legislation was not retrospective so if it were a deact THEN, it is NOW.

The very BEST piece of advice I could give you, as one who had acted for three or four 'unfortunates' is this iF IT COMES TO PUSH AND SHOVE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU WILL ONLY SPEAK AFTER TAKING ADVICE. And the second bit of advice. DO NOT EVER, EVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE BROWBEATEN INTO SAYING, DOING OR WRITING ANYTHING Then GET the bloody advice.

Was that simple enough? You do not need a deact cert for a deact weapon. The difference between a pre-deact and a post deact is that with a pre-deact era weapon, the onus of proof is upon you. Afetr that, when there is a missing/lost cert, the onus of proof is upon the prosecutors

[WiltshireSpud]

Peter
As always, thanks for that reply.
Regards

Chris

[shop tom]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what kind of guns in the UK are subject to de-activisation and what, if any, are not.

This is a very alien concept to me.

tom

[RobD]

WiltshireSpud,
For a small sum of money, you can get a local gunsmith to look at it for you and properly deactivate it if it is still "live". PM me if you want the name of a good fellow who works quite near you.
Rob

[Patrick Chadwick]

Thank you Peter for a very clear answer. Translated into German it would be a very good answer for anyone over here with the same problem.

Here a weapon can now only be deactivated by a gunsmith and must afterwards be checked and marked by a governmental agency. Which, with transport to and from the agency by approved means, plus the cost of the "negative proof" on top of the gunsmith's work, makes it so expensive that a "modern-rules" de-act is more expensive than a perfectly usable functioning weapon. The result is that new de-acts are uneconomical for dealers, and have become extremely scarce, and many old rifles are simply scrapped outright, not even being available for parting-out. So "old-rules" de-acts are at a premium! Has the market in the UK been affected in a similar way?

[Beerhunter]

If the firearm has been deactivated prior to the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act then it will not have Certificate and CANNOT benefit from the terms of that Act.

What that means in practice is that it will need to take its chance (possibly in court) if challenged.

That means, as Peter rightly says, if it is challenged you MUST get expert advice. Whatever you do I would counsel you to never rely on the expertise of your local police. My experience has been that they will tend to err on the cautious and say: "No Certificate or Proof House Marks under the Act - no gun".

On the technical side the usual problem with pre-1988 deacts is that they often will allow a round to chamber. Under the specification laid down in the rules that apply to the 1988 Act, that is a no-no. People have got around this by showing that even though a specific deact can chamber a round it is incapable of discharging it. e.g an L59.

[Patrick Chadwick]

does it contain any unaltered load bearing parts that are themselves firearms in their own right, capable of bearing the load or pressure of discharge.

Which means that a chamber that can still accept a live round is unacceptable for a de-act. Because someone can cut down the barrel and fire out of the stub.

[Peter Laidler]

The problem people with pre '88 deacts farce is actually FINDING someone who's experience, expertise and FORMAL qualifications can match that of the 'experts' from the Home Office. I acted for one person who had a welded-up solid in the 60's MG34 (or it might have been a 42, I can't remember now) on an old 1950 look-a-like Africa Corps motorbike and sidecar. He'd had it unquestioned since then but then, one day, he came up against the '...no certificate, no gun' farce.

It was a farce because they took him on and I was able to say , as the army are want to do, in words that were clearly understood by all in the Crown Court that it was a complete and utter joke because........ They stopped the case in the afternoon and awarded him total costs

So NEVER, EVER, EVER say, write or admit ANYTHING unless you have taken sound advice. And as Beery says, the cops are not the best people to give sound and impartial advice

Only my 2c's worth

[PrinzEugen]

Sad isn't it - that people who are law abiding and indeed law respecting should be subjected to this. This applies often to firearms certificates holders too. It's an easy target for the police I suppose. On the other hand you don't see a great deal of action being taken against those gangs who actively own and use illegal firearms - presumably for reasons of being seen to target certain sections of society and fear on their (the authorities') part of provoking social disorder in retaliation.