Bren blueprints...

[Brit plumber]

To be honest i think its all rubish! What the proofhouse have stated by saying 'Yes, we did pass SOME of these, you are correct. BUT, we will NOT pass any more.' is that they broke the law as they see it. I wonder what the outcome of any court case would be in respect of that!

[Kev G]

Hi Kev, Yes, I know ALL about those Barrels (And they also pased some MG 34 & 42 Barrels ) I mentioned this & the reply was: 'Yes, we did pass SOME of these, you are correct. BUT, we will NOT pass any more.' Thier argument was as I have mentioned previously. They are componant presure bearing parts. IE. Spec says MUST be pinned, or welded to the reciever. END of! There is NO provision in the Act for Spare SEPPERATE Barrels. I agree with your logic on barrels clasified as scrap. HOWEVER, the Police will not. It is a Firearm Componant as far as they will go under Homeoffice Guidelines, which the Police follow. It is sad how this is interpreted, as a LOT of collectors require a spare Tube for static displays Etc. Also the mention of a Case precedent IF you won it on submitting barrel to Court to get it classified as a Non Componant part is of worthy mention. However: if you lose the case, It is five years for a Firearm offence at Her Majestys Pleasure! (Actually, you would do Two & a Half if you kept your nose clean!) Would YOU want to be the one to put this to the test & risk five years of your liberty?? (AND the Court costs!) I have found from expirience that most county Police Forces differ wildly in thier Interpretation from the guidelines! What is calssified as OK in one county, is NOT ok in another! What happened to everyone reading from the same sheet?

I'm not sure that you can get banged up for a certified lump of scrap which has the proof masters signature attached to it ?
What about people with early spec deac Brens that you can remove the barrel ......do the police regard these as a component pressure bearing part ?
Both items submitted at a sanctioned proof house and both bare the proof masters signature.

Do you think the CPS would let it get anywhere near court ?
.......come to think of it they probably would under some health and safety issue !

ATB Kevin

[tankhunter]

I'm not sure that you can get banged up for a certified lump of scrap which has the proof masters signature attached to it ?
What about people with early spec deac Brens that you can remove the barrel ......do the police regard these as a component pressure bearing part ?
Both items submitted at a sanctioned proof house and both bare the proof masters signature.

Do you think the CPS would let it get anywhere near court ?
.......come to think of it they probably would under some health and safety issue !

ATB Kevin

Hi Kevin, Well....When I left the Regular Army I joined The Metropolitan Police. I can assure you, that If they THINK they can get a conviction, Then they WILL press for it! PARTICULARLY if it is a Firearms Issue. It is a contencious & sensitive subject. The phrase used when I was in was: "We'll give it a go"! You see, they are using Public Money when Prossecuting, they dont care if they lose, because it's not comming out of thier Pocket! Where as you or I, have to pay for a Lawyer & the Extortionate costs involved in Defence! I can Assure you of this, I, Most certainly would not like to be the subject of a test case! I think we are all agreed about Barrels on a common sense collectors point of view. But ANY Governmant Department does' NOT seem to function on Common sense!!!
After a Two year stint in the Met, with MANY other reasons & failure on my part to fit into a culture that I did not agree with. I resigned & went into the Small arms Defense Manufacturing Sector!
Mike

[tankhunter]

To be honest i think its all rubish! What the proofhouse have stated by saying 'Yes, we did pass SOME of these, you are correct. BUT, we will NOT pass any more.' is that they broke the law as they see it. I wonder what the outcome of any court case would be in respect of that!

A Small, But Important point that I dont think your aware of, is:
The Proof house is EXEMPT from the Firearms Act!!!!
They can do pretty much anything they want to! (& Have!) But they are the First point of contact for advice & guidance from the Government & HomeOffice. They do try to comply with any recomendations from the Homeffice & are responsible for any 'Tightening up' of legislation. That the H/O Request, & wish to introduce. 'Policy' is a Big word in the H/O, but Policy is not Law! But YOU try & fight against it & see what happens!!
Mike

[tankhunter]

Interesting...

Does that mean if I take the deactivated bolt out of one of my Brens, the bolt technically becomes a firearm component whilst it is not inside the gun?

After all, like a deactivated barrel it's still a 'pressure bearing part' even if it's inoperable.

Mark

No, But if you have a spare one, then you are on thin Ice! They Homeoffice guidelines were always 'The Whole Weapon' when it's Deactivated. Any spare parts were clasified as Componant parts there of. & subject to F'Arms Act control. The profilleration of Gunners Kits, & section spares as a whole fooded the market & were & still are freely available. To this end, it caused major confusion & an extra huge load on the Police to enforce the Act upon undeserving & unsuspecting Collectors. They reclassified the Componat Parts issue to 'Pressure Bearing Componants' to narrow the field down to a sensible size to enforce. This encompasses Barrels, Obviously. We argee that when a Barrel is deactivated, that is it, it' irreversibel if done correctly. BUT, I Reitterarte. 'There is NO provision in the F/Arms Act for a spare Deactivated Barrel.' 'It HAS to be Pinned or Welde to the Reciever'. There Is NO mention of any other method of Owning a Deactivated Barrel in the Act. BUT, the Defense as far as Im concerned IS. You may legally own componant parts IF, they have been deactivated. Yes this IS contradictory, But it's what I have seen in the guidelines. So, If you own a deact Barrel, then as per there statemant, 'You may own Parts if ther are Deact' But the guide line ALSO state it WILL remain a Section 5 Prohibited Componant of NOT fitted to the Weapon & Permantly affixed. CONFUSED? Yep, So am I! Go Figure!

[tankhunter]

Interesting...

Does that mean if I take the deactivated bolt out of one of my Brens, the bolt technically becomes a firearm component whilst it is not inside the gun?

After all, like a deactivated barrel it's still a 'pressure bearing part' even if it's inoperable.

Mark

No, But if you have a spare one, then you are on thin Ice! They Homeoffice guidelines were always 'The Whole Weapon' when it's Deactivated. Any spare parts were clasified as Componant parts there of. & subject to F'Arms Act control. The profilleration of Gunners Kits, & section spares as a whole flooded the market & were & still are freely available. To this end, it caused major confusion & an extra huge load on the Police to enforce the Act upon undeserving & unsuspecting Collectors. They reclassified the Componant Parts issue to 'Pressure Bearing Componants' to narrow the field down to a sensible size to enforce. This encompasses Barrels, Obviously. We argee that when a Barrel is deactivated, that is it, it' irreversibel if done correctly. BUT, I Reitterarte. 'There is NO provision in the F/Arms Act for a spare Deactivated Barrel.' 'It HAS to be Pinned or Welded to the Reciever'. There Is NO mention of any other method of Owning a Deactivated Barrel in the Act. BUT, the Defense as far as Im concerned IS. You may legally own componant parts IF, they have been deactivated. Yes this IS contradictory, But it's what I have seen in the guidelines. So, If you own a deact Barrel, then as per thier statement, 'You may own Parts if they are Deact' But the guide lines ALSO state it WILL remain a Section 5 Prohibited Componant if NOT fitted to the Weapon & Permanantly Affixed. CONFUSED? Yep, So am I! Go Figure!

[Peter Laidler]

It's going on a bit but the PROBLEM (and I have acted as an expert witness for three or four unfortunates so far, and ALL have been acquitted) is that once they're questioned/pressured, they sing like little birdies......... And in doing so, walk straight into the being guilty.

The best thing is to say NOTHING. Then when ........ anyway........., an ambush defence is always a winner, especially when you can cite examples of sheer foolishness relating to your case against lawful/legal examples. And the judiciary don't like the prosecutors making a mockery of the law and even more so, don't like them appear to be abusing the letter or spirit of the law.

If......... I won't go on. But the difference between democratic law and the rest is that in a democracy, the law simply tells you what you CANNOT do, the others, tell you what you CAN do

[peregrinvs]

they are the First point of contact for advice & guidance from the Government & HomeOffice. They do try to comply with any recomendations from the Homeffice & are responsible for any 'Tightening up' of legislation.

Going by specimens I own, there seems to be a bit of an element of 'make it up as you go along'.

For example, my Lithgow MkI(m) Bren was deactivated in 1997: the flash hider has been permanently pinned to the Mk2 barrel and has a deactivation stamp. The gun also came with a deactivated magazine.

However, my Enfield MkI was deactivated in 2007: the flash hider isn't permanently pinned to the Mk1 barrel and it came with a 'live' magazine.

Just to muddy things further, I've just checked the published 1995 revised deactivation specifications and it states that a Bren must have a deactivated magazine, but it says nothing about the flash hider:

http://www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/...CF08688FAD95C4

Mark

[Peter Laidler]

Funny you mention that the flash eliminator was welded on Peregrine because that's one of the cases that I was an expert witness in. I won't go into the why's and wherefores but put simply, someone took a flash eliminator OFF his deact L1A1 in order to display his L1A1 bayonet collection
The Police decreed in their own logicless/clueless way that this flash eliminator was now a firearm, as defined in law, and decided to prosecute
He argued that it was HIS deact and as such, he was free to do whatever he liked with it. And furthermore, where did the LAW (not guidelines....) say.... and on and on it went........

Case thrown out at an early stage, spec changed.........

One could argue that just who decides to change a 'guideline' or 'specification' that could mean at the stroke of a pen, someone is liable to 5 years in the can...........? It's mind boggling isn't it

[peregrinvs]

One could argue that just who decides to change a 'guideline' or 'specification' that could mean at the stroke of a pen, someone is liable to 5 years in the can...........? It's mind boggling isn't it

Boggling indeed. Just what sort of crime do they think someone is going to commit with an old Bren or SLR flash-hider? 'Old Lady Brutally Mugged With Gun Flash-Hider' is certainly a headline I've yet to see.

Mark