For those with UK de-acts, the law has changed again

[trenchtrotter]

It has to be de activated to a level that was decreed. It must be marked with a proof house de ac stamp and if poss have the cert to accompany. Cert not essential but if not proofed then you could be on the wrong side of the law.

[vectisitch]

this rifle came back to the uk in the 70's already deactivated. so it wouldn't be deactivated to current standards and i doubt it has any stamps on it. and i don't have any cert either.

but the barrel cut and welded with a bar through the barrel it's hardly ever going to fire again. but i get that it won't be to legal standards now

[Simon127]

Don't post pictures of it on Facebook, or videos on Youtube and in all likelihood nothing will ever come of it. 

 

Right now, I suspect the authorities are too tied up with the biggest international crisis since the Second World War to agonise over an expensive paperweight.  

 

       

Edited 22 March , 2020 by Simon127

[peregrinvs]

Interesting article I came across that was published last December:

 

https://brudenellchambers.com/2019/12/23/new-deactivation-specifications-2/

[sc-em]

An interesting but frustrating topic. I got my SMLE about 18 months ago and so is current and was from a recognised dealer with a certificate. However, as pointed out, there is little that can be done to even the earlier ones to make them useable and even that would require original components and not a small degree of expertise. It would be so much easier for those with criminal intent to pick up an active gun without having to go to such lengths. I am always surprised by the obsolete calibre rules which don't require deact but most of which would certainly put a big hole in something or someone.

I was also surprised to find out only recently when enquiring about joining a shooting club, that no cartridge revolvers were allowed. I must admit that I have not really been a follower of guns laws, clearly, but I remember going to a friend's club back in the 80's a shooting his 38 Magnum. That along with my dad's old match BSA 22.

[593jones]

15 hours ago, sc-em said:

An interesting but frustrating topic. I got my SMLE about 18 months ago and so is current and was from a recognised dealer with a certificate. However, as pointed out, there is little that can be done to even the earlier ones to make them useable and even that would require original components and not a small degree of expertise. It would be so much easier for those with criminal intent to pick up an active gun without having to go to such lengths. I am always surprised by the obsolete calibre rules which don't require deact but most of which would certainly put a big hole in something or someone.

I was also surprised to find out only recently when enquiring about joining a shooting club, that no cartridge revolvers were allowed. I must admit that I have not really been a follower of guns laws, clearly, but I remember going to a friend's club back in the 80's a shooting his 38 Magnum. That along with my dad's old match BSA 22.

 

Dunblane did for pistol shooting in the UK, although I believe black powder cap and ball handguns are still legal, they certainly were back in the early years of this century at the club of which I was a member.  

 

There is no logic to the firearms laws in this country or in Europe, any incident involving firearms results in a knee-jerk reaction from politicians, who must be seen to be Taking Action.  Hence the continuing changes to the deactivation rules; I'm sure a great many people possess deacts which are now 'defectively deactivated' and cannot legally be disposed of, I certainly do.  Of course, it could be argued that if a firearm is 'defectively deactivated' then it should not be legal to own, however, since there is no possibility of the authorities knowing how many of these are around, this is unlikely to be made law  Unlikely, but not, or course, impossible in the future..   There was a post on the WW2Talk forum recently from someone who owned an M1 Garand which he had had for ten years and was enquiring about the value; I felt obliged to reply that as he had had it for ten years it would now be defectively deactivated and so was, without further work, worthless.

[sc-em]

Black powder hand guns are indeed still legal. More time consuming to work with because of the loading of the caps and balls, but there is something quite satisfying as I found out when I shot a Navy Colt a few months ago. The plume of smoke is also great.

An army colt is on my wish list when I finally complete my Firearms probation one the club reopens.

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0j9WgZwWMfWZSvdGqlm3h-YWw#Chipping_Norton

[peregrinvs]

5 hours ago, 593jones said:

 

There was a post on the WW2Talk forum recently from someone who owned an M1 Garand which he had had for ten years and was enquiring about the value; I felt obliged to reply that as he had had it for ten years it would now be defectively deactivated and so was, without further work, worthless.

The Garand is worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Whether the specific circumstances of that sale are legal is a separate issue. E.g. I believe it is technically legal to sell a non-EU deact outside of the UK/EU.

 

Out in the real world, the law seems to be a bit of a dead letter. I’ve seen non-EU deacts openly advertised for sale and I’m reliably informed that ‘under the table’ trading by militaria dealers is quote “rife”.

 

I’d be very interested to know whether the central flaw in this legislation - it makes no allowance for whether the gun concerned has been literally ‘defectively deactivated’ - has been tested in court?

[sc-em]

Where there's a will...….

[593jones]

1 hour ago, peregrinvs said:

The Garand is worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Whether the specific circumstances of that sale are legal is a separate issue. E.g. I believe it is technically legal to sell a non-EU deact outside of the UK/EU.

 

Out in the real world, the law seems to be a bit of a dead letter. I’ve seen non-EU deacts openly advertised for sale and I’m reliably informed that ‘under the table’ trading by militaria dealers is quote “rife”.

 

 

 

Well, quite possibly, but I was more concerned with pointing out the legal requirements and didn't add that if he wanted to break the law it was perfectly possible.  

 

When arms fairs do resume, however far off that may be, perhaps I should try giving a nudge and a wink to some of the traders and asking what they've got under the table 'know what I mean, mate?'

[593jones]

2 hours ago, sc-em said:

Black powder hand guns are indeed still legal. More time consuming to work with because of the loading of the caps and balls, but there is something quite satisfying as I found out when I shot a Navy Colt a few months ago. The plume of smoke is also great.

An army colt is on my wish list when I finally complete my Firearms probation one the club reopens.

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0j9WgZwWMfWZSvdGqlm3h-YWw#Chipping_Norton

 

I had a Rogers and Spencer back in the day, as you say quite satisfying to shoot, although I was surprised how quickly the black powder residue gummed up the works, you don't see that on the films!

[Joolz]

It's a fallacy that cartridge handguns are banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to own any of the handguns used, for instance, in WW1. Live and in perfectly working condition, on a firearms certificate. You can even shoot them if you wish. There are many of us who do just that, perfectly legally. And not just WW1 handguns, but modern ones too...

[sc-em]

Quote

 

I thought for modern ones they needed to have an extended grip and 12" + barrel. I would quite fancy owning and shooting a Webley.

Yes, black powder is messy and difficult to quick fire.

[Joolz]

It is perfectly legal to own a fully working WW1 Webley revolver at home, on a firearms certificate. If you want to shoot it, you will need to keep it at a Heritage Firearms club. Likewise more modern handguns like Glocks, H&Ks, 1911A1s, all legal to own and shoot at heritage firearms clubs.

 

As for black powder, it can be made a little less messy by using substitutes like Hodgdon Triple 7 (which also has the advantage of not needing an explosives/RCA licence). But they are fiddly to load and shoot, and still need cleaning afterwards.

 

You can also try 'converted' revolvers that use nitro powders instead. Still fiddly to reload, but less mess.

 

But if you're a collector of WW1 militaria, 'live' Webley revolvers are very much legally obtainable.

[sc-em]

Right! I think one of those may well be on my next gun buying list. I have never heard of a Heritage Firearms Club, but I do recall someone mentioning you could keep revolvers at Bisley. Can I assume this is what is meant? Of course the trade off is one would not actually be able to show anyone the piece except for at the club, unlike my other guns, deacts or obsolete calibre. A pity!

[Joolz]

This explains the process of owning a Webley MkVI (and shooting it) at a Heritage Firearms Club:

http://www.hbsa-uk.org/HBSA-what-we-do/heritage-pistol-section-7-1-7-3

 

These are the current sites you can shoot such a firearm:

http://www.hbsa-uk.org/HBSA-what-we-do/heritage-pistol-section-7-1-7-3/heritage-pistol-sites

 

Or you can keep your Webley at home, but not shoot it. Or better still, get a couple, one for home and one for the club!

 

[593jones]

1 hour ago, Joolz said:

 

Or you can keep your Webley at home, but not shoot it. Or better still, get a couple, one for home and one for the club!

 

 

Just out of interest, do you know the attitude of the police to the collection of firearms?  Forty-odd years ago, when I collected firearms, and before I started shooting, the attitude of South Yorkshire Police was not overly enthusiastic.  Getting a variation for new acquisition was always an uphill struggle, even though I was invariably successful in the end.  In view of the world and society at present, I would have thought the attitude would be at least pretty much the same, if not more obstructive.

[Joolz]

Generally, not a huge amount has changed over those 40 years, but I've jotted down some more specific observations from my own experiences:

 

Firearms teams vary across the country. Some are more enlightened than others. Also, the attitude of the collector/shooter and how well they get on with the team is also important (some people are just unnecessarily confrontative and antagonistic with them).

 

For 'ordinary' S1 guns that you shoot, they tend not to like you having 2-3 of the same type, because it then becomes harder to justify 'good reason' for having 'yet another' .308 or suchlike, so you have to provide a convincing argument for having one more.. Don't forget the police remit is to actually reduce the number of S1 guns in private hands...

 

For 7.1 collecting, you can have as many as there are out there worth collecting, and because you are not going to shoot them (and have no live ammo on the premises for them) then they are seen as not so much of an issue (other than making sure you have enough secure storage). And you do need to be demonstrably serious about your collecting. You can't just say "well, I've got my grandad's medals, so I thought I would have a service revolver, too".

 

For 7.3, you need to be cleared by the Home Office, which kind of takes all the pressure off your local firearms team. If the Home Office say it's OK, then it's their problem. It helps a lot to have a good working relationship with the person running the 7.3 heritage firearms site - they are, sort of, your 'sponsor', they will be securing your gun and letting you shoot it, and if you're an idiot with them, then you lose your 7.3.

 

I have found that the police like you to put down something in writing, for their file, whenever there is a query over a gun etc. You really do need to know your stuff, you can't just say "I want one of them because I fancy it for a laugh". They have their own boxes they need to tick before letting you own something, you need to be aware of what those are.

 

I think the main thing is to be clear, knowledgeable, be prepared to argue your case convincingly, and maintain a good working relationship with them. Above all, don't do dodgy things or be vague and 'shifty' with them. If you do stuff that 'smells' wrong, then you can guarantee that they don't need much of a reason to shut you down, that is their job, after all.

[sc-em]

Hmm! It's a bit of a minefield, if the pun can please be excused on this occasion. The list of heritage clubs shows non anywhere near me, so it would be a non starter as a shooting option, which then would lead to it being stored at home in secure cabinets pursuant of all the regulation listed in the various sections, with no likelihood of ever being able to shoot it except through special dispensation from some such as Bisley. The more obvious route would be a deact that could be displayed but one could get a live black powder on a FAC but not a Webley of the WW1 era. 'Recognised collection' was an interesting term. I assume what constitutes this will be down to the local team.

[593jones]

16 hours ago, Joolz said:

Generally, not a huge amount has changed over those 40 years, but I've jotted down some more specific observations from my own experiences:

 

Firearms teams vary across the country. Some are more enlightened than others. Also, the attitude of the collector/shooter and how well they get on with the team is also important (some people are just unnecessarily confrontative and antagonistic with them).

 

For 'ordinary' S1 guns that you shoot, they tend not to like you having 2-3 of the same type, because it then becomes harder to justify 'good reason' for having 'yet another' .308 or suchlike, so you have to provide a convincing argument for having one more.. Don't forget the police remit is to actually reduce the number of S1 guns in private hands...

 

For 7.1 collecting, you can have as many as there are out there worth collecting, and because you are not going to shoot them (and have no live ammo on the premises for them) then they are seen as not so much of an issue (other than making sure you have enough secure storage). And you do need to be demonstrably serious about your collecting. You can't just say "well, I've got my grandad's medals, so I thought I would have a service revolver, too".

 

For 7.3, you need to be cleared by the Home Office, which kind of takes all the pressure off your local firearms team. If the Home Office say it's OK, then it's their problem. It helps a lot to have a good working relationship with the person running the 7.3 heritage firearms site - they are, sort of, your 'sponsor', they will be securing your gun and letting you shoot it, and if you're an idiot with them, then you lose your 7.3.

 

I have found that the police like you to put down something in writing, for their file, whenever there is a query over a gun etc. You really do need to know your stuff, you can't just say "I want one of them because I fancy it for a laugh". They have their own boxes they need to tick before letting you own something, you need to be aware of what those are.

 

I think the main thing is to be clear, knowledgeable, be prepared to argue your case convincingly, and maintain a good working relationship with them. Above all, don't do dodgy things or be vague and 'shifty' with them. If you do stuff that 'smells' wrong, then you can guarantee that they don't need much of a reason to shut you down, that is their job, after all.

 

I collected British military rifles, so the variations for which I was applying were '1 x .303 rifle'.  I eventually ended up with five, a Lee-Metford, a CLLE, a SMLE Mklll, a No.4 Mk 2 and a No.5.  I was applying for, I think, the fourth variation when the police officer who was visiting me said there was some concern that my collection was 'approaching gun-dealer proportions'.  I know some gun-dealers, they have considerably more than that!  Anyway, I suggested to the officer that it might be more suitable if I then applied for a dealer's licence, to which I received to response.  It was all good fun and ended successfully for me.

 

Regarding the number of firearms in private hands, it is not, or should not be, the remit of the police to try to reduce these.  The duty of the police service is to uphold and enforce the law, in this case, the Firearms Act.  Section 27 says that provided an applicant can satisfy the requirements of the act a certificate shall be granted.  Not may be granted, shall be granted.  

Edited 14 June , 2020 by 593jones

[Dave1418]

On 13/06/2020 at 08:00, Joolz said:

Generally, not a huge amount has changed over those 40 years, but I've jotted down some more specific observations from my own experiences:

 

Firearms teams vary across the country. Some are more enlightened than others. Also, the attitude of the collector/shooter and how well they get on with the team is also important (some people are just unnecessarily confrontative and antagonistic with them).

 

For 'ordinary' S1 guns that you shoot, they tend not to like you having 2-3 of the same type, because it then becomes harder to justify 'good reason' for having 'yet another' .308 or suchlike, so you have to provide a convincing argument for having one more.. Don't forget the police remit is to actually reduce the number of S1 guns in private hands...

 

For 7.1 collecting, you can have as many as there are out there worth collecting, and because you are not going to shoot them (and have no live ammo on the premises for them) then they are seen as not so much of an issue (other than making sure you have enough secure storage). And you do need to be demonstrably serious about your collecting. You can't just say "well, I've got my grandad's medals, so I thought I would have a service revolver, too".

 

For 7.3, you need to be cleared by the Home Office, which kind of takes all the pressure off your local firearms team. If the Home Office say it's OK, then it's their problem. It helps a lot to have a good working relationship with the person running the 7.3 heritage firearms site - they are, sort of, your 'sponsor', they will be securing your gun and letting you shoot it, and if you're an idiot with them, then you lose your 7.3.

 

I have found that the police like you to put down something in writing, for their file, whenever there is a query over a gun etc. You really do need to know your stuff, you can't just say "I want one of them because I fancy it for a laugh". They have their own boxes they need to tick before letting you own something, you need to be aware of what those are.

 

I think the main thing is to be clear, knowledgeable, be prepared to argue your case convincingly, and maintain a good working relationship with them. Above all, don't do dodgy things or be vague and 'shifty' with them. If you do stuff that 'smells' wrong, then you can guarantee that they don't need much of a reason to shut you down, that is their job, after all.

The end of you third paragraph is totally incorrect it is not the remit if the police to reduce the number of guns. They only enforce what is laid down by government in legislation. In most police areas it’s not actually done by police officers but civilian staff. Police areas enforce the interpretation of that differently and my area have always been exceptionally good.

[Joolz]

Dave, maybe I was being over zealous, 30-odd years as an advocate of gun ownership and witness to many, many pieces of restrictive legislation may have coloured my judgement.

 

The police, and their civilian FLO/FEO counterparts, do indeed enforce and administer the Acts. When the general aim of legislators, however, is to reduce the number of firearms in civilian hands (this is a stated UN imperative) then the police become de facto enforcers of this policy.

 

Over the years, I have seen them indulge in interpretations of the statutes that are not part of that law (restrictive conditions on licences, additional 'voluntary' requirements etc.). How the various acts are enforced has very much to do with case law (precedent), the Home Office guidance, and individual constabularies' interpretations of that law. It is not universally enforced the same way across all constabulary areas, as has been stated, and that in itself should immediately tell you that the police are not merely enforcers but also interpreters of it.

 

The Home Office guidance clearly states that granting a licence is at the discretion of the local chief constable, they decide if your 'good reason' is, indeed, 'good' (or if your 'good character' is indeed 'good'). It may be an 'automatic decision', as the Act seems to imply, but only if a great many discretionary boxes have been ticked.

 

Thankfully, I have a good working relationship with my local constabulary, and they are generally good at what they do, but that can also vary incredibly with staff turnover and the knowledge of individuals who work there, which should not be the case in an ideal world.

[mark holden]

Living in a large rural county my local constabulary have a pretty pragmatic approach to firearms ownership. In my experience its about providing FLO with as much justification for possession and meeting the requisite Home Office security requirements. I have just had my FAC renewed with added additional firearms. They returned my FAC within 3 weeks during lockdown.

 

On current UK deacts the legislation and trade in 'old spec' this is in my experience widely ignored. I pity the hard pressed police forces having to chase tens of 1000s of unregistered deacts with varying degrees of deactivation while trying to catch real criminals. No doubt they will catch and prosecute some poor s*d under the current laws 'pour encourager les autres' 

 

Mark

[Joolz]

The particular piece of legislation this original post is about, has been forced onto the UK statute books by the EU (and by the current government, too, who could have refused to act on it like, for instance, the Czech government). Our deactivation standards were already way above what was taking place in many of the other EU states. The fact that the police wanted nothing whatsoever to do with administering this policy (leaving it up to the Home Office to set up and run the register of deactivated guns) speaks volumes about how they see its enforcement moving forward. Even the Home Office wanted to waste as little as possible expenditure on administering this.

 

However, it is still law, and if they wanted to make an example, the mechanism is in place to do just that....