A model engineer gone wrong?

[OldMetallerParticipant @oldmetaller]

I hope this guy isn't going to cause problems for those of us who make steam engines and tooling and other innocuous stuff in our workshops-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-41901404/guns-supplied-to-gangs-by-disgraced-firearms-dealer-revealed

-If you watch until 00:37 you'll see his (sharp intake of breath) LATHE!

Regards,

John.

[OldMetallerParticipant @oldmetaller]

Link to BBC news item

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Yes, we had a similar reaction with the supply of Lathes by Matrix Churchill to Iraq for making "Big guns" Problem I found was his "Reported" Don't care who buys them attitude.

Regards Ian.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Everyone scoffed heartily when it was suggested in the 1970s that smoking should be banned in pubs

At the very least, licencing is a possibility, random police checks, who knows

It all depends on the level of paranoia

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

According to Radio 4 this morning making ammunition is not illegal but owning the finished article is unless you have a licence. Which, tougue in cheek, probably lets most of us off the hook who find it hard to actually finish anything before we start something else.

:0)

Martin

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Believe me, firearms regulations in this country are very tight for people who have a firearms certificate. I would not want it any other way.

The real problem seems to lie with illegal gunsmiths. I know of one legal gunsmith, locally, who "bent" the law and got into hot water.

It isn't really too difficult to make firearms, most of us could do so if we had a mind to. Ammunition is another matter. That is difficult to come by unless you have an FAC. There does seem to be a bit of a loophole in that you can legally buy all the bits necessary to make ammunition, but as said above, it is illegal to hold the completed article. Maybe the law should be tightened up in this area. It would affect those who make their own ammunition, however, if the FAC regulations were applied to ammunition constituent parts then those that do produce their own ammunition would still be able to buy the component parts.

Full bore ammunition is expensive and considerable cost savings can ensue by making your own. more care can be taken and reproducibility can be as good as or better than commercial ammunition.

Andrew.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 15/11/2017 11:18:19:

Believe me, firearms regulations in this country are very tight for people who have a firearms certificate. I would not want it any other way.

The real problem seems to lie with illegal gunsmiths. I know of one legal gunsmith, locally, who "bent" the law and got into hot water.

It isn't really too difficult to make firearms, most of us could do so if we had a mind to. Ammunition is another matter. That is difficult to come by unless you have an FAC. There does seem to be a bit of a loophole in that you can legally buy all the bits necessary to make ammunition, but as said above, it is illegal to hold the completed article. Maybe the law should be tightened up in this area. It would affect those who make their own ammunition, however, if the FAC regulations were applied to ammunition constituent parts then those that do produce their own ammunition would still be able to buy the component parts.

Full bore ammunition is expensive and considerable cost savings can ensue by making your own. more care can be taken and reproducibility can be as good as or better than commercial ammunition.

Andrew.

Andrew

Obsolete calibres such as those in the article are a peculiar part of firearms licensing – they are legal under Section 58 of the Firearms Act 1968, if they are on the 'obsolete calibres' list supplied by the Home Office, to be held without a Firearms Certificate.

As far as ammunition is concerned, it is legal to acquire unprimed, or fired, cartridge cases.

Bullets, primers, or primed and unfired cartridge cases, most certainly ARE controlled, and it is not possible to buy these legally without a Firearms Certificate, worded appropriately.

Another peculiarity of licensing is that if you hold a pistol under S. 58, and legally hold ammunition for the same gun, you commit an offence if you then fire said ammunition from the gun – you can hold the gun as an antique, but if you want to fire the ammunition you hold through it, it has to be moved from Section 58 to Section 1 of the Act, and held as a live firing gun, rather than as an antique.

Section 58 also exempts from the requirement that you show good reason to possess said firearm, moving it to Section 1 reinstates that requirement.

I speak as a Firearms Certificate holder.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/11/2017 10:47:31:

According to Radio 4 this morning making ammunition is not illegal but owning the finished article is unless you have a licence. Which, tougue in cheek, probably lets most of us off the hook who find it hard to actually finish anything before we start something else.

:0)

Martin

Regrettably the article is wrong – or misleading. It is illegal to load or possess assembled ammunition if you do not hold the authorisation to possess the component parts, per my response to Andrew above.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

It appears I thought that this guy held the appropriate certificates and was acting within the law but supplying finished items to people who definitely were not so licenced.

I do defer to you lot regarding regulations as I know next to nothing on this subject. My comment was tougue in cheek about unfinished projects letting many of us off the hook.

regards Martin

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/11/2017 12:22:33:

It appears I thought that this guy held the appropriate certificates and was acting within the law but supplying finished items to people who definitely were not so licenced.

I do defer to you lot regarding regulations as I know next to nothing on this subject. My comment was tougue in cheek about unfinished projects letting many of us off the hook.

regards Martin

Martin

Yes I realised your point and I wasn't pointing the finger at you, but at yet another piece of fine journalism from the BBC where the facts were not checked.

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Unfortunately many people are murdered by knives in this country no chance of them being banned.

Tony

[richardandtracyParticipant @richardandtracy]

I do like the idea of being able to make a gun, but have no desire to do so. The technical challenge is high, but probably no higher than getting an LTD Sterling engine to work. And the latter is much more fascinating.

My main feeling after the article was – glad he was caught.

Regards

Richard.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by David Standing 1 on 15/11/2017 11:52:19:

…

Another peculiarity of licensing is that if you hold a pistol under S. 58, and legally hold ammunition for the same gun, you commit an offence if you then fire said ammunition from the gun – you can hold the gun as an antique, but if you want to fire the ammunition you hold through it, it has to be moved from Section 58 to Section 1 of the Act, and held as a live firing gun, rather than as an antique.

Section 58 also exempts from the requirement that you show good reason to possess said firearm, moving it to Section 1 reinstates that requirement.

I speak as a Firearms Certificate holder.

I don't think you can hold the ammunition under S.58. The very reason for S.58 exemption is that the ammunition for the obsolete calibres is no longer commercially made and theoretically unavailable.

I had a Snider .577 which I obtained as an antique under S.58 and then added to my FAC, prior to making ammunition for it from components which were just about obtainable at the time. When I'd done all the firing that I wanted, I disposed of remaining components and dropped it from FAC.

But I can't see that you could ever hold ammunition for an S.58 – that act of doing so would constitute an intention to fire, and move it to an S.1 requirement if it would fit the S.1 definition in a current calibre.

I also think that an S.58 pistol would never move to S.1. I'd expect that holding ammunition for that would turn it to an S.5 – effectively a prohibited weapon except by specific Home Office authorisation.

Was his defence that the manfacture of ammunition didn't in his case constitute an intention to fire because it wasn't for his own use? But I'm hoping it would still be an offence to supply such ammunition to unauthorised persons.

The problem with our incremental firearms laws is that they have not only become difficult for legitimate shooters to comply with, but may also contain weaknesses for the prosecution of people whom most would agree are serious offenders.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Mick B1 on 15/11/2017 13:19:28:

Posted by David Standing 1 on 15/11/2017 11:52:19:

…

Another peculiarity of licensing is that if you hold a pistol under S. 58, and legally hold ammunition for the same gun, you commit an offence if you then fire said ammunition from the gun – you can hold the gun as an antique, but if you want to fire the ammunition you hold through it, it has to be moved from Section 58 to Section 1 of the Act, and held as a live firing gun, rather than as an antique.

Section 58 also exempts from the requirement that you show good reason to possess said firearm, moving it to Section 1 reinstates that requirement.

I speak as a Firearms Certificate holder.

I don't think you can hold the ammunition under S.58. The very reason for S.58 exemption is that the ammunition for the obsolete calibres is no longer commercially made and theoretically unavailable.

I had a Snider .577 which I obtained as an antique under S.58 and then added to my FAC, prior to making ammunition for it from components which were just about obtainable at the time. When I'd done all the firing that I wanted, I disposed of remaining components and dropped it from FAC.

But I can't see that you could ever hold ammunition for an S.58 – that act of doing so would constitute an intention to fire, and move it to an S.1 requirement if it would fit the S.1 definition in a current calibre.

I also think that an S.58 pistol would never move to S.1. I'd expect that holding ammunition for that would turn it to an S.5 – effectively a prohibited weapon except by specific Home Office authorisation.

Was his defence that the manfacture of ammunition didn't in his case constitute an intention to fire because it wasn't for his own use? But I'm hoping it would still be an offence to supply such ammunition to unauthorised persons.

The problem with our incremental firearms laws is that they have not only become difficult for legitimate shooters to comply with, but may also contain weaknesses for the prosecution of people whom most would agree are serious offenders.

 

 

 

Mick, you are right, but I probably didn't make myself clear, what I meant is that the obsolete pistol could be held on S.58 legally, you can hold obsolete but live ammunition quite legally as a collector (BUT under S.1, NOT S.58 of the 1968 Act, as you rightly say), it is only if you bring them together and fire them in the gun you are guilty of an offence as the gun is no longer S.58.

And sorry, yes I wasn't totally thinking straight previously, and was thinking of cases where this had happened to wall hanging rifles – a rifle that would otherwise be legal under S.1 but held under S.58 would have to revert to S.1 if you wanted to fire ammunition through it; but an obsolete pistol can be moved to Section 7 of the 1997 Amendment Act (not Section 1 of the 1968 Act, and Section 7 of the 1997 Act overrides S. 5 of the 1968 Act in this respect), in the same circumstances, i.e. if you want to fire it. There are restrictions on this, and it is a complicated area.

 

 

 

Edited By David Standing 1 on 15/11/2017 13:43:13

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I hope this guy isn't going to cause problems

There will be repercussions but I think that bloke will get what he deserves – a very long stretch – so he will cause no more problems, other than looking after him in a suitable institution.

There will always be 'bad apples' at some point in time. I hope he gets charged with complicity to murder or some such equivalent.

Of course, so far he is only charged with these several offences and not yet proven guilty on any of the charges against him. At times, the law is an ass, but hopefully this case will be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

If it were a terrorism type investigation the outcome would likely be easier to get a suitable conclusion. I do hope the police case is watertight.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Tony Pratt 1 on 15/11/2017 12:27:18:

Unfortunately many people are murdered by knives in this country no chance of them being banned.

Tony

I would appear that because of the sentences imposed for carrying knives there has been an increse in the carrying of acid as a weapon of choice. Maybe if possesion of a lathe were to be legally frowned apon it would increse the ownership of 3D printers.

Laws do change behaviour but not neccesarily in the way you want, not that there is anything wrong with owning a 3D printer.

regards Martin

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/11/2017 14:03:23:

Posted by Tony Pratt 1 on 15/11/2017 12:27:18:

Unfortunately many people are murdered by knives in this country no chance of them being banned.

Tony

I would appear that because of the sentences imposed for carrying knives there has been an increse in the carrying of acid as a weapon of choice. Maybe if possesion of a lathe were to be legally frowned apon it would increse the ownership of 3D printers.

Laws do change behaviour but not neccesarily in the way you want, not that there is anything wrong with owning a 3D printer.

regards Martin

There is a government consultation paper as we speak on acid, and knife sales.

Unfortunately there is also a section in there on banning certain types of legally held rifles, which will be another restriction on classes of legally held firearms in this country, which will have no effect whatsoever on guns used in crime.

What is easier – go find the criminals and illegal guns, which is difficult, or go knock on the door of a legal gun owner – the Home Office know where I am!

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

I was looking for suppliers of ammunition for my small bore rifle, all legal and above board. One place I checked on is now sending me emails referring me to their web site. The company is selling bullets, primers and propellants over the web WITHOUT any checks. So such items ARE available with no checks. All one needs are spent cartridges and reloading tools!

This is the sort of thing that should be banned, there is either a loophole in the regulations, or these people are selling stuff illegally.

Andrew.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 15/11/2017 14:21:02:

I was looking for suppliers of ammunition for my small bore rifle, all legal and above board. One place I checked on is now sending me emails referring me to their web site. The company is selling bullets, primers and propellants over the web WITHOUT any checks. So such items ARE available with no checks. All one needs are spent cartridges and reloading tools!

This is the sort of thing that should be banned, there is either a loophole in the regulations, or these people are selling stuff illegally.

Andrew.

Andrew

Not Brownells, is it? They are US based, but wouldn't sell them in the UK without the appropriate certification.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

No not Brownells. The company is UK based. I am not going to quote their name, for obvious reasons. I have already reported this to my local FAC office. I hope they will take appropriate action.

Andrew.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 15/11/2017 14:49:40:

No not Brownells. The company is UK based. I am not going to quote their name, for obvious reasons. I have already reported this to my local FAC office. I hope they will take appropriate action.

Andrew.

They will take that seriously.

Many of the firearms infringements of late have been registered firearms dealers who have got ideas above the law, they should expect that law to come down on them with full weight.

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

Posted by Tony Pratt 1 on 15/11/2017 12:27:18:

Unfortunately many people are murdered by knives in this country no chance of them being banned.

Tony

Knives do not exist to kill people. Guns solely exist for that purpose.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Chris Trice on 15/11/2017 15:30:21:

Posted by Tony Pratt 1 on 15/11/2017 12:27:18:

Unfortunately many people are murdered by knives in this country no chance of them being banned.

Tony

Knives do not exist to kill people. Guns solely exist for that purpose.

 

Actually, they do not.

Amongst other things, I shoot clays, paper targets, pigeons, deer and much more. All of the guns used in those pursuits were designed for exactly that, not to kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people do.

 

 

Edited By David Standing 1 on 15/11/2017 15:39:01

[Alan Waddington 2Participant @alanwaddington2]

Posted by OldMetaller on 15/11/2017 10:03:15:

I hope this guy isn't going to cause problems for those of us who make steam engines and tooling and other innocuous stuff in our workshops-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-41901404/guns-supplied-to-gangs-by-disgraced-firearms-dealer-revealed

-If you watch until 00:37 you'll see his (sharp intake of breath) LATHE!

Regards,

John.

I wouldn't worry about it…….It's a bit like assuming the Police would suspect everyone with a Greenhouse of growing cannabis…..

[TeVeParticipant @teve]

Posted by Circlip on 15/11/2017 10:16:35:

Yes, we had a similar reaction with the supply of Lathes by Matrix Churchill to Iraq for making "Big guns" Problem I found was his "Reported" Don't care who buys them attitude.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer singing:

"Once the rockets are up, who cares were they get come down ?

That's not my department" says Werner von 'Braun.

**LINK**

[Author]

Posts