ARmy Rumour SErvice

**HE117** · 03-07-2012, 08:50

Originally Posted by LeoRoverman

Tricky one this, but would argue if your force calls them shot guns go with it as S2 have different criteria. would be interested to know how old they are as they could be classified as antiques. The only issue with that is the availabilty of Ammunition-which you can clearly get. The only other place they fit is S1,not drastically different but not as advantageous as S2. Besides you have pointed out that you can fire brenneke rounds from shotguns.

Sorry for being thick, but what/which posting are you referring to?

Muskets, being a firearm that is smoothbore and "has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter" is a "shotgun" under the definition of the Act and is therefore Section 2.

All ammunition is Section 1 (FAC) except shotgun "cartridges" containing more than five projectiles.

Some police forces interpret this as meaning that you cannot fire ball out of a musket. This is incorrect! The Act refers quite specifically to weapons and ammunition. A musket is clearly defined as a S2 "shotgun" and cannot be anything else.

Possession of a shotgun cartridge with less than 5 projectiles (i.e. Brenneke) must be authorised on a S1 Firearms Licence. It is the possession of the ammunition that is controlled, not the weapon! However as a muzzle loading musket is not loaded using a cartridge, then there is no restriction.. (apart from the need to have and Explosives licence to aquire & hold gunpowder..)

Now, some Police try to argue that it is down to interpretation, and that muskets were not considered in the framing of the Act. They cannot take this line, as Muskets existed before the framing of the Act, and therefore must be considered to have been "known" and considered by the drafters of the Act. As they made no reference to muzzle loaders or muskets in the Act, you cannot therfore argue that they must now be considered differently. You can interpret the Act when considering new types of weapons such as cartridge air and converted blank firers or nail guns, but you cannot argue that weapons which existed and were used before the Act have somehow magically become a problem.

Cannon are again quite straightforward if you interpret the Act carefully:

Miniature muzzle loading cannon (smooth or rifled) with a barrel length less than 24" and a bore less than 2" is by definition a "muzzle loading pistol" and is S1. These can be fired with either blank or ball according to the conditions on the FAC.

Miniature breech loading cannon with a barrel length less than 30cm and an overall length of 60cm is S5 (prohibited unless held as a signalling apparatus - ie, a starting cannon which are S1).

Blank ammuniton with a base diameter of 1" or over are S1, otherwise they are not controlled.

A Smoothbore Cannon with a barrel length of 24" or more and with a bore less than 2" is a S2 Shotgun as defined by the Act and is therefore the same as a Musket.. (if it was rifled, it would be S1)

A Cannon with a barrel length more than 24" but with a bore greater than 2" is S1.. (provided you are only firing blank or solid shot, however standby for some fun & games with conditions!)(subject to minimal barrel length of 30cm and an overall lenght of 60cm)

Obviously this information is provided as guidance only, however if our Police force wishes to go "off piste" from this, then NRA MLAGB and HBSA will be interested..

Edited to Add...

"Section 58" states "Particular Savings" which are conditions where the Act does not apply..

58(2) states - "Nothing in this Act relating to firearms shall apply to an antique firearm which is sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or ornament."

Two points here..

1. The section does not define "Antique firearm", however this is generally taken to mean manufactured over 100 years ago and for which ammunition is not in commercial manufacture. As Ugly says, there are HO lists of obsolete calibres and non obsolete calibres, regrettably they have not been kept up to date, and of course there are some anomolies such as the 8x50mm Lebel, which is on neither list! Also, this section cannot be used to cover modern reproductions of whatever design age. You need to be careful here with things like Jingly Martinies and Jezales.. if they are over 100 years old, OK, but if they are not, they are S1 or S2!

2. S58(2) DOES NOT allow you to fire weapons! Firing a S58(2) weapon immedately demonstrates you are not holding the weapon as "a curiosity or ornament". You are NOT ALLOWED to hold ammuniton under S58(2) this ONLY applies to firearms.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

**LeoRoverman** · 03-07-2012, 09:31

Ah I see your point, that's why I asked the age of the weapons, because in my day we had loads of people trying to import Indian made Brown bess Muskets as antiques and they always failed because we knew they were new reproductions. But no you are quite right about your interpretation if no exemption is made in the act in relation to any kind of weapon, then there is no exemption. I've got some old shrivenham notes down the shed and will take a look just out of interest. I have to say that my impression was that Police, lumbered as they are with the control of Firearms take the view that firearms are a complete pest and I remember having a bit of a slanging match in private about component parts with a policeman. So I suppose you can take that side but as a rule the instructors there could be quite dismissive. My own view is that we have had so much knee jerk legislation that we need to simplify as much as possible.

**Beerhunter** · 03-07-2012, 13:09

Originally Posted by HE117

The section does not define "Antique firearm", however this is generally taken to mean manufactured over 100 years ago

Actually there was a Home Office directive (can't remember the source, it may be in "Guidance") which stated that that any reproduction manufactured after 1939 is to be considered modern and therefore not able to benefit from Section 58.

**ugly** · 03-07-2012, 13:28

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Actually there was a Home Office directive (can't remember the source, it may be in "Guidance") which stated that that any reproduction manufactured after 1939 is to be considered modern and therefore not able to benefit from Section 58.

That was to take into account the fact that we were still making muzzle loaders for the African Trade up until the 1st world war and they werent 100 years old by 1968 but could be considered obsolete as made solely for black powder. The Modern reproduction trade came about as folk for some reason like to stuff muzzles but sensibly didnt want to blow old antiques and themselves into pieces.
There has to be a point where newly made as reproduction stars after original even if retailed fairly late ends!

**HE117** · 03-07-2012, 20:41

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Actually there was a Home Office directive (can't remember the source, it may be in "Guidance") which stated that that any reproduction manufactured after 1939 is to be considered modern and therefore not able to benefit from Section 58.

As I understand it, the law does not recognise reproductions. It it the actual date of manufacture that is relevent. If the weapon was reproduced over 100 years ago (ie an old Kyber pass special) it could still be considered an antique as far as the Act is concerned, however a modern reproduction of a 14th Cent Hand Gonne would be considered to be a modern gun..

**ugly** · 03-07-2012, 20:53

Originally Posted by HE117

As I understand it, the law does not recognise reproductions. It it the actual date of manufacture that is relevent. If the weapon was reproduced over 100 years ago (ie an old Kyber pass special) it could still be considered an antique as far as the Act is concerned, however a modern reproduction of a 14th Cent Hand Gonne would be considered to be a modern gun..

Correct

Sent from my Blackberry 9780 using Tapatalk

**Beerhunter** · 04-07-2012, 10:22

Originally Posted by HE117

As I understand it, the law does not recognise reproductions. It it the actual date of manufacture that is relevent. If the weapon was reproduced over 100 years ago (ie an old Kyber pass special) it could still be considered an antique as far as the Act is concerned, however a modern reproduction of a 14th Cent Hand Gonne would be considered to be a modern gun..

However the Home Office consider the relevant date for "modern" to be post-1939, not 100 years ago. Anything manufactured after that date is considered to be a firearm not a "curiosity or ornament."

**ugly** · 04-07-2012, 13:30

Exactly, the rules are funny as the 100 years is a customs definition and acceptable across the antiques trade but the HO decided upon a date of manufacture and also different dates where self contained cartridge arms are concerned.

**LeoRoverman** · 04-07-2012, 15:44

Originally Posted by ugly

Exactly, the rules are funny as the 100 years is a customs definition and acceptable across the antiques trade but the HO decided upon a date of manufacture and also different dates where self contained cartridge arms are concerned.

I was having exactly this discussion about cars the other week. The Customs Rules allow some sub 100 year items in on the basis of their having contributed something to the unique advancement of of their particular niche, can't exacty remember the format of wording, but they have to be quite special. The principal arguement as I recall is that there is no manufacturer of ammunition for the weapon/ or its not readily available and that it is rare, possibly going to a collection. It's that distinction between an antique and a thing of intrinisc interest. It's that paradox, a Luger can be over over 100 years old, but as there are loads of them and the ammo can be easily got or manufactured they need a licence. To that extent it could be a modern weapon that has served a purpose and cannot be used again. Also in terms of licences just because they are old doesn't exempt them from licences should they be required by the act which means that their age in many cases is irrelevant. But something is niggling me so I'll keep on digging