and the site receives a small commission
Potential Jail for old gun collector
- Thread starter SFTPhotography
- Start date
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Welcome back - nice to have your input again
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Except in Northern Ireland
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes I am fully aware if that fact (with the exception that Garry mentioned)
My point was that private citizens are no longer entitled to own them at all.
(save for a couple of minor exceptions)
But reading through a lot of threads in the past people are just not aware,
of that fact. And the fact that only criminals now have handguns.
The Law abider's handed them in when they were told to.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
of which there are just short of 3000, the majority being ex RUC or Prison Service, which isn't quite the same thing as general public having guns for no reason other than a desire for self defence.
Yep, them and Police. As the public don't much go in for crime detection or prevention there's not really a good reason for them to have access to a handgun. I accept the sporting arguments. While thats a sporting desire rather than a 'need' for access, there could be ways round that if a Government was minded to do it, which at the moment they aren't.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Leaving aside self defence, there are various fairly minor exceptions to the general prohibition on handguns, these are really about the sport of pistol shooting using antique handguns, which would be of little (if any) use as a weapon, therefore of little possible use to a criminal.
BUT there are probably far more legally-held 'normal' handguns than most people realise...
Probably most are held by horse slaughterers (knackermen) who travel around destroying horses as required.
Then there are other types of slaughtermen, there were a lot of them involved with the last foot and mouth outbreak
Then there are country vets, although I don't personally know of any who still carry a gun, mostly they just can't be bothered with the restrictive conditions and simply call in a knacker when needed, which is a pity as it can take hours sometimes to get one.
And then there are a relatively small number of people who are allowed to hold a handgun for humane despatch of animals but who are neither vets nor slaughterers. It's all about "good reason"
All legally held handguns (except for the oddities such as muzzle loaders etc) are held on a Section 5 certificate which, theoretically, is controlled by the Home Office, not by the police, although in reality it's still the police that actually control it. Those of us who hold section 5 certificates are allowed to load only two rounds into the gun, which AFAIK is always a revolver, the police seem to have a thing about semi auto handguns.
Again AFAIK, there has only ever been one criminal act committed by someone who was in legal possession of a S.5 handgun. All other criminal acts with handguns have been committed by people who do not hold certificates, and most of those have been committed by people who don't hold lawful authority either.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Apparently a lot of legally held handguns in NI are not ex police or prison service, they are people who have been attacked or threatened by one side or the other of the sectarian divide.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's almost impossible to verify the claim that only one person has committed an offence who has a S.5 certificate. Crime stats aren't that detailed.
In general most firearms offences are lumped together.
However, in spite of the opposition on the subject, firearms offences are very much down, halved since 2002.
At just over 4000 thats still too many, but it's better than it was.
That may have been the case in the past, for example the number 10,000 PPW permits was quoted around 7 years ago. However, that has steadily reduced, and now there has to be a credible threat, as opposed to wanting one because you sit on one side or the other.
The majority now though are ex RUC and prison officers. Although perversely, Gerry Adams, that well known barman has a number of 'protection' staff who do have permits.
In general most firearms offences are lumped together.
However, in spite of the opposition on the subject, firearms offences are very much down, halved since 2002.
At just over 4000 thats still too many, but it's better than it was.
That may have been the case in the past, for example the number 10,000 PPW permits was quoted around 7 years ago. However, that has steadily reduced, and now there has to be a credible threat, as opposed to wanting one because you sit on one side or the other.
The majority now though are ex RUC and prison officers. Although perversely, Gerry Adams, that well known barman has a number of 'protection' staff who do have permits.
Last edited:
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yup bitter point. They killed the market so they were worthless and the compensation was a fraction of the cost
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
arent most of those captive bolt guns though , rather than actual pistols
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
No. Often, with humane despatch, it isn't possible let alone safe to get close enough to the animal to use a captive bolt gun. Obviously that doesn't apply in slaughterhouses, I'm talking about injured animals.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
fair enough - but in those cases why do you need a pistol rather than a rifle
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, not since 1937.
1937 Firearms Act
The 1937 Firearms Act incorporated various modifications to the 1920 Act based on the recommendations of a 1934 committee chaired by Sir Archibald Bodkin. The resulting legislation raised the minimum age for buying a firearm or airgun from 14 to 17, extended controls to shotguns and other smooth-bore weapons with barrels shorter than 20 in (510 mm) (later raised by the Firearms Act 1968 to 24 in (610 mm)), transferred certificates for machine guns to military oversight, regulated gun dealers, and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual firearms certificates.
The same year, the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger"
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1937_Firearms_Act
Steve.
Last edited:
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Fair question.
I think that a lot of people argue that, in rough country, it isn't always possible to carry a rifle but it's always possible to carry a handgun.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH As a shooter I would dispute that, however if its a legitimate reason for owning full bore pistol, then fair play.
On the first point, you can dispatch an animal, as you know, at a far greater distance,
with a rifle than a pistol.
Although I am quite capable, well was anyway, doubt I could do it now, of hitting the kill zone at 30 yards with a .357.
But of course that was a static target.
if I was called to take out, say a horse, in great distress, (and quite likely thrashing about)
I would still want to get very, very close,
with a hand gun to be sure of a one shot clean kill.
Nonsense.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In fact not since 1824 Vagrancy Act, which made possession of a number of different weapons an offence when carried with intent to commit a felonious offence.
Self defence is not a stand alone entity, in order to plead it, you need to have committed an offence ranging from common assault to murder, it's a defence against conviction not a protection from prosecution, and defences, then had to be put to a court for them to decide if they accepted it. It's only now the CPS who preempt that.
The majority of results from shooting someone were felonious offences, ie GHB to murder. Ergo PC Plod stops lord snooty and finds a gun in his possession. "Whats this for?" asks Plod. "Protection, I will shoot anyone who attacks me" Says lord snotty, "Your nicked my old china" says plod, "tell it to the judge".
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
The 1824 "Breathing Act" did indeed make possession of weapons an offence, when carried with intent, but it didn't make their possession an offence per se
The Prevention of Crime Act, 1953 was more specific, section 1 (from memory) makes it an offence to be in possession of an offensive weapon (of any kind) in a public place (a place to which the public may reasonably have access) unless the person in possession had lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and the burden of proof for the reasonable excuse lies with the accused.
"Reasonable excuse" changed to "Good reason" in later legislation. I remember reading that someone arrested in possession of a large, fixed bladed knife on the street was aquitted on the grounds of good reason, the good reason being that he had previously been attacked and was carrying the knife for self defence against a specific individual.
So, based on that aquittal, it seems that carrying a knife that also happens to be a prohibited weapon for the purspose of self defence can in fact be a good reason.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You have mixed up 2 offences
S1 Prvention of crime act
Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon made or adapted for causing injury, or intended for such use by him shall be guilty of an offence.
A knife is in general a made offensive weapon, and the defendant has to prove he had either lawful authority (where a person as a matter of duty carries a weapon, Police or Forces etc), or a reasonable excuse. Self defence is not a reasonable excuse alone.
The principle you rubbished, wrongly as normal, of a defence having to be made in answer to a charge, not as a protection from it applies and it is for the defendant to show that he had either of those to a court.
The 'Good reason' is part of S.139 Criminal Justice Act, and that refers to bladed articles. Again, it is for a defendant to prove he had either Good reason or lawful authority.
In reality there's not a great deal of difference between the 2 offences I think S139 was passed for the sake of the crowd, there was already legislation that covered the issue
Self defence is not lawful Authority it may be reasonable excuse, and if it is made out as a defence on the grounds of self defence a defendant would have to prove they were in immediate danger. That proof would have to be before a court.
S1 Prvention of crime act
Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon made or adapted for causing injury, or intended for such use by him shall be guilty of an offence.
A knife is in general a made offensive weapon, and the defendant has to prove he had either lawful authority (where a person as a matter of duty carries a weapon, Police or Forces etc), or a reasonable excuse. Self defence is not a reasonable excuse alone.
The principle you rubbished, wrongly as normal, of a defence having to be made in answer to a charge, not as a protection from it applies and it is for the defendant to show that he had either of those to a court.
The 'Good reason' is part of S.139 Criminal Justice Act, and that refers to bladed articles. Again, it is for a defendant to prove he had either Good reason or lawful authority.
In reality there's not a great deal of difference between the 2 offences I think S139 was passed for the sake of the crowd, there was already legislation that covered the issue
Self defence is not lawful Authority it may be reasonable excuse, and if it is made out as a defence on the grounds of self defence a defendant would have to prove they were in immediate danger. That proof would have to be before a court.
Last edited:
PatrickO
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,808
- Name
- Patrick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Got admit I didn't know that. I can understand why ex police or prison officers might need them, but still makes me uncomfortable. Maybe one day even in NI they won't be needed.
Last edited:
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Frankly I don't see the need, nor the point, and I'm unhappy about anyone carrying a gun for self defence. Not because I don't feel that some people, some of the time, need to be able to defend themselves, but because I doubt whether a handgun is an effective means of self defence.
In my (limited) experience of handguns - I've handled a few different calibres and types but am certainly no expert - they are far from accurate and most of them have very limited 'stopping power' which means that people can often be shot several times but they just keep on coming. Even the large calibre ones, such as .45, have very little real power compared to a rifle. That, and the limited accuracy, means that they aren't even very effective against an armed assailant.
Add in the time pressure, thinking time and the fact that 'good' people aren't likely to start shooting until some time after they have justification to do so, even if they just happen to have the gun in their pocket at the time, loaded and ready...
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm no expert either, but having shot many calibres over many years, and loaded my own ammo,
And "studied" ballistics at the same time. (although not need to use that for almost 20 largely forgotten now)
I would tend to disagree.
Yes a rifle is lethal at long and short range, and say a 9mm round of some 150 grains travelling at well over 1200 feet a second,
from a pistol at "close range" could pass clean through flesh.
So unless hit in the kill zone would have little immediate effect.
A .45 250 grain head travelling at around 800/ft/sec
Is going to make a mess as it exits.
The snub nosed .38's that were (Still are?) popular with the American police,
were indeed, not very effective unless used at very close range.
One final point, the hand guns that I have shot are very accurate,
well that is as accurate as the person holding them.
>2in groups @ 30 yards is easily obtainable with practice.
Granted pretty insignificant against say a .223 / .243 or even a .22 rim-fire.
But then they (Pistols) are for use at "close quarters"
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, it is really immediate effect that I meant to say. There are innumerable accounts of people who have been shot with a handgun at close range (usually by American police) who just kept coming. I've read accounts where the police officer thought that his shots had missed, because they had no apparent effect - it's only in the movies that anyone actually gets thrown backwards when hit... Any one of those shots may well kill or seriously injure them, but surely what matters to the person doing the shooting is the immediate, not the eventual effect...
The snub-nosed American police .38's, usually S&W, were, I agree, pretty useless. A barrel length of 2" is nowhere near enough to build up a substantial amount of energy.
And as for accuracy, I fully accept that some people (not me) can be pretty accurate with the first shot, the heavy recoil from a lightweight pistol means that shots can only be fired reasonably accurately if there is a long time gap between shots. The only handguns that I have personal experience of that don't have a pretty heavy recoil is the humble .22 rimfire, which seriously lacks stopping potential. The most powerful handgun I've ever fired is a .45. A 250 grain bullet is extremely heavy, but it's only travelling at something like airgun speed. Double the bullet weight and you get double the terminal velocity, but double the speed and you get 4 times the terminal velocity.
Problem is, most people have absolutely no idea - their 'knowledge' of guns comes from watching movies, where there is no recoil, almost no noise, and where the hero never fails to put the bullet exactly in the middle of the forehead even when he's shooting without even aiming
The snub-nosed American police .38's, usually S&W, were, I agree, pretty useless. A barrel length of 2" is nowhere near enough to build up a substantial amount of energy.
And as for accuracy, I fully accept that some people (not me) can be pretty accurate with the first shot, the heavy recoil from a lightweight pistol means that shots can only be fired reasonably accurately if there is a long time gap between shots. The only handguns that I have personal experience of that don't have a pretty heavy recoil is the humble .22 rimfire, which seriously lacks stopping potential. The most powerful handgun I've ever fired is a .45. A 250 grain bullet is extremely heavy, but it's only travelling at something like airgun speed. Double the bullet weight and you get double the terminal velocity, but double the speed and you get 4 times the terminal velocity.
Problem is, most people have absolutely no idea - their 'knowledge' of guns comes from watching movies, where there is no recoil, almost no noise, and where the hero never fails to put the bullet exactly in the middle of the forehead even when he's shooting without even aiming
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed, I have no idea what the guidelines are for the police out there.
But those little snub nose things really are pretty useless.
As before load / bullet weight, and even type, Hollow point FMJ etc.
has a baring on the end result, as you know.
So you would have assumed that they would load the "optimum"
I know that I would if I were in their situation.
We, the guys I used to shoot with all shot Practical pistol that is, if you don't already know,
"action shooting" some times static targets sometimes pop up targets, ranging from "half life size"
down to "small plates" (Bianchi) and always against the clock.
The load, case crimp and head weight all have different effects on recoil, and muzzle flip, the aim of the game is to customise a load
that is accurate and "pushes back" rather than "muzzle flips"
so there is negligible recovery time.
Some even "cheat" (not really, its allowed) and add a compensator, which further negates the muzzle flip.
I can't remember my "times" now, but I could can certainly empty a 7 shot mag from a .45 ACP
in under 5 secs and each round placed in the A zone.
Ah yes Dirty Harry and the like, I shot six rounds through a .44 magnum once.Problem is, most people have absolutely no idea - their 'knowledge' of guns comes from watching movies, where there is no recoil, almost no noise, and where the hero never fails to put the bullet exactly in the middle of the forehead even when he's shooting without even aiming
I have to be honest and say my hand hurt for two days afterwards.
I would estimate that the recoil was more
than 3" magnums through a (badly mounted) 12 bore.
And yes in this instance, it was a couple of seconds between each round.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Isnt that basically the point of hollow points and frangible rounds and such as used by some law enforcement agencies - ie that they dump all their energy in the target rather than over penetrating and killing old mrs miggins on the othersde of the street
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, that's the general idea, although it only helps old mrs miggins on the othersde of the street if they actually hit their target...
Outlawed for military use, but apparently legal by LEO's.
We do use them (perfectly legally) for shooting animals, but their effectiveness depends on the terminal velocity, e.g. a hollow point .22 rimfire doesn't expand very much, a frangible .17 centrefire, or even rimfire, explodes on impact. And a .243 doesn't even need to be a hollow point.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I like going to the ranges in the US. Last time we started with a 38 snub nose special, 38 auto, .44magum revolver, .44 magnum auto and finished with a desert eagle.
Didn't have an issue with hurt hand, but the desert eagle was loud and had a big kick. That was one you took care and single shots with.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Well let me quantify that a bit, as I said we used to load our own ammo, and you can get a lot of powder in a 44 case
The guy who it belonged to was rather enthusiastic with his loads
As an example, 4.5 grains in .45 with a 225 grain head is "plenty" and IIRC less than half fills a .45 acp case.
a 44 magnum case is pretty much 3x the length and with the same same grain head,
it would require around 10 grains of power.
Although "compression loads were frowned upon, There still a lot of ullage in a .44 case
Dessert eagle, yes at one time (Maybe still is I don't know) the only semi .357 on the market.
Very nice
Absolutely it is, but I wasn't sure of the legalities of the LEA's.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well let me quantify that a bit, as I said we used to load our own ammo, and you can get a lot of powder in a 44 case
The guy who it belonged to was rather enthusiastic with his loads
Was he russian with the name Baikal
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
LOL no, just a young lad that thought he knew "everything"Was he russian with the name Baikal
And was most indignant when he turned up with a Glock 20
and we asked of him "couldn't you afford a metal gun" ?
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
I acutely did very well on compensation. I had an ex RUC Ruger GP100, 9mm Browning and a custom build jobby that I won in a National competition. A very sad day when i handed them in to Farnham Police Station.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
I did very well on the compensation too, and especially on the ammunition
Whoever worked out the figures got them very wrong. There may have been people who had expensive models in pristine condition who lost out, but people who had 'well used' guns had nothing to complain about.
Whoever worked out the figures got them very wrong. There may have been people who had expensive models in pristine condition who lost out, but people who had 'well used' guns had nothing to complain about.
That would pretty much depend on what powder you're using. Just as a matter of interest, where did you pick up 'head' for bullet, I though it was only South Africans that said that!
Funny though, the 'head' of the cartridge is at the opposite end.......Dessert eagle, yes at one time (Maybe still is I don't know) the only semi .357 on the market.
Very nice
I think the Coonan is still available? There are quite a few autos chambered for the the .357 Sig too, which seems to confuse some people.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
True enough, I was "remembering" the data from the powered I tended to use "bullseye" quite a slow burner I tended to shoot more .45 acp than 9mm or .357
And would use a "faster powder" for those rounds.
Bullet is the complete item, ie case primer powder and head.Just as a matter of interest, where did you pick up 'head' for bullet, I though it was only South Africans that said that!
Well it is round (see what I did there
) here anyway I didn't know that
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought the desert eagle was a .44 auto (admittedly I got that info from reading Lee Child - its the gun Reacher uses in killing floor- so it could be b*****ks)
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Not total [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] no, many companies make guns for the popular rounds, in semi auto.
All I was saying, to the best of my knowledge / memory only one company IMI, ( Israel Military Industries) make a semi-auto hand gun that fires a .357 magnum round.
IMI and MRI (Magnum research industries (USA)) do indeed make a .44 semi also.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
There are a lot of myths on firearms / shotguns in books and on the web etc. such as you can't link a shotgun to a shooting at a crime scene.
It is, but it's also available in .357 Magnum and a few other calibres.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
to be fair that's not a myth - you can't because there's no way of comparing individual striations on the load (even if you recover all the pellets which you probably won't) to the barrel like you could with a bullet from a pistol or rifle.
admittedly if a shooter is stupid enough to leave a spent cartridge at the crime scene forensic might link that to a particular shot gun , or to a particular batch of cartridges but that's not quite the same thing
