Component parts to none certificate holders

[parapilot]

I think I already know the answer but thought I'd double check. If I wanted an engineering company, or a none SGC holder to Reblue / do

Some minor (none structural) work etc to shotgun barrels, is it legal to leave the barrels only with them? Or would they have to be a rfd / ticket holder?

 

What parts can be held by none ticket holders? Where does it become a shotgun requiring sgc?

[mark@mbb]

I would of said two barrels are no different than two gas pipes or any steel pipes so i wouldnt worry about the barrels

[Beretta28g]

Barrels are component parts, so i would think they cant be left with a non ticket holder. Im not sure tho

[la bala]

i would have thought the only thing non component is the fore end

[GingerCat]

As above, barrels are component parts and require a cert to possess.

[StuC]

Great question (I don't know the answer)

 

Barrels are just 2 tubes welded together

Fore end is just a bit of wood with a spring

Stock and action is a bigger bit of wood with more springs and pins.

[evo]

stock,barrel,forend, on their own they are harmless but put together it can be deadly,,i,m sure as long as it was just one piece can,t see it being a problem,

 

so if the trigger guard needed re blueing a non cert holder could not do it dont think thay would stand up in court somehow,but i may be wrong

[Steel100]

Many police forces will argue that they are component parts. However .... That applies when the components are from a s1 firearm. Technically, components from a s2 shotgun are treated differently in law and smooth bore barrels of 24" or longer should be OK. locally, the police don't like this and I'm not inclined to push the matter. Basically, might be worthwhile asking the view of your local police before making a decision.

[robbiep]

Home Office Firearms guidance, section 2.8

 

...the term “shot gun” also includes

any component part of a shot gun...

[Alanl50]

They would require a certificate to hold, just think of deativated guns, the barrels would be plugged for a non certificate holder to possess

[JonathanL]

Home Office Firearms guidance, section 2.8

 

...the term “shot gun” also includes

any component part of a shot gun...

 

Selective quoting there. The full section says;

 

"2.8 For the purposes only of sections 3(1)

and 45(2) of the 1968 Act, and in the

definition of “firearms dealer” in section

57(4), the term “shot gun” also includes

any component part of a shot gun and any

accessory to a shot gun designed or adapted

to diminish the noise or flash caused by

firing the gun. For the purposes of all other

sections/Acts, a component part of a shot

gun is not a shot gun. See section 57(1)

of the 1968 Act."

 

So, in the OP's case he could not have someone repair it if they were doing it by way of trade as they would need to be an RFD. He could give it to a mate or to someone who was doing it for free or at cost as they would not be doing it by way of trade or business.

 

For all other purposes, parts of shotguns are not firearms in their own right so you cannot be charged with unlawful possession for having a pair of barrels.

 

J.

Edited February 1, 2013 by JonathanL

[robbiep]

Selective quoting there. The full section says;

 

"2.8 For the purposes only of sections 3(1)

and 45(2) of the 1968 Act, and in the

definition of “firearms dealer” in section

57(4), the term “shot gun” also includes

any component part of a shot gun and any

accessory to a shot gun designed or adapted

to diminish the noise or flash caused by

firing the gun. For the purposes of all other

sections/Acts, a component part of a shot

gun is not a shot gun. See section 57(1)

of the 1968 Act."

 

So, in the OP's case he could not have someone repair it if they were doing it by way of trade as they would need to be an RFD. He could give it to a mate or to someone who was doing it for free or at cost as they would not be doing it by way of trade or business.

 

For all other purposes, parts of shotguns are not firearms in their own right so you cannot be charged with unlawful possession for having a pair of barrels.

 

J.

Unless you can actually quote sections 3(1), 45(2), 57(4) and 57(1) of the 1968 act, or have them to hand to confirm that they are not relevant to this case, then my selective quotes should probably be viewed as correct.

Your interpretation makes assumptions : namely that the various sections referred to would not be relevant to a private individual that carried out work on a set of barrels,etc. , and would only apply to a business.

I see nothing in what you have posted to back up that assumption, so it is just speculation.

If Mr Bloggs (retired, doing work only at cost) had a set of barrels in his house to re-blue, and the police happened to call around, and Mr Bloggs does not have a SGC, are you really suggesting that he is not going to find himself wearing a nice set of steel bracelets ?

[Steppenwolf]

Again this is just legislation for legislation sake. A barrel on it's own is not dangerous. So what the act is saying is that if I have a problem with a shotgun I have to go to a gunsmith and pay ripoff prices while my mate who has a degree in engineering and metal working is prohibited to work on a bit of barrel?

[robbiep]

A barrel on its own is not dangerous

A forend on its own is not dangerous

A stock on its own is not dangerous

A trigger mechanism on its own is not dangerous

 

See the big picture yet ?

[Mikaveli]

Don't know exactly how it relates to the specific sections of the law, but my general rule of thumb is no one without a certificate can handle any 'pressure bearing part' - so no breach, barrel, firing pin, action etc.

 

If someone without a cert wants to carve some wood fine, but I'm not letting them have access to anything involved in the firing of a gun...

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I'm quite surprised and disapointed by some of the replies to this thread!

 

The law is the law, we HAVE to comply!

[parapilot]

I'm quite surprised and disapointed by some of the replies to this thread!

 

The law is the law, we HAVE to comply!

 

What is the law it seams unclear most people have different opinions. That's what we are discussing!! I once got a firing pin sent by post, no cert check... I can get extra barrels for an exsistins S2 without entering it on ticket. So where is the line???

[JonathanL]

Unless you can actually quote sections 3(1), 45(2), 57(4) and 57(1) of the 1968 act, or have them to hand to confirm that they are not relevant to this case, then my selective quotes should probably be viewed as correct.

 

I can Section 3(1) creates the requirement for anyone who sells, tests, proves, manufactures, etc firearms by way of trade or business to be registered as a firearms dealer.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/3

 

Section 45(2) deals with the consequenses of a dealer who is convicted of offences. Sectgion 57(4) is the secdtion which defines certain words used in the Act.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/45

 

Section 57(1) is the section which deals with the actual point at hand. It reads;

 

"57 Interpretation.

 

(1)In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and includes—

 

(a)any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and

(b)any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and

©any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;

 

and so much of section 1 of this Act as excludes any description of firearm from the category of firearms to which that section applies shall be construed as also excluding component parts of, and accessories to, firearms of that description."

 

So because section 2 guns are excluded from section 1, component parts of them are not firearms according to the definition of the word given in section 57.

 

Your interpretation makes assumptions : namely that the various sections referred to would not be relevant to a private individual that carried out work on a set of barrels,etc. , and would only apply to a business.

 

It isn't an assumption because the offence relates to dealing in, repairing, proving, etc, firearms by way of trad or business, Section 3 specifically says that. So, if you get someone who is engaged in the business of carrying out mechanical repairs on things or re-finishing things, to do some work on your shotgun he commits an offence because he is doing it as part of his trade or business. If it's Joe Bloggs round the corner who happens to know how to do it and does because he likes doing it then he doesn't need to be an RFD because he isn't doing it by way of his trade or business so doesn't commit the offence.

 

If Mr Bloggs (retired, doing work only at cost) had a set of barrels in his house to re-blue, and the police happened to call around, and Mr Bloggs does not have a SGC, are you really suggesting that he is not going to find himself wearing a nice set of steel bracelets ?

 

Yes, I am. That is what the Law says and what the Home Office tell us in their guidance. Section 57 says that component parts of firearms are firearms in their own right. However, it goes on to say that if a type of firearm is excluded from section 1 then it's component parts are excluded from the definition of 'firearm' - ie; they are not firearms in their own right. Hence, you commit no offence in possessing them.

 

J.

 

Again this is just legislation for legislation sake. A barrel on it's own is not dangerous. So what the act is saying is that if I have a problem with a shotgun I have to go to a gunsmith and pay ripoff prices while my mate who has a degree in engineering and metal working is prohibited to work on a bit of barrel?

 

Nope, see my post above.

 

J.

 

I'm quite surprised and disapointed by some of the replies to this thread!

 

The law is the law, we HAVE to comply!

 

Who is suggesting that we shouldn't?

 

J.

[HDAV]

Component parts are pressure bearing parts (breach/barrel etc) not any part of a gun........stocks, springs, pins are not controlled (sec1 or 2). Sec2 barrels are not controlled AFAIK and can be in possession of none cert holder but not the complete gun...... You can post a barrel but not a complete gun and i wouldn't leave an action and barrel set with a none holder.

Edited February 1, 2013 by HDAV

[evo]

i cannot see how, just a guy round the corner is given a set of barrels to re blue is breaking the law, as long as he has not got the complete gun, if the SGC holder has the rest of the gun locked up and gives the barrels only to someone to re-blue then where is it an offence, fair enough if he passed on the complete gun.

 

considering we are all cert holders it is very strange how there is a difference of opinion regarding this topic,,so what is the law ? is he breaking the law just by re-blueing a barrel when that is the only part of the gun he has in his possesion ? IMO i personally dont think he would be commiting an offence

[Redgum]

When I had the barrel shortened and rethreaded on my old Remington the Rfd that did the work would not let me have the 4inch piece of barrel that had been cut off. His explaination was that it was still classed as a firearm, maybe because it was rifled I don't know. After a few hundred rifles though he would have a nice bonus from the scrappy.

[parapilot]

When I had the barrel shortened and rethreaded on my old Remington the Rfd that did the work would not let me have the 4inch piece of barrel that had been cut off. His explaination was that it was still classed as a firearm, maybe because it was rifled I don't know. After a few hundred rifles though he would have a nice bonus from the scrappy.

 

Section 1 barrels I'm quite sure is a no go, we are talking about section 2 barrels here, it's a different ball game between the two.

[evo]

When I had the barrel shortened and rethreaded on my old Remington the Rfd that did the work would not let me have the 4inch piece of barrel that had been cut off. His explaination was that it was still classed as a firearm, maybe because it was rifled I don't know. After a few hundred rifles though he would have a nice bonus from the scrappy.

 

you should of demanded that he gave you it back as it was your barrel,,when you get a gold ring re sized a lot of jewellers keep the piece of ring but you are entitled to ask for it back, i cant understand why he would not give you the four inch piece back,,prob because he has already thrown it in the scrap heap

[rarms]

Section 1 barrels I'm quite sure is a no go, we are talking about section 2 barrels here, it's a different ball game between the two.

 

If it doesn't have a chamber cut then a rifled barrel is legal to own

 

Individual parts of a section 2 gun are not controlled parts as components, only when assembled into the actual complete gun do they become a controlled item. Barrels for a sec 2 can be possessed without being listed on the certificate.

[JonathanL]

i cannot see how, just a guy round the corner is given a set of barrels to re blue is breaking the law, as long as he has not got the complete gun, if the SGC holder has the rest of the gun locked up and gives the barrels only to someone to re-blue then where is it an offence, fair enough if he passed on the complete gun.

 

considering we are all cert holders it is very strange how there is a difference of opinion regarding this topic,,so what is the law ? is he breaking the law just by re-blueing a barrel when that is the only part of the gun he has in his possesion ? IMO i personally dont think he would be commiting an offence

 

You are quite correct and the Home Office agree with that. With Section 1 firearms, you need a certificate, or to be a dealer (or otherwise exempt) to possess component parts. As far as section 2 components go (shotguns), you do not because section 57(1) says that shotgun component parts are not firearms in their own right.

 

J.