Screw cutting and the law.

[Scully]

You haven't breached the terms of your cert or the law. Even if you did it your self and kept the part you are not in unlawful possession of it as it is neither a firearm nor a component part of a firearm.

 

J.

Thought as much;think I would have come across this if it were otherwise.

[Scully]

Birmingham proof house says that if any metal is taken off any gun it needs reproofing

Yeah,they would.It was the Birmingham guntrade which first lobbied Parliament back in the 1800's (I think) about the influx of cheaper guns flooding the market(and therefore their income) from the Continent.Proofing was introduced as a result of the lobbying and became a means for the Birmingham guntrade to recoup some revenue.The Birmingham guntrade is long gone;but the Proof House remains.

[subsonicnat]

Am I missing something here? Why would anyone want the part back? If the above is true wouldn't you have to inform the Police as the act of cutting it off has become a 'variation'?If this is so,when I had my barrel chopped I have broken the terms of my FAC by not informing licensing.

You have hit the nail on the head mate, better than I could express it: Bang On.

And That is Why The Gunsmith Would keep it an LOG It..

Edited May 17, 2013 by subsonicnat

[JonathanL]

You have hit the nail on the head mate, better than I could express it: Bang On.

And That is Why The Gunsmith Would keep it an LOG It..

 

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. No one doing this work would 'log' a piece of chopped barrel in his register. To be honest, I think that any police force would suspect that an RFD of taking the piddle if they did this.

 

For the reasons previously mentioned; the chopped off piece of barrel is not subject to control. It is merely a piece of metal tube. You do not committ an offence by possessing it.

 

J.

Edited May 17, 2013 by JonathanL

[fortune]

JonathanL is 100% correct on this. Some others need to take the dog for a walk or go out shooting or do something. You've got too much time on your hands. perhaps you could empty out your boxes of cartridges and re fill them so thet the printing is in the same place.

An inch of tube does not constitute a weapon and if it did then run an agle grinder through it. And no one in any feo possition has the knowledge or want to engage in this nonsense. There are hardly any plods on the ground let alone this total waste of time

[welshwarrior]

I could see subsonicnats logic and glad it is not the case I've never done anything but scrap the off cuts when I've shortened a barrel. But could see the police getting worked up about a 10" rifled tube (they do over silly little things).

[mr smith]

I could see subsonicnats logic and glad it is not the case I've never done anything but scrap the off cuts when I've shortened a barrel. But could see the police getting worked up about a 10" rifled tube (they do over silly little things).

A 10" rifled tube is just that,a tube,now ream a chamber into that's another matter.

Edited May 18, 2013 by mr smith

[Dekers]

A 10" rifled tube is just that,a tube,now ream a chamber into that's another matter.

 

 

Ok, in a lot of cases rifle calibres are not pistol calibres, but some are (commonly .22lr of course), a 10" Rifled tube is a barrel (a component part) of a revolver!

 

...a 1" rifled offcut could also be a barrel for a snub nose revolver, so personally I see it as a barrel!

 

I'm not arguing with anyone on this subject, but it does ask some questions!

Edited May 18, 2013 by Dekers

[mr smith]

 

 

Ok, in a lot of cases rifle calibres are not pistol calibres, but some are, a 10" Rifled tube is a barrel (a component part) of a revolver!

 

I'm not arguing with anyone on this subject, but it does ask some questions!

 

Perhaps until it's fitted to a revolver it's still just a tube.There's nothing quite so clear cut as our firearm laws.

[subsonicnat]

 

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. No one doing this work would 'log' a piece of chopped barrel in his register. To be honest, I think that any police force would suspect that an RFD of taking the piddle if they did this.

 

For the reasons previously mentioned; the chopped off piece of barrel is not subject to control. It is merely a piece of metal tube. You do not committ an offence by possessing it.

 

J.

If the part is RIFLED , By Law it would be CLASSED as Barrel, no matter how long it is:

My Mate Had a bulge Cut out of his 357 Magnum, The part was NOT given back back because of the Law the way it Stands, and no it is not Bull **** and why are you being so Insulting in your Post, I think You have lost the plot, Probably, because you do not know the law of the Land:

Rant over, Please do not post again on this subject, you show yourself up:

[Scully]

If the part is RIFLED , By Law it would be CLASSED as Barrel, no matter how long it is:

My Mate Had a bulge Cut out of his 357 Magnum, The part was NOT given back back because of the Law the way it Stands, and no it is not Bull **** and why are you being so Insulting in your Post, I think You have lost the plot, Probably, because you do not know the law of the Land:

Rant over, Please do not post again on this subject, you show yourself up:

Personally I think Jonathan is correct,but this should be fun....can you hold on 'til I get down town for some popcorn?

[DaveK]

and why are you being so Insulting in your Post, I think You have lost the plot, Probably, because you do not know the law of the Land:

Rant over, Please do not post again on this subject, you show yourself up:

Unusual ................... VERRRRRY unusual for me to jump to Jonathan's defence but I think you're being a wee bit menstrual. Again, and I'll not make a habit of it, i agree with much of what Jonathan has posted and, in fact, rather than him having lost the plot as you suggest, I suggest in this case he has actually found it.

 

Now pick your teddy back up and play nice, this is (or was) a well delivered topic. I'm certainly interested but just in case ------ SCULLY, can you get me a bag as well please? And maybe we can go halves on a nice crate of Stella or Grolsch.

[CharlieT]

If the part is RIFLED , By Law it would be CLASSED as Barrel, no matter how long it is:

My Mate Had a bulge Cut out of his 357 Magnum, The part was NOT given back back because of the Law the way it Stands, and no it is not Bull **** and why are you being so Insulting in your Post, I think You have lost the plot, Probably, because you do not know the law of the Land:

Rant over, Please do not post again on this subject, you show yourself up:

JonathanL is correct, I'm afraid it's you who are incorrect and no amount of whistling emoticons will alter the fact. A few groves in a metal tube does not a barrel make.

 

Edited to add:

 

Before you accuse others of their lack of knowledge of the law, perhaps it would be wise acquaint yourself with it.

Just to help you along I will point you in the right direction, although I am somewhat amazed you are not familiar with it I suggest you read the 9th Report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, particularly annex C.

 

We all await your apology.

Edited May 18, 2013 by CharlieT

[Big Mat]

If the part is RIFLED , By Law it would be CLASSED as Barrel, no matter how long it is:

My Mate Had a bulge Cut out of his 357 Magnum, The part was NOT given back back because of the Law the way it Stands, and no it is not Bull **** and why are you being so Insulting in your Post, I think You have lost the plot, Probably, because you do not know the law of the Land:

Rant over, Please do not post again on this subject, you show yourself up:

You are still incorrect. Anyone can own a tube with some grooves in it. It only becomes a controlled part if it has had a chamber cut!

[Dekers]

You are still incorrect. Anyone can own a tube with some grooves in it. It only becomes a controlled part if it has had a chamber cut!

 

So a rifled barrel for a revolver with NO chamber cut in it isn't a barrel and isn't controlled?

 

Discuss!

[Big Mat]

 

So a rifled barrel for a revolver with NO chamber cut in it isn't a barrel and isn't controlled?

 

Discuss!

Grey area i suspect. I'm searching through the firearms act to see if it mentions it!

[Dekers]

Grey area i suspect. I'm searching through the firearms act to see if it mentions it!

 

 

As I said in my first post on this thread, I DON'T KNOW, but I thought threaded offcut barrels were controlled.

 

I don't see why a 10" (or frankly any length) of, for example .22lr chopped rifled barrel is not a barrel in its own right for a revolver, and therefore a component part of a firearm!

 

These are my feelings, it makes sense to me.

 

Can anyone find any reference to this in any of the Firearms Acts, obviously some here say it is a firearm and others say it isn't, there must be some documentary evidence to support one or the other claim!

 

[CharlieT]

 

 

As I said in my first post on this thread, I DON'T KNOW, but I thought threaded offcut barrels were controlled.

 

I don't see why a 10" (or frankly any length) of, for example .22lr chopped rifled barrel is not a barrel in its own right for a revolver, and therefore a component part of a firearm!

 

These are my feelings, it makes sense to me.

 

Can anyone find any reference to this in any of the Firearms Acts, obviously some here say it is a firearm and others say it isn't, there must be some documentary evidence to support one or the other claim!

 

See my post at 67

[al4x]

Probably the main reason for not being given the offcut is more to do with the price of scrap.

[Blackbart]

OK

 

Where does a moderator fit into all this ?

 

It is not rifled, has no chamber cut into it and certainly cant propel a bullet by itself YET......

 

It is classed as a component part of a firearm and is classed as such by licensing.

[CharlieT]

It is not classed as a component part but rather as an accessory to a firearm.

Moderators are not specifically named in the act but come under the part of the act that includes them in the term firearm which includes any accessory designed to diminish noise or flash.

Therefore firearms licensing are obliged to treat them as a "firearm" in their own right.

 

 

Edit

 

Forgot to add an emoticon after the above for your kind attempt to bring this thread back on track !! and at ask forgiveness for my tong in cheek reply

Edited May 18, 2013 by CharlieT

[Blackbart]

It is not classed as a component part but rather as an accessory to a firearm.

Moderators are not specifically named in the act but come under the part of the act that includes them in the term firearm which includes any accessory designed to diminish noise or flash.

Therefore firearms licensing are obliged to treat them as a "firearm" in their own right.

 

I have a letter sitting infront of me from firearms dept that says ,and i quote "please be aware that sound moderators constitute a component part"

[DaveK]

It is not classed as a component part but rather as an accessory to a firearm.

 

 

No it isn't. It's classed as a firearm. That's why it's entered onto your certificate in the firearms sections and why you can only have one if you have a slot for it on your ticket.

[Dekers]

I think there is some legs in this thread yet........................................... :whistling:

[DaveK]

I think there is some legs in this thread yet........................................... :whistling:

So are we going halves on a crate of Stella then?