illegal?

[Mr_Yarrow]

A quick double check:



This would fall foul of the knuckle duster law wouldnt it?

Have seen it for sale on a UK website is all (where I borrowed the pic from) and just wanted to check I wasnt going mad etc

Rgds

P.S
I also realise its bloody ugly before anyone points that out, Im not really interested in one just wanted to check the legality aspect.

[PS_Bond]

That's a D guard, not a knuckle duster.

Until the CPS decides to redefine things to suit itself.

[Ropeman]

That's a D guard, not a knuckle duster.

Until the CPS decides to redefine things to suit itself.

Until the CPS manage to persuade a tame judge to redefine things

[wanderingblade]

I'd personally class this as a knuckleduster variation. Can't remember the exact wording but I seem to recall something along the lines of '......covering all or part of the knuckles......' being in the prohibited items list.

I'll have a look.

[tomtom]

Hope not, its a safety feature.

[wanderingblade]

Here we go:

1. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons) shall apply to the following descriptions of weapons, other than weapons of those descriptions which are antiques for the purposes of this Schedule:

(a) a knuckleduster, that is, a band of metal or other hard material worn on one or more fingers, and designed to cause injury, and any weapon incorporating a knuckleduster.

Although technically not worn 'on' but 'over' the hand, this may be too close to call.

[Tantalus]

I cant see that anyone wrote knuckledusters into the law to prevent people using these.

If a policeman was unhappy to see a thing like that I am pretty sure he would charge you for the pointy bit and not the handle.

Tant

[Mr_Yarrow]

Here we go:

1. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons) shall apply to the following descriptions of weapons, other than weapons of those descriptions which are antiques for the purposes of this Schedule:

(a) a knuckleduster, that is, a band of metal or other hard material worn on one or more fingers, and designed to cause injury, and any weapon incorporating a knuckleduster.

Although technically not worn 'on' but 'over' the hand, this may be too close to call.

That was what I was thinking of but couldnt remember where it was. I suppose the reason its not is because you dont where it on any finger and its designed for safety.

Im with Peter then and am glad to see common sense prevails here at least

Rgds

[ElThomsono]

Here we go:

1. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons) shall apply to the following descriptions of weapons, other than weapons of those descriptions which are antiques for the purposes of this Schedule:

(a) a knuckleduster, that is, a band of metal or other hard material worn on one or more fingers, and designed to cause injury, and any weapon incorporating a knuckleduster.

Although technically not worn 'on' but 'over' the hand, this may be too close to call.

I think in this case it'd be ok, as it's clearly designed to protect your hand. IMO you'd be fine.

Edit: Cross posted

[wanderingblade]

That was what I was thinking of but couldnt remember where it was. I suppose the reason its not is because you dont where it on any finger and its designed for safety.

Im with Peter then and am glad to see common sense prevails here at least

Rgds

I know what you mean - but our definition or common sense may not tally with a Judge!

In my experience, if it's a close call, leave well alone. I've got the confiscation notices from Customs to show how these laws can be read differently by different people.

[Kane]

Good question - but where does that leave swords - lots have the hand covered and surely that falls under the same regulation yet they're sold all the time with no restriction.

[Tantalus]

I know what you mean - but our definition or common sense may not tally with a Judge!

In my experience, if it's a close call, leave well alone. I've got the confiscation notices from Customs to show how these laws can be read differently by different people.

Oh please stop scaremongering

A confiscation notice from customs is not , never has been, the same as a judges opinion in a court of law as far as the law is concerned.

Customs have been wrong in the past , and tend to err on the side of caution. As noted several times on this forum customs decisions can easily be overturned simply by getting in touch with them.

Tant

[tomtom]

Can some on clarify for me whether or not these would fall foul of section 141

[wanderingblade]

Oh please stop scaremongering

A confiscation notice from customs is not , never has been, the same as a judges opinion in a court of law as far as the law is concerned.

Customs have been wrong in the past , and tend to err on the side of caution. As noted several times on this forum customs decisions can easily be overturned simply by getting in touch with them.

Tant

This is not scaremongering - its a clear example that this item falls into one of those grey areas - open to interpretation by Customs officials, Judges and Police.

Just think it's wise not to sail too close to the wind.

[Mr_Yarrow]

Can some on clarify for me whether or not these would fall foul of section 141

Cheeky

I hadnt thought of it like that, was more thinking about the knives with the militaryesque hand guards that people have said before are illegal in the UK.

But upon refelction I think the differnce is that those were sculpted like a Knuckle duster and designed to cause injury.

Rgds