US amendment

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by Noiseif

You can't get caught with heroin or a handgun and say to the judge "Well, heroin was only banned to stop people taking it for kicks, but I'm taking it for medical reasons so it's ok," or "Handguns were banned to stop people shooting up schools, but mine is for targets so actually it's not banned."

I appreciate the point you are making but you might want to choose some different examples, as in both cases above the argument does actually form part of a valid defence. Heroin is a Schedule 2 drug and can be prescribed for medical reasons. 'Handguns' are not banned and I know at least two magistrates who own 'handguns' for target shooting. A certain category of firearms that include the most commonly recognised handguns may only be available on a licence category that few people will ever be issued, but that's not what you have said.

You're confusing arguing against the law's existence with arguing that something isn't covered by the law.

[intrepid1]

I hope this helps..
Handguns & by that definition a revolver, self loading or single shot weapon
that is under 24" or 600mm that can discharge a missile by way of a self contained
powder charge ( usually nitro-cellulolse base) is section 5 prohibited weapon ( banned on UK mainland)
since the 1997 amendment to the 1968 firearms act I believe.

Black powder pistols are of course not banned as they are generally slow to load & quite fiddly.
Most of these are 0.36 to .429 caliber with a few exceptions.
These do fall into section 1 classification currently.

Long barreled revolvers & self loaders all must exceed 24" to meet section one
criteria currently.

Self contained gas cartridge weapons ( brococks, Taurus, pietta) that use compressed air to charge a small cartridge that is actually
a small self contained pressure vessel were mostly 0.177" & 0.22" . Most were revolvers.
These air guns were off ticket until 2004 where amendement to 1968 Firearms act was slipped through via an Anti-social behaviour act.
You were invited to submit these for addition to a Section firearm ticket or hand them in for destruction.
5764 were submitted for licensing & some of these are still being legally used for competition / plinking etc.
1500 were handed in for destruction

That only leaves 60 thousand unnaccounted for

Cheers
Darren

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by intrepid1

...is section 5 prohibited weapon ( banned on UK mainland)

I wish people would stop saying that. It's not banned, just re-classified. It is highly unlikely you (as an average member of the public) will be issued with an FAC that lets you carry a s5 firearm, but it is not 'banned'.

It's like presenting 'all big knives are banned' as a fair summary of s 139.

Sorry, going off on a tangent there (as if I never do that normally )

Edit: And if you want to get really pedantic (as I'm that kind of mood at the moment), the correct English term should be 'revolving pistol' rather than 'revolver gun' which was used in the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended). 'Revolver' would be the American term.

[intrepid1]

Rogue.
Yes, I would suggest that to most, you are being pedantic re ban vs reclassification.
If you were to put the term "re-classified" to many of the British shooting competitors & those current firearms certificate holders such as myself, who have been subject to the major fire-arms revisions from 1988 to now, you would find little support for your terminology.

1997 revision was a small arms ban prohibiting the general publics use of every small arm from rimfire target calibres
(where is our Olympic team practicing these days ? Oh yes, on the same ranges as me...in another country !) to large centre-fire calibres.
Not a ban eh. Were you subject to the compensation farce that ensued ?
Self contained gas cartridge weapons were "re-classified" from non-license to conditional section one certificate status in 2004.
The big difference is that owners (general public) could continue to own & use them.
(Those weapons not licensed became Section 5.)

There are a small ( count on one hand) number of individuals who have a small arm on a Section 1 for humane despatch of wounded quarry !
These are not allowed to be used for any practice or target shooting.
They are "revolvers with restricted capacity cylinders in most cases.


A general member of the public & section 5.
As I understand it, no certification class has existed to allow any british member of the public to carry long or small arms on his person within the UK mainland in modern times.
We all have to transport Section 1 in case / lock box to & from ranges & land on which we have permission, but I am unclear as to what "carrying S5" actually means.

I would be very interested to hear about your Magistrates who have the handguns of less than 24” length that are not black powder & legally have them for Target shooting within the UK
The UKPSA will be thrilled at this turn of events.

Cheers
Darren

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by intrepid1

Rogue.
Yes, I would suggest that to most, you are being pedantic re ban vs reclassification.

It's because I'm currently mentally "in the zone" which amplifies my normal annoying habits and leaves me itching for a bit of verbal roughage. I appreciate your patience with me and take nothing personally. At the moment, if you say 'black' I'm compelled to argue 'white' instead When you're carrying a hammer, every problem looks like a nail etc

Originally Posted by intrepid1

Rogue.
If you were to put the term "re-classified" to many of the British shooting competitors & those current firearms certificate holders such as myself, who have been subject to the major fire-arms revisions from 1988 to now, you would find little support for your terminology.

If it helps, I was at the time, and am now, an active club member and as well as shooting as often as SWMBO lets me, I also maintain a professional interest in forensics relating to firearms. 'Re-classified' is a more accurate description, irrespective of the level of support that it has. I've never been a popularist!

Originally Posted by intrepid1

As I understand it, no certification class has existed to allow any british member of the public to carry long or small arms on his person within the UK mainland in modern times.
We all have to transport Section 1 in case / lock box to & from ranges & land on which we have permission, but I am unclear as to what "carrying S5" actually means.

My apologies, you are absolutely correct. I should have said 'to have in their possession' rather than the more confusing and inaccurate 'carry'. It's the curse of using the wrong terminology. My fault for being a populist!

Originally Posted by intrepid1

I would be very interested to hear about your Magistrates who have the handguns of less than 24” length that are not black powder & legally have them for Target shooting within the UK
The UKPSA will be thrilled at this turn of events.

So would I! Alas, I indicated that they possessed and used 'handguns' (in one case, a Taurus LBR, in the second case, a BP revolver - though this was deliberately not specified in the original post) for target shooting. I did not say they possessed handguns that would fall under s 5. In fact, the central premise of the paragraph was that not all handguns fall under s 5...

[jdm61]

We have some legal theories over here in the Colonies (mostly applying to discrimination laws but occasionally to general statutes when their constitutionality is brought into question) that address a violation of the law or the way that a statute effects the public. For example, a company's hiring policy or a statute can be deemed to be improper either "as written" or "as applied" Point being that your firearms laws, for the most part, would likely be legally considered a ban on the possesion of handguns "as applied" over here. You can argue semantics about what the law says and the fact that one of two magistrates have pistols. The first counter argument over here would be that magistrates are not "citizens" but part of the government, so the argument is moot. The second would be that because the vast majority of people cannot EVER obtain a handgun for any reason, then the law is a ban as applied, regardless of what the statue says. But of course, you actually have to have a Consitutional or common law right to keep and bear arms and defend yourself in order for this to be true. Wait............don't you guys have a common law right to self defense?

[Noiseif]

*Stuff about guns*

Unimportant to this discussion. For all intents and purposes, handguns are banned. If we are to say that handguns, with a few contrived/obsolete exceptions like black powder pistols and ridiculously long revolvers, are not banned then the term really has no meaning at all. Heroin is banned in Britain. You CAN still get it legally, if you are a doctor or a scientist or a detective, but essentially it is banned. As it is with handguns.

Regardless of what is or isn't banned, the important thing is that what is banned is banned regardless of why you illegally acquired it or what the article was designed for.

Re: medicinal use of heroin as a defence: arguing that you were in possession of heroin for medicinal use is not a defence against being found guilty, it is in fact an admission of guilt. As is saying that you imported a switchblade for utility purposes. It is an argument for leniency, and I don't doubt that somebody who was very ill and taking heroin to alleviate their pain would get a lighter sentence than a gangster and junkie, and I don't doubt that an upstanding, otherwise law abiding person who imported a switchblade to take on fishing trips would get a lighter sentence than an inner city thug who can't explain why he imported one. But both would be found guilty.

The only argument I can see actually against assisted openers being switchblades is a technical one about how the knife is opened. The law says:

Any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife.

The prosecution would argue that with assisted openers you open the knife by "hand pressure applied to" the tang of the blade (the flipper) or a thumb stud. These can both fall under "or other device" so the fact that they are not a button is irrelevant. The laws says "a button, spring or other device." They would then say that since both flipper and thumb stud are "in or attached to the handle", the AO exactly meets the definition of a switchblade.

The flipper is part of the blade, it is not even a separate component. The blade is both in AND attached to the handle, the law only requires it be one of these! With flipper operated AOs I can't see any possible defence.

AOs with only thumb studs might stand a slightly better chance as you could argue that the stud is attached to the blade, not the handle, and is not contained within it. I think that's an extremely weak argument. The prosecution will say it is part of the knife as a whole, and that the blade is attached to the handle, so the stud is, by extension, attached to the handle. Even in a neutral climate I would not expect that argument to succeed, let alone the knife-averse climate today.

[thomas]

Lets just say that they are banned unless you meet a certain criteria. And if you do meet that criteria then they were re-classified.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by Noiseif

Unimportant to this discussion. For all intents and purposes, handguns are banned. If we are to say that handguns, with a few contrived/obsolete exceptions like black powder pistols and ridiculously long revolvers, are not banned then the term really has no meaning at all. Heroin is banned in Britain. You CAN still get it legally, if you are a doctor or a scientist or a detective, but essentially it is banned. As it is with handguns.

And we step closer to the issue. The 'handgun' discussion is actually presented to reach this point. If we are to say that knives, with a few contrived/obsolete exceptions like folding/non-locking knives, are banned then we are looking at the law through the filter of the populist. Rather, strip away that which clouds the issue and leave the concept behind in naked glory. Whether knives, guns or vehicles, the law places standards which must be met. That some standards may be steep does not equate to a ban. To argue otherwise is to leave no grounds on which to stand when the standards for knife ownership/possession are ratcheted up once again.

Why do we beat our breasts that people do not appreciate the subtlety of the law as it affects us, but then be just as happily dismissive towards other groups? This is not directed towards anyone in this thread, but as a general observation.

Originally Posted by Noiseif

Re: medicinal use of heroin as a defence: arguing that you were in possession of heroin for medicinal use is not a defence against being found guilty, it is in fact an admission of guilt.

My apologies, I think I may have misconstrued what you said or not clarified what I meant - or probably both. I was working on the basis that it was actually for medicinal use (and the person was one of those persons who would be allowed to possess it for this reason), not just that it was claimed to be for medicinal use as an excuse.

I should have to say that I am not exactly arguing against your points of law, but perhaps the conceptual interpretation.

I'm in one of those funny moods today, bear with me

[lozofbuk]

Originally Posted by Noiseif

The only argument I can see actually against assisted openers being switchblades is a technical one about how the knife is opened. The law says:



The prosecution would argue that with assisted openers you open the knife by "hand pressure applied to" the tang of the blade (the flipper) or a thumb stud. These can both fall under "or other device" so the fact that they are not a button is irrelevant. The laws says "a button, spring or other device." They would then say that since both flipper and thumb stud are "in or attached to the handle", the AO exactly meets the definition of a switchblade.

The flipper is part of the blade, it is not even a separate component. The blade is both in AND attached to the handle, the law only requires it be one of these! With flipper operated AOs I can't see any possible defence.

AOs with only thumb studs might stand a slightly better chance as you could argue that the stud is attached to the blade, not the handle, and is not contained within it. I think that's an extremely weak argument. The prosecution will say it is part of the knife as a whole, and that the blade is attached to the handle, so the stud is, by extension, attached to the handle. Even in a neutral climate I would not expect that argument to succeed, let alone the knife-averse climate today.

It's not a great argument I agree, but I have won the day with weaker arguments. You're quite right that that it doesn't need to be a button, I am only focused on the need for it to be attached on or in the handle.

Sure it could be said that it's attached to the blade which is subsequently attached to the handle but that is weak. I have seen the CPS convinced that items were not throwing stars simply because we could argue an item had a corner rather than a point.

And I also appreciate the media frenzy on anything knife related but that has not translated to the courts (on ownership, importation or sale) and the CPS are aware of this, they have an abysmal success rate on prosecutions under the knives act 1997 for instance. Attempted sale of illegal knives have warranted very small fines even in recent cases. and even a case of a guy madly swinging a sword in public resulted in him practically being told not to be so silly in future.

It's the CPS I deal with regularly and they don't take a singularly focused look at the world that a court is more likely to, they have many considerations to make before deciding if a case should be prosecuted, this is where all these little 'fair points' stand the best chance to sway their opinion. I also get the distinct feeling that they have far more pressing matters to spend their time on, do we prosecute the electrician for importing a utility tool for his work or the guy who's just shot a pedestrian for looking in his direction.

[Noddy]

I see that the Knife Rights group in the US is enthusiastically putting out a post on the US forums announcing that the amendment to the bill outlawing AOs etc. has been passed intact. Most lockers now appear to be exempt

Of course that is if I am reading it right

Here's a link to a post on the Spyderco site

http://www.spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40476

[jdm61]

Originally Posted by Noddy

I see that the Knife Rights group in the US is enthusiastically putting out a post on the US forums announcing that the amendment to the bill outlawing AOs etc. has been passed intact. Most lockers now appear to be exempt

Of course that is if I am reading it right

Here's a link to a post on the Spyderco site

http://www.spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40476

You are correct. The new bills modifies the 1950's anti-switchblade law and specifically defines what is NOT considered to be a switchblade as a matter of law. From what I read, this amendment was passed in the same way that many other little bills are. By attaching it to a BIG bill like defense funding that no President would dare to veto over something so minor. We do not permit "line item veto" at the Federal level so either the entire bill must be signed into law or killed and sent back to Congress. A lot of people complain that this sytem allows a lot of "pork" to get pushed through, but sometime, a less than perfect system can actually work to you advantage.

[isbjorn]

From what I hear Senator Jeff Merkely of Oregon put in his own amendment (not sure if it stayed in or not) that provided exemptions that protected knife makers in Oregon. (Oregon is home to CRKT, Gerber, Kershaw, Benchmade and a host of other smaller companies.)

I have family in Oregon, and (intelligent) people there were not very concerned about the bill banning assisted knives in the US. Customs only had the power to ban their importation. And a ban on import would have only moved more of the manufacturing into Oregon, and with it more jobs. Unemployment in Oregon is pretty darn high right now, so either way, Oregon stood to lose little.

[jdm61]

Originally Posted by isbjorn

From what I hear Senator Jeff Merkely of Oregon put in his own amendment (not sure if it stayed in or not) that provided exemptions that protected knife makers in Oregon. (Oregon is home to CRKT, Gerber, Kershaw, Benchmade and a host of other smaller companies.)

I have family in Oregon, and (intelligent) people there were not very concerned about the bill banning assisted knives in the US. Customs only had the power to ban their importation. And a ban on import would have only moved more of the manufacturing into Oregon, and with it more jobs. Unemployment in Oregon is pretty darn high right now, so either way, Oregon stood to lose little.

Actually, the switchblade law bans the sending of the knives in interstate commerce other than between FFL holders, so the assisted poenersa would have been treated the sme as automatics. The big propblem with that at the state level is that amny courts use that Federal standard in state cases involving things like "concealed carry" If state law isn't clear or refers to Federal law, then whatever the Customs service says is at a minimum, very persuasive, legally speaking. We have had issues with this even in normally friendly states like Texas.

[Catsnake]

Originally Posted by jdm61

If state law isn't clear or refers to Federal law, then whatever the Customs service says is at a minimum, very persuasive, legally speaking. We have had issues with this even in normally friendly states like Texas.

True.