LBR restrictions/law

[judders]

Evening all,

I recently added a slot for a .44 LBR to my FAC and seem to remember reading that there were restrictions around letting others use it etc.

Problem is, my FAC doesn't list any such restrictions and after half an hour of googling I can find anything documented.

Have I imagined it, or am I just crap at googling stuff?

Cheers,

Jud

[meles meles]

You need Guidance, ooman....

[judders]

This is probably true. What about the LBR stuff though? tongueout

[Dougan]

Sadly I think that is right - you're not allowed to try other peoples pistols unless you have the equivalent slot on your cert...which is daft, as how do you know if you want one if you can't try it?

[IainWR]

The restrictions are exactly the same as for any other firearm. It may not be possessed unless one holds a Firearm Certificate relating to it or is otherwise exempt from the requirement to hold one.

The main problem is that it is widely held that an LBR does not fall within the exemption at S15(1) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. This is an undecided area of law - Mike Wells was acquitted in a court of first instance over a charge of lending or borrowing (I can't remember which side of the transaction he was on) a LBP. Since it didn't go to appeal and was in relation to a similar but not identical issue, that decision is persuasive but not binding. The alternate view hinges on whether a LBR is a "rifle" for the purposes of S15(1). My personal opinion, which I have supplied to more than one enquirer, is that if the principles of legal interpretation are properly followed it is not, and thus the exemption cannot apply. Note that the jury in the Wells case reached a decision that implies they did not agree my view.

Iain
NRA Firearms Manager

[meles meles]

et en anglais plein, ooman ?

[judders]

The restrictions are exactly the same as for any other firearm. It may not be possessed unless one holds a Firearm Certificate relating to it or is otherwise exempt from the requirement to hold one.

The main problem is that it is widely held that an LBR does not fall within the exemption at S15(1) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. This is an undecided area of law - Mike Wells was acquitted in a court of first instance over a charge of lending or borrowing (I can't remember which side of the transaction he was on) a LBP. Since it didn't go to appeal and was in relation to a similar but not identical issue, that decision is persuasive but not binding. The alternate view hinges on whether a LBR is a "rifle" for the purposes of S15(1). My personal opinion, which I have supplied to more than one enquirer, is that if the principles of legal interpretation are properly followed it is not, and thus the exemption cannot apply. Note that the jury in the Wells case reached a decision that implies they did not agree my view.

Iain
NRA Firearms Manager

Thanks Iain. Having had probably too much vino this evening, please excuse my dimwittedness. Is it actually written down in law that only the LBR FAC holder can use it? Basically, am I breaking the law if a fellow FAC holder has a go of my shiny new LBR(when I manage to locate one)?

[IainWR]

The full version of my opinion on this runs to about a page and a half. It's a rather complex argument, but it all hangs around the privileges of membership of a Home Office Approved Club, which is (in loose language) that you can borrow a rifle or muzzle loading pistol without having a certificate provided that:

you are a member of a Home Office Approved Club
possessing a rifle (or MLP)
as a member of the club
in connection with target shooting.

The obvious problem with a LBR is that it is stretching ordinary language a long way to call it a "rifle". However, there has been a court case where it was held that when a LBP was lent (by Mike Wells of the Sportsman's Association), the offence that he was charged with was not committed. So if a similar case went to court regarding a LBR, the subsequent court might (but is not bound to) give regard to the decision in R v Wells.

Can't produce my full write-up as it's at work and I am on holiday starting today for three weeks.

Iain

[meles meles]

can't one argue that as the bore of a LBR is rifled, it is, de facto, a rifle... ?

[IainWR]

Is it actually written down in law that only the LBR FAC holder can use it? Basically, am I breaking the law if a fellow FAC holder has a go of my shiny new LBR(when I manage to locate one)?

Answering your first point. Not specifically a LBR, but generally, yes, S1 Firearms Act 1968 says you can't have a gun without a FAC unless one of the exemptions applies, and the issue here is that the exemption that is used by club members (S15(1) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988) to borrow rifles may not apply to LBRs (we don't know definitively because it turns on the definition of "rifle" for the purposes of S15 and there hasn't been a court case that created a binding precedent).

On your second point: It matters not whether the other guy holds an FAC, unless that FAC contains an entry specifically authorising possession of your LBR. What matters is whether the exemption at S15 applies to LBRs. My opinion is that it doesn't. The court in R v Wells took the opposite view.