9.4mm KNIL model 91 revolver

[$harp$hooter]

So in the wake of the recent Woolwich incident it has come to light that both of the pathetic murderers have been charged with the possession of a 9.4mm KNIL model 91 revolver. My understanding is that such a revolver is subject to S58 as an antique/obsolete calibre - I am also aware that this revolver blew up when one of suspects tried to fire it at police (taking his finger with it)

Given this information do you think this will lead to another re-think on the laws surrounding S58 weapons and also why would it have blown up? My guess is they tried making their own ammo that wasn't the right size for the weapon 9.4mm.

I would like a sensible debate on this as I understand how this incident has incited some people's tempers and flared emotions.

Thanks

[Blackstuff]

Someone could be shot and killed with a handgun from now until forever and they wouldn't un-prohibit handguns or get the politicians to admit that they achieved nothing with the handgun bans. The legislation was written to allay the grief and anger of family members of murder victims and the unthinking majority and it will never be unwritten.

[$harp$hooter]

Someone could be shot and killed with a handgun from now until forever and they wouldn't un-prohibit handguns or get the politicians to admit that they achieved nothing with the handgun bans. The legislation was written to allay the grief and anger of family members of murder victims and the unthinking majority and it will never be unwritten.

I know - I'm just thinking that if this is identified as how they got the gun in the first place, then the government may jump on the back of it and try to re-legislate in the same way they did with the blanket ban on handguns.

[froggy]

salut,

To preach devil-advocate. I shot occasionaly 1873 revolver in France. Despite its relatively weak 11x17R munition, the revolver was nick-named "le batisseur d'Empire/Empire builder " from the numbers of stubborn Fuzzy-Wuzzies that were dispatched succesfully with it in the name of the advance of French Civilisation .

Yet, in the UK it is an obsolete weapon, I believe available to anybody above the age of 18 yrs old....

Now I'd welcome the solid evidence that a free pistol (1 shot, 22Lr, barrel 30/35 cm, trigger pull around or lower than 100 grammes) is more dangerous and need to be prohibited... Unless the legislator had in mind the shooter's boloxs that would indeed be likely to be blasted away immediatly should the user attempt to pull it from his trousers waist band or pocket during an arm robbery ??

[dromia]

I think speculation like this futile, they broke the law in many ways and if they tried to make ammunition for an obsolete firearm and use it then they broke the law again and it should go on their charge sheet.

Time enough to get aerated over any legislation when it looks like being brought forward.

[Gaz]

I notice they've only been charged with possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. No ammunition offences, despite those being virtually guaranteed.

Unless, of course, one of the Woolwich bombers held an FAC with authority to possess 9mm... (which would explain the thing blowing up on him, wrong-sized ammo)

[Chuck]

Gaz, I think if he had an FAC the mainstream media would be all over it by now and politicians would be declaring a state of emergency in yet another jerk reaction.

Wonder why he hasn't been charged over the ammo though?

[The Cupcake Kid]

One thing is always certain in cases like this and that is that we never get all the information through press releases, news reports and the media in general. Why there isn't a charge over the ammo is yet to be explained, but there was a report that someone else had been charged with supplying the revolver to him, so we know the possession was illegal from the start.

The Home Office guide for the Police regarding antique firearms is not straightforward, but it is clear that these conditions will apply in this case:
From:
Firearms Law
Guidance to the Police
2002

"ANTIQUE FIREARMS

8.1 Section 58(2) of the 1968 Act exempts
from the provisions of the Act – including
certificate controls under sections 1 and 2
and prohibition under section 5 – all antique
firearms which are sold, transferred,
purchased, acquired or possessed as curiosities
or ornaments.

8.4 It remains the case that where an antique
firearm is possessed for any other purpose
than as a “curiosity or ornament”, all the
provisions of the Firearms Acts from 1968 to
1997 will continue to apply, including those
relating to certificate requirements. The intent
to fire the gun concerned, even with blank
charge or ammunition (for example for the
purposes of historical re-enactment displays),
would take it beyond the terms of “curiosity
or ornament”. This does not preclude the
possession of such firearms on certificate for
the purposes of collection and occasional
firing. Where the “good reason” for
possession is collection and not target
shooting, section 44 requiring membership of
a club to be named on the certificate is not
applicable.

Note (i) – The exemption does not apply
to ammunition, and the possession of live
ammunition suitable for use with an
otherwise antique firearm may indicate that
the firearm is not possessed as a curio or
ornament."

Whether the revolver was acquired legally under Section 58(2) in the first place by the person who supplied it to the Woolwich two, I don't think we know yet.

As the calibre is obsolete and ammunition and reloading components are very difficult to get hold of (although a bit of Googling does bring up evidence of very old boxes of ammo for sale fairly recently) my suspicion is that none of them knew it was 9.4mm and they loaded it with 9mm cartridges with the inevitable result. Shame they hadn't test-fired it before leaving home that day...

[Tower75]

Given this information do you think this will lead to another re-think on the laws surrounding S58 weapons...
Thanks

I think the sad fact is, if the poor lad was shot to pieces with the S58 revolver, then yes, most definitely. However, as the poor lad was “only” hacked to pieces with a sharp piece of metal, then for some reason the public and politicians’ mind-set seems to be, “No harm, no foul” when it comes to the revolver being on-site.

However, that said – it might be the simple truth that people don’t know the firearms legislation. After all, “handguns are banned in the UK, right?” So if the murderer used a handgun to kill somebody; “well, what can we do? They’re already illegal?”