The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Sandgroper wrote:From http://lewisnedas.co.uk/Cases/firearms-cases.html Note the last sentence...

This case was effectively a test prosecution on whether the Buckmark firearm, as modified by Westlake Engineering, is a 'rifle' or 'pistol', and so whether it can be placed on a club firearm certificate. Following a trial lasting 5 days at Kingston Crown Court, in which the jury were directed that they should only convict if they were satisfied this firearm is a pistol, Mr Wells was acquitted of both counts on 26 November 2010. Whilst the jury's decision in this case does not formally set a precedent, gun clubs wishing to acquire such a modified Buckmark rifle, may wish to refer their local police firearms licensing department to the outcome in this case as being highly persuasive.

What a fascinating link. I wonder if Mike Wells has grounds to take the Met to court for malicious prosecution or abuse of process? It certainly looks like they're engaged in an extended witch-hunt against him personally, and he's won every single case brought against him.

The legal precedent would have to be set at the Court of Appeal. That would involve a lot of blood and treasure being spilt, and I'd think the police would fight tooth and nail to prevent it from getting to that stage, rather than have it put in black and white that their powers were being taken away from them for good.

Andy632 wrote:

Sandgroper wrote:From http://lewisnedas.co.uk/Cases/firearms-cases.html Note the last sentence...

This case was effectively a test prosecution on whether the Buckmark firearm, as modified by Westlake Engineering, is a 'rifle' or 'pistol', and so whether it can be placed on a club firearm certificate. Following a trial lasting 5 days at Kingston Crown Court, in which the jury were directed that they should only convict if they were satisfied this firearm is a pistol, Mr Wells was acquitted of both counts on 26 November 2010. Whilst the jury's decision in this case does not formally set a precedent, gun clubs wishing to acquire such a modified Buckmark rifle, may wish to refer their local police firearms licensing department to the outcome in this case as being highly persuasive.

Well done Grant, I'll maybe put in a club variation for one or two.

Yes please!

Question. So while the case does not set a precedent, does it mean that technically there is no such thing as a LBR/LBPs, only rifles?

If this is the case, then I should be able to acquire one as I have the authority for a .22 rifle.

Sandgroper wrote:Question. So while the case does not set a precedent, does it mean that technically there is no such thing as a LBR/LBPs, only rifles?

If this is the case, then I should be able to acquire one as I have the authority for a .22 rifle.

It has been suggested by others that FAC holders should stop requesting variations for rifles and pistols and simply specify 'section 1 firearms'. To specify anything else would be unwise as the Act does not clearly define a rifle or a pistol only minimum barrel and overall lengths.

N.B. I wouldn't do that as my FIO is a reasonable guy and playing that game would tick him off. The problem appears to be the HO making up guidance to suit their agenda rather than sticking to what is prescribed in law.

IsleShoot wrote:

Sandgroper wrote:Question. So while the case does not set a precedent, does it mean that technically there is no such thing as a LBR/LBPs, only rifles?

If this is the case, then I should be able to acquire one as I have the authority for a .22 rifle.

It has been suggested by others that FAC holders should stop requesting variations for rifles and pistols and simply specify 'section 1 firearms'. To specify anything else would be unwise as the Act does not clearly define a rifle or a pistol only minimum barrel and overall lengths.

N.B. I wouldn't do that as my FIO is a reasonable guy and playing that game would tick him off. The problem appears to be the HO making up guidance to suit their agenda rather than sticking to what is prescribed in law.

surely you mean the local firearms dept re-interpreting the HO guidence to suit their particular take on it?

Could be a case of double bubble? HO interpret the Act and form guidance, then local Firearms Licensing etc... Add further interpretation?

What is clear is that the Act does not prescribe what a pistol is and what a rifle is only minimum barrel and overall lengths, ergo nether the HO nor local plod can stipulate that a club may not hold an LBF or LBR as a club gun. If a club can demonstrate good reason to possess either or both then they should be granted authority.