Page 3 of 4
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:53 pm
by Sim G
Gaz wrote:With my crime reporting hat on, "case dropped because witness suddenly refused to co-operate with prosecution" tends to actually mean "a CPS grownup looked at our case a few days before it was due in court and told us not to be so bloody stupid".
You don't suppose some hack printed the witnesses details in the local rag which then subjected them to intimidation, do you.....? :roll:
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:58 pm
by Christel
Firing pin...bit of a grey area that one.
Personally I would not give a firing pin to someone who did not have the relevant authority.
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:08 pm
by Sim G
christel wrote:Firing pin...bit of a grey area that one.
Personally I would not give a firing pin to someone who did not have the relevant authority.
Why?
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:18 pm
by Christel
Sim G wrote:christel wrote:Firing pin...bit of a grey area that one.
Personally I would not give a firing pin to someone who did not have the relevant authority.
Why?
Because that is how I read the Firearms Law 2002, Guidance to the Police.
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:25 pm
by Sim G
That's the Guidance, not law and that has since been superceeded, but, can you give me a precis of what it said and how it brought you to the conclusion?
I'm not fight picking or point scoring, just genuinely curious. Firing pins are not restricted. I understand completely RFD's wishing to ensure that only those with a genuine and lawful requirement obtain parts, even if not restricted, but that is a matter of conscience and not legislation...
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:32 pm
by Christel
Sim G wrote:That's the Guidance, not law and that has since been superceeded, but, can you give me a precis of what it said and how it brought you to the conclusion?
I'm not fight picking or point scoring, just genuinely curious. Firing pins are not restricted. I understand completely RFD's wishing to ensure that only those with a genuine and lawful requirement obtain parts, even if not restricted, but that is a matter of conscience and not legislation...
It is this bit here I am not happy about, too grey an area for me to not include the firing pin as a component part. This is by the way taken from the 2013 revised edition.
13.74 The term “component part” may be held (according to case law) as including (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:43 pm
by Sim G
OK, I see where you are coming from now, but, as with the question I posed earlier, is the firing pin actually pressure bearing? I'd say no and I'm struggling to see how they could be on the whole...
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:52 pm
by Christel
Sim G wrote:OK, I see where you are coming from now, but, as with the question I posed earlier, is the firing pin actually pressure bearing? I'd say no and I'm struggling to see how they could be on the whole...
SimG, I do agree with you, just that when a license is at stake then I would not chance it, it may only be a guidance however is it really ok to chance it by being of an opinion instead of being on the safe side?
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:41 pm
by Sim G
Christel, don't get me wrong, I fully understand where you're coming from. Your justification is your business, please pardon the pun....!
Re: Gun Parts Charges Dropped
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:30 am
by Chuck
Firing pins exert pressure do the not - thus causing the primer to do it's thing. Firing pin doesn't stop anything flying back does it, especially as it is on a spring?