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

Blu wrote:Sconie, I hope you get your rifle back mate. You may want to think about finding another RDF me thinks.

Blu

Blu.. I wouldn't blame the RFD. The SNP brought in a set of knife laws that nobody can understand although Strathclyde Police have tried and failed to prosecute at least one shop for selling knives..

Knives and batons seized from store....

Victor Morris owner and director cleared of banned weapons sales

It's crazy, my local pound shop is selling packs of six steak knives ??


The RFD in question runs a very successful business, IMO he's a great bloke and an asset to the shooting world, I believe he merely phoned the cops for clarification, it's the cops who are being a bit anal.

I know if my livelihood was at stake I'd do the same.

I didn't know the M44 bayonet was undetachable but it's very odd I had mine off and on numerous times when I owned them! :roll:

http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/rifledi ... /index.asp

This seems very odd, down here in staffordshire i have only had praise from my FEO about my bayonet collection, i even store some of my rarer numbered martini henry bayonets on the matching rifle, (reversed on the muzzle) this is how they would be stored in service.
It is true that with some of the service diciplines involve shooting with bayonets, and it would be a crime against history to remove a original design feature from a historic military firearm. I also believe that firearms with permantly fixed bayonets are owned quite legally in the area, i mean how many naval boarding pistols, customs pistols 18th century blunderbusses have been through places like bonhams auction house in glasgow over the years?

I know it sounds crazy but....................

There are three types of offensive weapon for the purposes of ENGLISH legislation ( no idea of Scots )

Made - adapted - intended.

And at training school guess what example they gave for a made offensive weapon ? Truncheon or bayonet !

So, TECHNICALLY you guys with Mosin Nagant 1944s are in possession of offensive weapons. However, I am sure the courts would regard permanent fixture to a FAC rifle would constitute "reasonable excuse" !!!

I always thought that the Scots had a more logical approach on the law than in England & Wales but in the words of the great man "I simply don't believe it!" (Victor Meldrew).

breacher wrote: There are three types of offensive weapon for the purposes of ENGLISH legislation ( no idea of Scots )

Made - adapted - intended.

And at training school guess what example they gave for a made offensive weapon ? Truncheon or bayonet !

And nobody mentioned the Enfield rifle?

Although my Enfield was made and intended as a weapon, and may have even been used to shoot at someone (bad people only, of course), it is not a weapon any more as the intent is not there.
Is that right?
And if so, does a bayonet (which has only one intended use, surely) cease being a weapon if the intent is not there?

I think the Scottish politicians have had a great time playing with power. Let's vote now.

There is a difference between English and Scots Law on offensive weapons, in that there is a line in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the southern law) that explicitly removes anything governed by the Firearms Act 1968 from the ambit of the offensive weapon laws. So you can be done for carrying a gun in public under the firearms acts but it cannot be described as an offensive weapon for a charge under CJA 88. That rider is missing from the Scots law.

IainWR wrote:There is a difference between English and Scots Law on offensive weapons, in that there is a line in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the southern law) that explicitly removes anything governed by the Firearms Act 1968 from the ambit of the offensive weapon laws. So you can be done for carrying a gun in public under the firearms acts but it cannot be described as an offensive weapon for a charge under CJA 88. That rider is missing from the Scots law.

Thanks. Interesting.

Thanks to everyone for your support over this issue, I am however pleased to report that I am now in possession of my Mosin nagant m44 sign92, I will be emailing Ian in due course with an update, suffice to say that the issue is still awaiting full resolution but my little piece of history remains fully intact.

Further to the last but one, a Nagant 44 is an offensive weapon per se, in that it (or its permanently attached bayonet) is a device designed for killing people. Therefore in order to possess one in a public place, one needs to have lawful authority or reasonable excuse - that applies north and south. However, in Scotland there are a slew of laws that arise from the Scottish legislation requiring a licence to sell knives. Now this is one of the worst laws it has been my misfortune to have had to read end to end. The original idea, I'm sure, looked politically appealing - lots of people are getting stabbed on Sauchiehall Street at chucking-out time so let's restrict knives. Then they found that so many people sell and carry bladed objects for a vast array of reasons, they had to exempt lots of stuff. But, being incapable of admitting that the original law was a load of bollox, they did this on a case by case basis, so there are a bunch of Scottish ministerial orders exempting this, that and the other. Having read through and assembled all this into a vaguely coherent form, I believe that:

someone who has a bunch of Nagant 44s to sell in Scotland needs both a RFD and a Knife Licence;
someone who wants to possess a Nagant 44 in Scotland has lawful authority (FAC) and reasonable excuse (going shooting)
Someone who transfers a Nagant 44 on behalf of two other parties to a sales transaction commits no offence by doing so.

I have to add that the last of those opinions is not fully agreed by the extremely senior retired Scottish QC (and NRA member so the advice came free and is thus worth in the courts what was paid for it) that I consulted, who believes that the Scottish courts could interpret the Knife Licence law purposively (nobody can conduct business in the controlled types of blade unless they have a Knife Licence) rather than literally (since all the offences described in the legislation require transfer of ownership, it is impossible to commit them unless you own the blade in the first place). This, if I understood one of the elective bits of my law course correctly, is one of the essential differences between Scots Law (based on Roman Law) and English Law (based on the Common Law as modified by Statute).

Therefore, my advice is to find a Scottish solicitor with experience of squashing the police, and consult them on the deal in Scotland.

Iain
working from home