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

Grant, was arrested at his home on 14 May 2020 and a search of the property uncovered a crossbow, knives and a ballistic vest, as well as a second, legal, blank firing weapon.

Non of which were in any way illegal, so why mention them????

because they sound like they should be to them. same as when a local scrote gets raided, police parade out pics of knives etc which they confiscate. my question, although they are not exactly nice people, what laws have they broken owning them? It doesn't matter you think they're up to no good etc, you're supposed to prove it and deal with them accordingly/ so I never understand under what powers they actually take this stuff. but because it's seen as in the public good, you don't really see people saying anything.

And I know the police are frustrated etc, but if they are all legally held, they can just go buy more again?

The reason this guy will have got the full sentence is because he likely won't be involved in serious crime and doesn't know anyone higher up the food chain to grass in to get the MANDATORY sentence reduced.

They can intercept one knackered-looking blank firing pistol, but they seem to miss all the 100's (1000's???) of illegal live firing arms that keep coming into the country. Wonderful.

I have just noticed another pistol in the first photo, underneath the thing that looks like a broken semi auto. I think that its what is sometimes called a 'velo dog', 'bicycle' or 'postman' pistol, likely chambered for a Flobert cap. Although I read that early ones were live firing, they were intended only to scare away dogs. It appears to have some sort of additional barrel fixed to the original pistol.

You are think of the Velo dog revolvers in 5.5mm Velo dog (which is on the obsolete caliber list) but the pistol is a Flobert single shot, these came in 6mm flobert as well as .22" for parlour shooting. The barrel is original as some of these were quite ornate, it may be a blank firing one though no vent hole is visible but it's hard to tell. The bore size is quite large at the muzzle but that could be the way they were. If it is in one of the flobert chamberings it would be classed as a prohibited weapon no matter how old it is. All of this is speculation based on what I can see but if it is what I suspect then he is breach of the law.

Seems a bit steep for what appears to be an innocent mistake. All the other stuff in his possession were legal to own and there doesn't appear to be any indication he intended to convert it into a firing weapon. Seems benefit of the doubt is only extended to rapey, sex predator, coppers in our current climate.

Dark Skies wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 7:35 pm Seems a bit steep for what appears to be an innocent mistake. All the other stuff in his possession were legal to own and there doesn't appear to be any indication he intended to convert it into a firing weapon. Seems benefit of the doubt is only extended to rapey, sex predator, coppers in our current climate.

Its supposed to be a mandatory minimum sentence, but as we all know that doesn't apply to scrotes with actual prohibited firearms when they have someone else to grass in

It’s a mandatory sentence stipulated in statute. He could have named the location and passed a photograph of Lord Lucan, and he’s still getting the five years. A judge does not have discretion in such cases.

Sim G wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:56 pm It’s a mandatory sentence stipulated in statute. He could have named the location and passed a photograph of Lord Lucan, and he’s still getting the five years. A judge does not have discretion in such cases.

I've seen a dozen stories where possession of a live S5 firearm was part of the charges and the sentence was sub 5 years so there's some 'discretion' in the system somewhere!