Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

saddler

Members
  • Content count

    742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About saddler

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Durham

Recent Profile Visitors

1,426 profile views
  1. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    AFTER it had been Proof Tested it would THEN have been going on its merry way....NOT before The CORRECT way around selling ANY gun without Proof (though I could name at least one importer I worked for who would have pre-sold/allocated guns before they hit the UK, let alone before they left Proof)
  2. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    Breathing is fine thanks 😁 Yes, agree, the topic has switched somewhat....that does not mean that both the RFD and the FIO/Police are not equally at fault. The latter, from events today, seem to have it as "department policy" that ANY un-Proofed gun going through an RFD is deemed to be illegal, so must be passed to the Police. The former, the original reason for the thread, for not knowing the Firearms Act(s) relating to this scenario, plus this could all have been avoided if the RFD in question refused to accept it, as I would just have either used another RFD or even taken it to the Proof House next time I was passing, or as I have found out from this thread, shipped it directly to them in the mail The unproofed firearm is listed as possessed on my FAC - so nothing to legally stop the FIO or RFD from returning it to me.
  3. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    FEO FIO is acting on behalf of the Police; so it's ok for them to accuse someone of criminal actions? If said FEO FIO has no powers to conduct an interview, it further begs the question WHY was he interviewing me & making false accusations? EDIT - been informed that the title job changed is no longer FEO = E for Enquiry, it is FIO, I for Investigation
  4. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    The firearm was WITH an RFD to go to Proof - the Police removed it from that RFD to make sure it went to Proof - total logic fail. All they did was seize the gun, stop this lawful process from taking place, then unlawfully refuse to return my private property. Nothing in the law says that my having the rifle on my FAC was not legal or that my trying to Proof it, somehow meant that I was surrendering my legal claim to ownership; they used the term "illegal" several times, instead of "un Proofed"
  5. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    Sadly - NO - not offered or even hinted at - just a lot of accusations based on nothing but 2+2=7 type logic... PACE only came in in 1984 - maybe the FEO missed that memo? If there is no sign of a time today for collecting the rifle from storage to regain legal possession of it, then there WILL be a high level complaint lodged. (Human Rights Act 1998 - violation of illegal seizure of property, PACE 1984, etc.) Trying to let them solve the problem locally first, if not & no rifle today = IOPC can look into it
  6. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    ....as the "unwitting purchaser" in this I have had personal property seized "so it can be investigated and go to Proof" when the ONLY reason I left it with the RFD in question WAS to have it sent to Proof The FEO in attempting to investigate one possible criminal offence has himself now commited several criminal offences This is not the first instance since moving here of the force using the "that's not how we do it in Durham" mantra....
  7. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    Re Durham Police - it is "general proceedure" that ANY unproofed gun HAS to be seized by them
  8. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    Ugh Urghh Computer sez NO - Twice over Wrong presumption & total lack of any therefore.... NOT done under PACE rules NOT under caution NO explanation of any rights I attended PURELY as the implication of the very short phone call to me on Friday from the same FEO, was that I should attend to collect the rifle having satisfied a couple of questions.
  9. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    Well, awaiting a phone call back from someone senior Property NOT returned, having been summoned to attend the city police station to answer questions relating to the un-proofed rifle. It was nothing less than an interview which was a huge breach of my lawful rights
  10. New & unused Golok. Same design as the MoD issue for several decades, supplied/made by Martindale, of Wolverhampton. Comes in a black nylon sheath, with sharpening file £30 & post New & unused Martindale Paratrooper, short machete Nylon sheath & sharpening file £35 & post
  11. saddler

    9mm straight pull options?

    Forgot about that also being in 9mm Club member has one in .30-M1 Carbine cal - it can be grip cocked or operated as a straight pull
  12. saddler

    9mm straight pull options?

    They haven't, yet. It was the trigger release designs and lever release designs (based around an interupted semi-auto operating system) which have been outlawed
  13. saddler

    9mm straight pull options?

    I know of ONE lever action Marlin in 9mm - but it cost several ££££ to have made & imported & the makers say it is the only one they will ever produce due to the complications of making it 100% relaible with a caseless round Personally always liked the look of the Armalon PC9 bolt action models
  14. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    I used to be in regular contact with someone who worked at a large MoD Range facility, er, to the East of Bristol.... This has reminded me of one conversation with him. There were range users there, doing some test firing etc. on a batch of guns that had been delivered from the Proof House, AFTER Proofing, but said batch were devoid of Proof Marks = seems there was a requirement within UK.GOV/MoD-SF circles to have access to Proof tested guns of various foreign pedigrees, that could be lost or otherwise, on ops elsewhere, without said items showing evidence of time on UK soil. So not only was the range happy to allow guns without Proof marks to be used on site, that was their specific brief in this case.
  15. saddler

    Incompetent RFD

    ??? Not OP as such - still keeping to the theme regarding Proofing - just in my case the RFD decided that Proof was not was needed, but destruction by/surrender to the Police WAS
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy