Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

simgre

Members
  • Content count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About simgre

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ashford

Recent Profile Visitors

545 profile views
  1. I’d like these please. PM how’d you’d like the money.
  2. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    In all honesty, does that matter? No, it doesn't. Despite Popsbengo weighing with the insults, it makes not one ha'peth worth of difference. I'm aware of the legislation, I'm aware of the Guidance. I'm also aware of Jackson's counsel and I'm aware of a number of arguments against the Gun Barrel Proof Act. But all of them are superfluous until there is a legislative change. That not to say those arguments can't be utilised to bring about that change, for they are valid. But until they do, I'm afraid you can't ignore it, or dismiss it with a "Rubbish". You've got yourselves all worked up over this. Just because I haven't resorted to challenge and/or insult, then please don't take that as a sign to just wade in, for indeed I can trade with the best in that regards. But, I quite like this forum. And I suspect as soon as I did rise, then someone would wield the "banning hammer". ...
  3. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    The Law may very well be amended due to modern standards and is done so through precedent, Statutory Instrument, or by being repealed through the virtue of a subsequent Act. The Gun Barrel Proof Act has not been so. So whether by the standards of 1868 or the standards of 2020, it remains in force till otherwise.
  4. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    We also seem to have a different opinion on what constitutes consistency...
  5. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    The Jackson Rifles case which goes back nearly 20 years, centred on the incorrect marking by the Proof House as well as the requirement for the submission of sound moderators for proving. There was a further submission concerning screw cutting, which didn't even see a court. But was it not you who stated there was an argument that screw cutting could weaken the barrel? You've flip-flopped a couple of times now, where as my point has remained constant, that the law remains in force. You're poking and prodding to provoke. And judging from posts you made early on, it was evident you hadn't even read the Act, and so devalued your opinion on it.
  6. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    So, just ignore the law?
  7. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    Is the Gun Barrel Proof Act still live legislation? Yes. Hence, it has to be abided by. It’s a matter of fact, that shortening a barrel may actually provide for a stiffer and hence stronger barrel. But removing say 20% has reduced its substance. Agree with it or not, it will require reproving. Not because it’s integrity is compromised, and certainly not by today’s standards of steel, but because the law says it has to be. That is the only point I’m making.
  8. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    So, after having a 26" barrel proofed and then shortening it to around 20", or over 20%, is not reducing its substance? But reducing its outside diameter, say by screw threading, is....? Think before typing. Despite the Gun Barrel Proof Act being nonsensical by today's standards and very well redundant, it has not been repealed or amended. It remains in force, which is my point and nothing more. I am not an advocate for it and nor am I promoting it. It is what it is.
  9. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    Civilian investigators do have devolved powers, including that of interviewing. Those interviews will be conducted under PACE. If this FIO is not designated, he has no business interviewing or putting allegations of criminal behaviour to a suspect, in a police station.
  10. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    S111 Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868.
  11. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    I read plenty of argument that states as such and the rationale behind that argument. But I believe that a court or the Home Office are still yet to be convinced and the Act still states, "reduced in substance OR strength" requires a re-proving if done so in any form other than by the user, or wear and tear.
  12. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    Proofing is not a requirement of serviceability but a requirement of "sale, export, exchange, transfer or pawn, or the attempted or offering such". If none of the above are the intent, a gun does not need proofing. "Shorten, weaken or remove marks" puts the gun "out of proof" but that means you can't sell it etc, not keep or use it. Its like an EPC when building, renting or selling a house. Almost the first 100 sections of the 1868 Act cover the establishment and conduct of the Proof Companies as a business! There is nothing in military regulations on ranges, or elsewhere for proved firearms because military/government guns are exempted from proof until released from service! This thread shows perfectly why the OP had this happen to him. Ignorance. This ignorance may cost the OP his rifle because a dealer chose not to avail himself of the regulations that govern his business.
  13. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    It does in fact imply they are, due to their profession, the subject experts. That implication is simply deduced by their position. It is the facts that illustrate they are not. And considering how difficult it appears to obtain registered dealer status, is why incidents of this are so disheartening. it’s been a slippery slope for a couple of decades now. Quality service from efficient and knowledgeable dealers is a thing of the past. Come to think of it, you can’t even have a half decent conversation about guns or ammo with most of the places that have a GTA sticker in the window!
  14. simgre

    Incompetent RFD

    What is most scary in all of this is, "what else has this RFD done...?". The apparent lack of knowledge around legislation and procedure is worrying. I do wonder how many of their own interpretations have been applied to the detriment of someone who has seen this dealer as the "expert". And the readiness to discard someone's property without a second thought for the owner is truly shocking! There is an argument that their actions would fall under the Theft Act given the disregard for the proprietary interest of other parties and treated the item as if it was their own... Then couple that with the average FEO... I fear that rifle has already seen the chop saw of a police "armourer".
  15. simgre

    Unbelievable

    In post one, you describe a legitimate and lawful exemption, utilised by countless shooters, as a "loophole". in post nine you state it's "unbelievable" the miscreants involved in this case weren't convicted on the basis of the "standard of the range". The implication is simply that anywhere being shot over, must be approved. By whim? At what cost? At what inconvenience? Within what timeframes? The thing with common sense is that it isn't. Some say it's unbelievable that we own any sorts of guns at all. Common sense says that no one needs a weapon only designed to kill... you see where I'm going with this. Unlawful activity should always be condemned. Lawful activity, despite how unsavoury one finds it, should always be supported, or at worse, tolerated. That didn't happen in the past and so we had rights and then privileges removed.
×

Important Information

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