mosin nagant boayonet illegal?

[shotgun sam]

Tonight at the gun club one of the members said that He had a visit from Police Scotland (old Strathclyde area) about His mosin nagant the one with the built in bayonet.

It seems that an RFD was sent one and was not sure of the bayonet and asked the advice of the licensing department. They made the decision that the bayonet was a dangerouis weapon and said that it would have to be removed (they have all ready been to several other nagant owners).

They tried to get the bayonet off but it was stuck fast the officers then said He could not use the rifle even on a range as that was classed as a public place.

Does anyone know if they can insist legally that a bayonet has to be removed .

 

Sam

 

 

 

[tackb]

It sounds like the police being stupid to me , do they stop plumbers and confiscate there screwdrivers ? How do athletes posess a javelin for training etc ? Do they make motorists remove there wheel brace , honestly if this is what it seems then I despair for the loss of common sense !

[simonl]

The *bayonet* was a dangerous weapon?!

 

Possession of Blades/Points

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits having with you, in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches) (Archbold 24-125).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:

• he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

when I read this I gave up exasperated.... a butterknife, with no cutting edge and no point is a bladed article

[sonic]

Good reason is the fact that said bayonet is a part of the rifle. And cannot be removed without damage to a historic firearm.

 

So they aren't worried about the rifle and Hundred rounds then?

[Breacher]

This is interesting.

 

Two bits of legislation apply here TECHNICALLY...............

 

1 - Section 139 CJA - If you posess a bladed or pointed article in public without lawful authority or reasonable excuse etc etc etc

 

2 - Offensive weapons

 

 

Now, I would say that under Section 139 CJA, you ARE in possession of a pointed article, but you have reasonable excuse as you have the authority to possess the rifle and the bayonet is a permanently fitted part of it. It is not as if you have attached it yourself.

 

You would also be in possession of a MADE offensive weapon. There are three types - made, adapted or intended.

 

Intended could be ANY item intended to be used as a weapon. Adapted - think a pool cue cut down to make a baton. Made - a purpose made weapon. At the Police Training School, they give the examples of a truncheon or a bayonet !

 

Again, lawful authority or reasonable excuse can be quoted. I would say that the fact that the bayonet is a fixed part of the firearm would be reasonable excuse.

 

This particular example has not been tested in court as far as I know.

[hunter87]

In all honesty I would say the firearm is more dangerous than the bayonet so if you can be trusted with one then why not the other

[Jamie]

I agree with much of what "Breacher", are you "job"......?

 

However, If the Bayonet is supposed to be detachable, (as most are) and it has merely seized on the gun by being left attached for such a long period, then in law it is not a permanent fixture of the rifle. It also makes no difference whether you attached it to the gun or you bought it that way. You own it and you had/have possession/control of it.

 

I'm pretty sure, a Bayonet may come under "Weapons Offensive per se", or in other words, made for the sole purpose of inflicting injury. Which I'm sure it is!

 

But when all is said and done, If the Police did seize it and start a prosecution, I very much doubt that the CPS would run with it, as it's not in the "Public Interest" to attempt to prosecute you for it. However, I'd be looking at the wider picture here. If you had bad look all the way and were tried and convicted, that would cost you your FAC/SGC! And potentially, for life!

 

I personally think, in the grand scheme of things, you're clearly not a CRO, so the Police should be more interested in combatting more important issues, like the raging drug problem that's cursed this country for soo long now!

 

Anyhow, good luck with it

Jamie

[Shootist]

I've answered this on another forum. Basically, the law applying to weapons is the same in Scotland as in England. To commit an offence you have to be found in possession of an offensive weapon or a bladed article without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Whether there is reasonable excuse is a matter of fact to be decided by a jury. There is, AFAIK, precious little case law on the matter of bayonets attached to lawfully held rifles being used for lawful purposes.

 

Suffice to say, whether in England or Scotland, if I was on the way to a range to shoot my military rifle and I had a bayonet, whether permanently attached or not, (and in the case of a removable bayonet, if I wanted to shoot with the bayonet fixed) I would do so in the happy knowledge that I was acting within the law, and any police officer who decided otherwise would be wrong. To be clear, it is quite lawful to carry offensive weapons, bladed articles, or lawfully held firearms if you have a reasonable excuse for doing so.

 

Interestingly, many years ago, when researching this subject, I asked an expert in such matters, via Police Review magazine, where the lawful authority to carry a truncheon (it was that long ago!) was derived from. To his great surprise, he had to admit he didn't know! Furthermore, I have yet to find a source in law for such authority.

 

I should add, I suppose, that I have served as a police officer for 22 years, Local Government enforcement for 10 years, and have actively researched and written on the legal and practical aspects of the use of force since 1977. None of this is worth a damn, mind you. but I thought I'd mention it.