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

JSC wrote:
So you are confirming that Merkle S&W LBRs are illegal as the law stands (assuming they haven't found a way to buy frames from S&W)?

Im not confirming how their products are classified no. Its up to them to satisfy themselves they are acting legally. My point was more that just because someone has one listed on their FAC, that does not make it strictly legal.

What I am saying is that my understanding of the law means that to maintain classification under Sec. 1 it would need to be made from parts that have never been previously assembled into a Sec 5 gun. If their guns have left the S&W factory as complete guns and then been made 'UK Legal' elsewhere then yes I would suggest they are not classified as Sec.1 under UK law.

Im not a lawyer though and as I said above, I recall hearing that the Anglo SLR's were deemed Sec.1 in court, so perhaps this has been done for other guns too...


<EDIT>

Couple of bits pulled from the 2016 guidance to police:

3.2 Those weapons and ammunition, which are prohibited, consist of:
iii) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than
60 centimetres in length overall, ... (section 5(1)(aba));

3.3 Note that the component parts of weapons falling under 5(1)(a), 5(1A)(a) or 5(1)(aba) are
also subject to section 5 controls (see also Chapter 13).

13.74 The term “component part” may be held (according to case law) as including (i) the barrel,
chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism
for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon
which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and
furniture are not considered component parts. The 9th report of the Firearms Consultative
Committee provides additional information on this subject.

</EDIT>

Does anyone have details or transcripts of the ruling in the Anglo case we could see? That might help clear this up. When was that case heard?

Also, what/where is the actual wording in UK law which prohibits what we're talking about here?

Added an edit to my last post, and then typically found the last bit I was looking for, however put together the bits in bold below:

2.58 Section 7(1)(a) of the 1988 Act (as amended by the 1997 Act) provides that if any weapon
has at any time been a weapon to which section 5(1) or 5(1A) of the 1968 Act applies,
it shall be treated as a prohibited weapon regardless of anything done for the purpose
of converting it into a weapon of a different kind.

3.2 Those weapons and ammunition, which are prohibited, consist of:
iii) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than
60 centimetres in length overall, ... (section 5(1)(aba));

3.3 Note that the component parts of weapons falling under 5(1)(a), 5(1A)(a) or 5(1)(aba) are
also subject to section 5 controls (see also Chapter 13).

13.74 The term “component part” may be held (according to case law) as including (i) the barrel,
chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism
for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon
which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and
furniture are not considered component parts. The 9th report of the Firearms Consultative
Committee provides additional information on this subject.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Glocks... I handed a M21 and M17 in during the 97 confiscation, and I'd love a Glock LBP, but so many, as yet, unanswered questions...

If they do make the only similarity with a Glock will be the way it looks, maybe not a bad thing they might improve the trigger.

ordnance wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Glocks... I handed a M21 and M17 in during the 97 confiscation, and I'd love a Glock LBP, but so many, as yet, unanswered questions...

If they do make the only similarity with a Glock will be the way it looks, maybe not a bad thing they might improve the trigger.

Slightly confused by this post?

Gh0st wrote:

ordnance wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Glocks... I handed a M21 and M17 in during the 97 confiscation, and I'd love a Glock LBP, but so many, as yet, unanswered questions...

If they do make the only similarity with a Glock will be the way it looks, maybe not a bad thing they might improve the trigger.

Slightly confused by this post?

Everything internally is going to be different just the frame would make it look like a Glock, and as the trigger on the original is poor maybe the LBP conversion will be better.

The Frame is a glock frame....

Gh0st wrote:The Frame is a glock frame....

Thats what i said the only thing Glock would be the frame, everything else slide etc would have to be made or modified, and as the trigger pull is mostly influenced by whats in the slide on Glocks maybe they could improve the trigger pull.

From what I've seem on here before. If it has been registered as a complete gun. It's sec 5. If it's made as what would be sec 5 but never registered. Then it would be ok.
Obviously the easy solution to what ghost is banning done would be too make it from a non glock part only fame. But I'm not sure, i think i might have seen a post where he said it is a glock frame . So if registered as complete pistol, it should be a no go here...
Also wonder about the rfd side here. Are they a sec 5 dealer with the right permissions? Seems a big risk to accept something that could be sec 5 if you are only sec 1

Anyway. I'm off to shoot my G19

“Registered” has nothing to do with it. Primary legislation is actually quite simple. If the “weapon” has ever been of a prohibited type, then it is always prohibited, no matter what is done. Case law has now decreed that component parts are also a firearm, hence the bolt from a semi AR15 would be s5, but a bolt that has only ever existed as itself or part of a straight pull, is s1. This is exactly why we have straight pull military, s1 firearms in the UK, that have been constructed from “parts”.

There is case law where individuals have made full auto guns in their garage and were convicted of s5 possession. Registration is moot.