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

The local plod doesn't have any real knowledge of the firearms legislation, he sees "gun" and that's it. They certainly won't have read the Home Office guidance and be aware of Section 58(2) of the Act.
A very expensive Met Police court case against a RFD collapsed last year because both the police and the CPS were shown in court under cross examination not to know the gun in question was exempted from licensing by virtue of S58(2).

Tell them (or your lawyer can) in writing you will be relying on S58(2) of the Act and the Home Office Guidance as your defence when the case goes to court and see what happens.

Some very good advice here. I would make initial contact with that solicitor on Tuesday.
I too am interested to see a photo of the "gun" but suspect its probably what you routinely see going through Holts auctions as sec58.
I think sending them a letter as per channel12`s post is also worth doing. I would also ask in that letter that they explain how that "gun" falls within the Firearms act. i.e can they show its sec1,sec2,sec5 or sec 58. I suspect they have no clue.
They should really send it to forensics before embarking on a potential waste of tax payers money (and yours!)
I also have to ask myself why a crumbly wall hanger became an issue with the police when they attended the intruder report.
Over the years I have seen similar issues and sometimes there is more to it.
I do however, wish you all the best.
Tony

Spiggy wrote:As it happens I was required to attend Dunstable police station this morning for the purpose of being charged for owning this gun without a permit. I am scheduled to appear at Bedford Magistrates Court in two weeks time in order to lodge a plea. Bizarrely both the police and the CPS pressed me at length to produce the permit I surrendered thirty years ago when a change of location required me to cease shooting and sell the shotgun I then owned. This seemed to be in order to establish if my permit had been revoked ; it had not, I surrendered it of my own volition. Your help would be much appreciated, all the more so since having retired and returned to the countryside I wish to take up shooting once more.

Ok, this is now very serious. First you need to get a solicitor with experience in firearms law. In the South East, Adrian Dagger is the man. The whole is thing is f***ing absurd. The gun is an antique and is completely outwith firearms licensing. The fact that you had a licence years ago is of no relevance whatsoever. I would suggest that in addition to getting qualified legal assistance, you write to the polcie referring them to Chapter 8 in the document I have linked to below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... olice-2012

In Chapter 8 it says that "Pre-1939 firearms to benefit from exemption as antiques are as follows: (a)
All muzzle-loading firearms;"

Your shotgun was made before 1939 and is muzzle loading. Therefore it is an antique. Therefore any prosecution is absurd and unlawful.

These cretins are wasting public money and then need to be given a rigorous kicking.

1066 wrote:Hi Spiggy - Are you sure it's a muzzle loader? Could it be a be a blackpowder hammer gun, possibly with an under lever or other odd breech locking action. A photo would help greatly.

Even if it were a 12 bore breech loader, it is still possible to claim the antique exemption. But if that is the case, it is not on covered by Home Office guidance, so the argument for antique status would have to be made on the basis of the gun's antiquity. Peter Dyson has a good reputation in successfully arguing such cases as an expert witness.

Just because it is not on the list of obsolete calibres, doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities will not accept it as an antique. I got my licensing department to take a number of 41 Colt revolvers off my certificate after I argued that the chambering was obsolete. 41 Colt does not appear on the Home Office's list of obsolete chamberings.

Unfortunately I cannot provide a picture since the gun has been confiscated. I can , though, confirm that it is only possibly to load it via the muzzle using the ram rod located below the pair of barrels. It is thought to be a " fowling piece ".

The charge is " I had in my possession a shotgun, namely SMOOTHBORE SHOTGUN, without holding a certificate under Firearms Act 1968 authorising you to possess shotguns. contrary to section 2(1) of and schedule 6 to the firearms act 1968 ".

When first arrested I contacted my own solicitor ; thus I should, I think, continue to move forward with him.

Spiggy wrote:Unfortunately I cannot provide a picture since the gun has been confiscated. I can , though, confirm that it is only possibly to load it via the muzzle using the ram rod located below the pair of barrels. It is thought to be a " fowling piece ".

The charge is " I had in my possession a shotgun, namely SMOOTHBORE SHOTGUN, without holding a certificate under Firearms Act 1968 authorising you to possess shotguns. contrary to section 2(1) of and schedule 6 to the firearms act 1968 ".

When first arrested I contacted my own solicitor ; thus I should, I think, continue to move forward with him.

I naively thought there was an outfit called the CPS who, as professionals, weighed up the pros and cons of a case and if they thought there was a good probability of a conviction the case went ahead.

I can't see how they possibly have a case here, this can only be politically motivated. Even if you are not a member of any shooting association one of the national bodies should take this on as a matter of course and give it maximum publicity.

I'm sure this will be fine - don't let them confiscate the gun, insist it's locked up or accept a caution etc.

You neither committed an offence, nor is this in the public interest at all. I wish you best of luck. They are going to lose and lose hard.

They may realise they have got it wrong and rather than go to court where they will lose they press you to accept a police caution. DO NOT because it is in effect a criminal conviction. If you accept the caution you are admitting your guilt and boosting their crime figures.

And possibly stopping yourself getting an FAC in the future!

I don't read my own signature!

Guys.

Too many are jumping the gun (no pun) and going off about muzzle loading firearms. He has been charged with a section 2 (1) offence, smoothbore. Now I have 3 guns on my shotgun certificate that predate the 1939 issue and all are required to be licensed. If this gun is as described and NOT held on a 58(1) then the offence is complete and there is a mandatory custodial. It is not exemot by virtue of being a named 'bore' and thus needs to be held on ticket, either a shotgun cert or a 58(1)