GSG .22LR MP5 why is it on and are you allowed to remove it?

[TattooedGun]

Everythings an opinion until the police are at your door and you're then in court! I got this opinion from the Home Office firearms section when I couldn't get Southern Gun Co to transport my LRA9 from my polices armoury back to them (due to the cost of transporting S5 firearms );

<! snip >

The letter indicates that the parts of the gun are not Section 5 in of themselves but if all components are present together, even if separated then the person in possession would need Section 5 authority. Given this opinion and reading the relevant legislation i.e. the Firearms Act 1968, its my opinion that there is no such thing as a Section 5 component, and it is only complete firearms (as in all of the parts in one place, not necessarily assembled) that require S5 authority. I'm not sure where this chambering thing has come from, presumably a court case relating to the definition of a barrel?

I know for a fact that until very recently Mossberg 500/590 barrels have shrouds put on them after they are chambered to bring them up to the 24" minimum (they are now offered in true 24" barrel form). I also know of at least 4 Saiga shotguns whose chambered barrels were removed from the guns and sent away to be chopped down and have very large muzzle brakes put on and its only with the muzzle brakes attached that they meet the 24" minimum. I don't know if its different for rifled barrels but personally I wouldn't lose sleep having a barrel of one of my rifles or shotguns chopped down and getting a permanent brake/sound moderator fitted.

When my SGC LRA9 was discovered to be Section 5, the police knew I'd had it in my possession for several days and had transported it all over the place. I'm yet to be charged with being in possession of the S5 rifle....

Just because you haven't been charged, does not mean that an offence has not been committed. As I suggested above, it comes down to the perceived risk. Currently the application of the law surrounding firearms seems quite flexible, with the current police force and current government bodies taking a lenient view. However, should that change and they decide to retrospectively enact on firearms offences that may have seemed trivial at one time or another, to, for instance demonise legal firearms holders, then those offences that skirt legislation could be the easy targets they would be after in order to cause major disruption to our sport.

In those situations could you realistically defend your position in a court of law?

That's what it comes down to.

Of course it is all down to opinions and interpretations. Your Interpretation, the police force (at the time) interpretation and of course the judges interpretation. If you feel confident that you could defend your position, then thats your risk to take.

In terms of the firearms act, it specifically states:

Section 4 (1)
Subject to this section, it is an offence to shorten the barrel of a shot gun to a length less than 24 inches.

It does not say anything about being part of a completed firearm.

Point 2 states
It is not an offence under subsection (1) above for a registered firearms dealer to shorten the barrel of a shot gun for the sole purpose of replacing a defective part of the barrel so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length.

This does not stipulate that shortening a barrel to add a muzzle break to bring it in line with overall length, could you prove the bit of the barrel you removed was "defective" and the reason that you shortened the barrel below 24 to add the muzzle break to bring it back to length?

I cannot find specific legislation regarding rifled barrels however they do become a licensable part when a chamber is cut, so if you or an RFD had in your possession the rest of the components to create a firearm at the time of cutting down, presumably they would have to be a Section 5(ab) RFD to even consider the job.

Unless they only had in their possession the barrel and not the rest of the rifle.

#Minefield

[Gazza]

So are the UK versions of this gun available with a 12" barrel only or do they also come with the USA standard 16.25" barrel?

If its a case of fitting a removable mod then it seems pretty cut and dried......use the 16.25" barrel chopped to 305mm or to near foresight and if you have a 300mm barrel dont do anything except weld a permanent mod on as it would appear you are legally allowed to do according to the home office letter shown above.

[Blackstuff]

I think its incredibly unlikely that if the police thought they could prosecute someone for a S5 offence, that they wouldn't. Fortunately common sense was been applied as it was obvious to anyone that 1/I was unaware the gun was S5 while it was in my possession and it was purchased as a S1 gun 2/ I disposed of it as soon as I did find out it might be S5, (at that point it was still unproven). Even those people who didn't hand them in straight away were just simply paid a visit by the plod and had them confiscated and that was the end of it, and at that point some guns had been shown to be S5.

AFAIK all of the GSG-5 versions come with 16.25" barrels. Only the Walther A4 version comes with a 12" barrel from the factory, but the barrel is not suitable for mounting a moderator. If you wanted to add one it would need to be added to the fake muzzle brake somehow.



I've no idea why you'd want to add a moderator to a gun like this as its hardly the tack driver you need for pest control and if you used one for competitive/mini-rifle shooting you'd be the bane of the RO's life as shot timers can sometimes have a hard enough time picking up .22's at the best of times!

That said, now I've thought about having one attached to the muzzle brake, I'm contemplating buying a spare muzzle brake and fitting a moderator

[Sandgroper]

Section 5 of the act only mentions prohibited firearms and specifically says:

(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus;

Nothing is mentioned about component parts being classed as Section 5, so along with the information within letter from the HO I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to to shorten a barrel to sub 12" (300mm) and bring it back up to the legal length by permanently fitting a moderator or other muzzle device.

However, the HO guidance to the Police confuses the issue by stating:

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).

I can't find any reference to this within the Act but then again I didn't trawl through it with a fine tooth comb either...

[Mattnall]

I have a letter from the HO stating that there are no S5 parts, only parts of S5 weapons. Therefore all common parts or parts that can be fitted to a S1 or S5 firearm are S1 until such time as they are fitted to a S5 weapon.

This came about as we were discussing the possibility of importing parts of self loading and full auto firearms to manufacture firearms in the UK. Some of the firearms and components even went off to FSS (who I believe are no longer extant) to be checked and the final verdict was in our favour.

There is another issue that clouds the water - if a firearms goes full-auto (or otherwise does something that should make it S5) due to a malfunction does it become a S5 weapon? Apparently not, as from past examples this is a defect and not by design.
A broken .22 self loader may double or burst, a self-unloading 9mm may go self-loading.
These have been allowed to be fixed by the manufacturer or RFD in the past and even after being notified to or seized by the Police, returned to the owners with (in at least one case) the same serial numbered receiver so these parts are not prohibited it would appear.

[breacher]

Everythings an opinion until the police are at your door and you're then in court! I got this opinion from the Home Office firearms section when I couldn't get Southern Gun Co to transport my LRA9 from my polices armoury back to them (due to the cost of transporting S5 firearms );

<! snip >

The letter indicates that the parts of the gun are not Section 5 in of themselves but if all components are present together, even if separated then the person in possession would need Section 5 authority. Given this opinion and reading the relevant legislation i.e. the Firearms Act 1968, its my opinion that there is no such thing as a Section 5 component, and it is only complete firearms (as in all of the parts in one place, not necessarily assembled) that require S5 authority. I'm not sure where this chambering thing has come from, presumably a court case relating to the definition of a barrel?

I know for a fact that until very recently Mossberg 500/590 barrels have shrouds put on them after they are chambered to bring them up to the 24" minimum (they are now offered in true 24" barrel form). I also know of at least 4 Saiga shotguns whose chambered barrels were removed from the guns and sent away to be chopped down and have very large muzzle brakes put on and its only with the muzzle brakes attached that they meet the 24" minimum. I don't know if its different for rifled barrels but personally I wouldn't lose sleep having a barrel of one of my rifles or shotguns chopped down and getting a permanent brake/sound moderator fitted.

When my SGC LRA9 was discovered to be Section 5, the police knew I'd had it in my possession for several days and had transported it all over the place. I'm yet to be charged with being in possession of the S5 rifle....

Just because you haven't been charged, does not mean that an offence has not been committed. As I suggested above, it comes down to the perceived risk. Currently the application of the law surrounding firearms seems quite flexible, with the current police force and current government bodies taking a lenient view. However, should that change and they decide to retrospectively enact on firearms offences that may have seemed trivial at one time or another, to, for instance demonise legal firearms holders, then those offences that skirt legislation could be the easy targets they would be after in order to cause major disruption to our sport.

In those situations could you realistically defend your position in a court of law?

That's what it comes down to.

Of course it is all down to opinions and interpretations. Your Interpretation, the police force (at the time) interpretation and of course the judges interpretation. If you feel confident that you could defend your position, then thats your risk to take.

In terms of the firearms act, it specifically states:

Section 4 (1)
Subject to this section, it is an offence to shorten the barrel of a shot gun to a length less than 24 inches.

It does not say anything about being part of a completed firearm.

Point 2 states
It is not an offence under subsection (1) above for a registered firearms dealer to shorten the barrel of a shot gun for the sole purpose of replacing a defective part of the barrel so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length.

This does not stipulate that shortening a barrel to add a muzzle break to bring it in line with overall length, could you prove the bit of the barrel you removed was "defective" and the reason that you shortened the barrel below 24 to add the muzzle break to bring it back to length?

I cannot find specific legislation regarding rifled barrels however they do become a licensable part when a chamber is cut, so if you or an RFD had in your possession the rest of the components to create a firearm at the time of cutting down, presumably they would have to be a Section 5(ab) RFD to even consider the job.

Unless they only had in their possession the barrel and not the rest of the rifle.

#Minefield

Actually any action can ONLY be deemed an offence by the defendant being brought before a court.

So, technically you are wrong to say
"Just because you haven't been charged, does not mean that an offence has not been committed"

As to the burden of proof re shortening a barrel to repair a defective part - what makes you think the burden of proof lies with the defendant ?

Surely it is for the Police to prove that it was NOT defective ?

[TattooedGun]

Everythings an opinion until the police are at your door and you're then in court! I got this opinion from the Home Office firearms section when I couldn't get Southern Gun Co to transport my LRA9 from my polices armoury back to them (due to the cost of transporting S5 firearms );

<! snip >

The letter indicates that the parts of the gun are not Section 5 in of themselves but if all components are present together, even if separated then the person in possession would need Section 5 authority. Given this opinion and reading the relevant legislation i.e. the Firearms Act 1968, its my opinion that there is no such thing as a Section 5 component, and it is only complete firearms (as in all of the parts in one place, not necessarily assembled) that require S5 authority. I'm not sure where this chambering thing has come from, presumably a court case relating to the definition of a barrel?

I know for a fact that until very recently Mossberg 500/590 barrels have shrouds put on them after they are chambered to bring them up to the 24" minimum (they are now offered in true 24" barrel form). I also know of at least 4 Saiga shotguns whose chambered barrels were removed from the guns and sent away to be chopped down and have very large muzzle brakes put on and its only with the muzzle brakes attached that they meet the 24" minimum. I don't know if its different for rifled barrels but personally I wouldn't lose sleep having a barrel of one of my rifles or shotguns chopped down and getting a permanent brake/sound moderator fitted.

When my SGC LRA9 was discovered to be Section 5, the police knew I'd had it in my possession for several days and had transported it all over the place. I'm yet to be charged with being in possession of the S5 rifle....

Just because you haven't been charged, does not mean that an offence has not been committed. As I suggested above, it comes down to the perceived risk. Currently the application of the law surrounding firearms seems quite flexible, with the current police force and current government bodies taking a lenient view. However, should that change and they decide to retrospectively enact on firearms offences that may have seemed trivial at one time or another, to, for instance demonise legal firearms holders, then those offences that skirt legislation could be the easy targets they would be after in order to cause major disruption to our sport.

In those situations could you realistically defend your position in a court of law?

That's what it comes down to.

Of course it is all down to opinions and interpretations. Your Interpretation, the police force (at the time) interpretation and of course the judges interpretation. If you feel confident that you could defend your position, then thats your risk to take.

In terms of the firearms act, it specifically states:

Section 4 (1)
Subject to this section, it is an offence to shorten the barrel of a shot gun to a length less than 24 inches.

It does not say anything about being part of a completed firearm.

Point 2 states
It is not an offence under subsection (1) above for a registered firearms dealer to shorten the barrel of a shot gun for the sole purpose of replacing a defective part of the barrel so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length.

This does not stipulate that shortening a barrel to add a muzzle break to bring it in line with overall length, could you prove the bit of the barrel you removed was "defective" and the reason that you shortened the barrel below 24 to add the muzzle break to bring it back to length?

I cannot find specific legislation regarding rifled barrels however they do become a licensable part when a chamber is cut, so if you or an RFD had in your possession the rest of the components to create a firearm at the time of cutting down, presumably they would have to be a Section 5(ab) RFD to even consider the job.

Unless they only had in their possession the barrel and not the rest of the rifle.

#Minefield

Actually any action can ONLY be deemed an offence by the defendant being brought before a court.

By the dictionary definition an offence is when one commits the act, proof or lack thereof would be determined in a court. As to how that applies to your criminal record and what is deemed an "offence" on the record, I have no idea. The point I was making is that just because you've got away with it, doesn't mean you haven't broken the law.

So, technically you are wrong to say
"Just because you haven't been charged, does not mean that an offence has not been committed"

I disagree.

As to the burden of proof re shortening a barrel to repair a defective part - what makes you think the burden of proof lies with the defendant ?

Surely it is for the Police to prove that it was NOT defective ?

As may be true. Depends how careless people are when posting on the internet I guess

Its also a little bit of how inconvenienced do you want to be whilst the police seize your firearms and stop you continuing your sport whilst they drag out their investigations and withhold your FAC as a suspect in a firearms related crime. Innocence often has very little to do with being investigated, especially if you don't have cold hard proof that you haven't broken the law. Police investigations can notoriously drag on, no?

[breacher]

Its only an ALLEGATION until the offender is convicted.

If not convicted - it remains an allegation ( either substantiated or not ) only.

YOU dont get to decide whether someone else has committed a crime - that is what the court is there for.


"especially if you don't have cold hard proof that you haven't broken the law" - again, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution, not the defendant.

A firearms allegation takes no longer than any other allegation to prove.

And when the evidence is presented to CPS, their decision making process whether to prosecute or not, is the same as other allegations not involving firearms.

And there is one other thing to throw into the mix - "The spirit of the law" - this can and has been raised by defendants to good effect.

For example it is an offence to be in possession of a bladed or pointed article in public. The spirit of the act was to deal with knives and pointed things like sharpened screwdrivers etc used as weapons. A pencil is sharply pointed. In theory, possession of same COULD lead to an arrest and a "lengthy investigation" as you say. But as soon as "the spirit of the law" is raised, it would be thrown out - its another version of COMMON SENSE.

Now, fast forward to the legislation re shortening shotgun barrels. The legislation is there to prevent people making sawn off shotguns. That is why shotgun barrels were mentioned but not rifles. If I were a defendant I would be raising the "spirit of the law" and showing that a shotgun with full length barrel inc brake is hardly what the legislators had in mind !!

As to posting on the internet - again, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the barrel in question was NOT shortened to deal with a damaged part. Unless they get a statement from the person doing the shortening that it was perfect at the time, they they cannot prove it. And the person who shortened it is hardly likely to supply such a statement ?


For example - Police find shotgun with 20" barrel and 4" brake welded on. They investigate. Owner states that his screw-in choke became corroded in place. He placed barrel in vice in an attempt to remove said corroded screw-in choke. He messed up and crushed a few inches of the barrel. He had the crushed bit chopped off and the brake welded on to bring it up to 24".

Now - tell me how the Police can offer evidence to CPS that this did not happen ?

[TattooedGun]

Its only an ALLEGATION until the offender is convicted.

I'm confused, How can he be an offender when by its own definition an offender is someone who commits an offence, but it not be an offence?

There might be a legal definition that goes on a record as being an offender only after having gone through the courts, but the fact remains, if you break the law, you have committed an offence. If you go out and drive at 90mph on the motorway, you are committing an offence, ergo you are breaking the law. It's not on any record at that time, you're not being charged, and unless you're being filmed/caught by a speed trap or otherwise caught by the police, chances are you won't be. Does this mean an offence has not occurred? Are you saying you're only breaking the law, if you get caught?

If not convicted - it remains an allegation ( either substantiated or not ) only.

YOU dont get to decide whether someone else has committed a crime - that is what the court is there for.


"especially if you don't have cold hard proof that you haven't broken the law" - again, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution, not the defendant.

A firearms allegation takes no longer than any other allegation to prove.

And when the evidence is presented to CPS, their decision making process whether to prosecute or not, is the same as other allegations not involving firearms.

As to posting on the internet - again, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the barrel in question was NOT shortened to deal with a damaged part. Unless they get a statement from the person doing the shortening that it was perfect at the time, they they cannot prove it. And the person who shortened it is hardly likely to supply such a statement ?


For example - Police find shotgun with 20" barrel and 4" brake welded on. They investigate. Owner states that his screw-in choke became corroded in place. He placed barrel in vice in an attempt to remove said corroded screw-in choke. He messed up and crushed a few inches of the barrel. He had the crushed bit chopped off and the brake welded on to bring it up to 24".

Now - tell me how the Police can offer evidence to CPS that this did not happen ?

They can't, not reasonably. But therein lies the rub. If this is not explained fully that this is to be the case, and people think it's as simple as cutting it down so they can have the mod/break/extension that they wish, purely on a whim or for style, then they would be breaking the law if the police asked them the question.

Not all firearms owners are as anal about this kind of stuff as you or I may be, and in such circumstances take this example:

Police find shotgun with 20" barrel and 4" brake welded on. They investigate. Owner states that the guy in his club had one the same and he decided he wanted to do it too. He placed barrel in vice chopped off and the brake welded on to bring it up to 24".

By his own negligence and admittance he would have just sealed his own fate.

I've seen people take this approach to firearms law and regulations. Monkey see, Monkey do. When they're confronted they literally reply with "Well that's what they do at such and such club", without knowing the details of what they're talking about.

Sure, with shotguns, there's a loophole where the end of a barrel is damaged which may be abused, but only if people know about it.

[Dark Skies]

Its only an ALLEGATION until the offender is convicted.

I'm confused, How can he be an offender when by its own definition an offender is someone who commits an offence, but it not be an offence?

I think I can field this, it's rare that I get an opportunity to use my law degree, so please indulge me.

The clue is in the words: " until the offender is convicted."

Right up until he has been found guilty the alleged wrong-doer is known as the defendant. Clearly though if he has been convicted then he was an offender - in hindsight.