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

He is claiming that it is indeed a muzzle loading shotgun, bore irrelevant, and has described it as such.

If it is evidenced to be of pre 1939 manufacture then that according to the HO guidance make it exempt as an antique.

MiLisCer wrote: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)

You've got me confused here, my understanding is that ALL muzzleloading firearms that predate 1939 in manufacture fall under Section 58, so long as the are not actually used and are kept as an ordainment or curio and not actually fired.

From what I've read here, the above seems to be the case for the OP

Have I missed something here MiLisCer? sign85

Thanks for your replies, chaps, but they are a tad contradictory. My solicitor has stated, though, that the CPS tend to whack on as many charges as they think they can, and then negotiate downwards later.

Also, as stated above by MAG41 UK, there is more to this than I have hitherto explained :-

When the gun in question was confiscated the police also removed the following : -
A. Two .22 air rifles.
B. Two blank firing starter pistols.
C. A nine mm. deactivated Browning automatic pistol. This gun comes with full deactivation paperwork
and was sold to me last year on the Internet as being legal.

The two blank firing starter pistols were bought by me about twenty years ago and are replicas of known pistols.

All of the weapons shown above A to B have been bought by me over the past twenty years in order to deter depredations on my chickens and Koi carp by foxes, herons, cormorants, otters and birds of prey.
NO protected species have ever been harmed, although the air guns have put paid to many rats in my outbuildings and the wood pigeons and crows which remove lumps from my thatched roof for nesting material in my Virginia creeper.

There are some types of blank firers now banned, the hand in amnesty period has now passed making these section 5, I guess, it might be worth doing some homework on those and also worth reading through the "general licence" system for shooting wild birds - All birds come under some form of protection and even shooting pigeons and crows you need to comply with rules of the general licence.

https://basc.org.uk/shooting/general-licences/

1066 wrote:There are some types of blank firers now banned, the hand in amnesty period has now passed making these section 5, I guess, it might be worth doing some homework on those and also worth reading through the "general licence" system for shooting wild birds - All birds come under some form of protection and even shooting pigeons and crows you need to comply with rules of the general licence.

https://basc.org.uk/shooting/general-licences/

I fully understand that herons are protected ( and even bloody cormorants ! ), but I had no idea that the shooting of crows and pigeons also had restrictions imposed. As it happens, I used the blank firers to frighten off predators, but gradually the buggers became indifferent to these noises, hence the need to " upgrade " my weaponry to the level of potential lethality i.e. air rifles.
One point occurs to me, though. I have been charged with ownership of some of the above guns and not using them to kill or injure any creatures. Is it then really at all relevant to investigate further the rules of the general licence ?

Spiggy wrote:

1066 wrote:There are some types of blank firers now banned, the hand in amnesty period has now passed making these section 5, I guess, it might be worth doing some homework on those and also worth reading through the "general licence" system for shooting wild birds - All birds come under some form of protection and even shooting pigeons and crows you need to comply with rules of the general licence.

https://basc.org.uk/shooting/general-licences/

I fully understand that herons are protected ( and even bloody cormorants ! ), but I had no idea that the shooting of crows and pigeons also had restrictions imposed. As it happens, I used the blank firers to frighten off predators, but gradually the buggers became indifferent to these noises, hence the need to " upgrade " my weaponry to the level of potential lethality i.e. air rifles.
One point occurs to me, though. I have been charged with ownership of some of the above guns and not using them to kill or injure any creatures. Is it then really at all relevant to investigate further the rules of the general licence ?

By trying to scare the pigeons and crows away with blanks before shooting them sound as if you have complied with the general licence. ie Shooting must be the last resort.

I was just a little concerned that, standing up in court, saying you only have the airguns to deter Herons, Birds of Prey and Otters might not go down too well, and when asked if you complied with the terms of the General Licence when shooting the Crows, you had some idea of what they are talking about.
The air rifles, of course, must be below 12ftlbs energy to be exempt from certificate.

Best wishes and please keep us posted.

Stephen wrote:

Spiggy wrote:AlthoughI did retain a very old family heirloom for display above the fireplace purposes. This gun was a double barrelled muzzle loader that used copper percussion caps to fire it. I don't believe that these caps are available any more even if I wanted them ( which I don't ). Also, one of the guns nipples for locating a cap is broken off, so, all in all, it is only suitable as an ornament.

That gun is unambiguously an antique firearm kept as a curio or ornament and is therefore completely exempt from all the provisions of the various firearms acts. I am appalled but not surprised, given the abysmal knowledge of firearms exhibited by many police officers, that they threatened to prosecute you. I know I am coning to this debate a little late but if you are still having problems please PM me and I may be assist with the correct words to be used in a formal letter to the police.

Hello Stephen and others.

As if any further confirmation were required, I was yesterday advised by a retired Chief Superintendant who is presently a licensed gun dealer that the police were utterly wrong to have charged me with ownership of the antique muzzle loader that is the basis of their charging me.

I am now seeking to have this gun ( and others that were taken and no charges brought returned to
me ). Your kind offer, Stephen, to advise on the wording as to how this may be done, would be much appreciated.

Cheers.

I think that it should be mentioned that even if the muzzle loader is legal, the posession of the two blank firers is a firearms offence.
It does not matter when you purchased them or what they are used for.

Sorry for the bad news, but hopefully with a good lawyer the judge will see sense and just have them destroyed.

Mark

bigfathairybiker wrote:I think that it should be mentioned that even if the muzzle loader is legal, the posession of the two blank firers is a firearms offence.
It does not matter when you purchased them or what they are used for.

Sorry for the bad news, but hopefully with a good lawyer the judge will see sense and just have them destroyed.

Mark

Hello Mark,

You are quite right of course, but I still wish to recover the two air rifles and certificated/ legally owned replica pistol I own.

Cheers.

Via this forum I have received a private message from another member. Upon seeking to access this PM I been advised by the forum that " I am not authorised to receive private messages " . Regrettably, I cannot therefore respond. My thanks to that other member for displaying an interest.