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

Jesus! Is there anyone here not called Iain, who isn't Scottish and not a Police Officer? My head hurts.

I also collect Noise magnets!

IainWR wrote:

snayperskaya wrote:
Imperial Stormtrooper brandishing a tarted up MG42 would raise a few eyebrows!

IIRC the Imperial Stormtroopers carried Sterling Mk7s with the stocks folded and a couple of odd bits added on the front. No match for a well-wielded Lightsaber.

May the Force be with you.

Iain
Jedi, according to the last Census

I do apologise as I got my numbers mixed up, they are actually modded MG34s.The Sand Troopers in A New Hope carry them in a few scenes as heavy blaster rifles, the modded Sterlings was carried as the standard issue blaster and were modded further for use by Rebel troops on board Tantive V in the opening battle scene of A New Hope.A modified MG42 was carried by the bounty hunter Dengar in The Empire Strikes back.There are also some scenes in a New Hope where a modded Lewis gun is used.Although not gun related there is a scene at the end of the Podrace in The Phantom Menace where one of the guys in the crowd is wearing a 1980s Soviet tank crew helmet.
Richard
Complete Star Wars Anorak

Edinburgh area FEOs have been phoning FAC holders at home during the evenings...8pm & the like...yet the office closes at 4pm.

A mate was asked if his M-N had a bayonet attached.
He told the calling officer that his M-N was a M91 variant - to be met with a "What's one of them?"

F.O.I. Act request long overdue perhaps, as nobody seems to have driven the point home to Police Scotland (as of yet) that no law is being broken!

My FAC has several out of date "conditions" on it. Maybe actually keeping up with changes to the law & governing bodies would be time better spent, i.e. MoD does not approve civilian ranges, etc.

saddler wrote:nobody seems to have driven the point home to Police Scotland (as of yet) that no law is being broken!

The problem is, as I think I said before, that a bayonet is an offensive weapon by definition, and having an o.w. in a public place is an offence to which there are statutory defences. Therefore PC McPlod may arrest you and seize the weapon on reasonable suspicion, and leave you to fight it with the McCPS and the Sherrif.

IainWR wrote:

saddler wrote:nobody seems to have driven the point home to Police Scotland (as of yet) that no law is being broken!

The problem is, as I think I said before, that a bayonet is an offensive weapon by definition, and having an o.w. in a public place is an offence to which there are statutory defences. Therefore PC McPlod may arrest you and seize the weapon on reasonable suspicion, and leave you to fight it with the McCPS and the Sherrif.

Surrey Police must be wringing their hands come the annual October-tide HBSA shoots at Bisley...all them offensive weapons attached to the pointy end of historic rifles! I bet they draw lots to see which PC Plod gets to qualify for the Chief Constables commendation letter for that year...

Is there anything to show IN LAW that a bayonet is an named/classified offensive weapon ONLY & can never be viewed otherwise? (i.e. part of a genuine collection, a historical artefact, etc.)

The law is different in England. This is a live issue only in Scotland.

Correct me if I have misunderstood this issue but is it just the fact that the bayonet in question has a point that makes it an OW? If you were to make a blunt ended sleeve (or a modified brass case) and bond it over the end of said pointy thing would it be sufficient for no law to be broken? Bonding agent could be chosen so that it could be removed with a small hammer and drift and not damage the bayonet. I have looked at a mates M44 and it looks like there is enough clearance for such an adaptation to fit without fouling the stock.

I could quite possibly do some severe damage with the blunt end of ye olde military rifle...bayonet notwithstanding.

That must make buttplates offensive weapons...but only under Scottish Common-(zero)-sense Law 2014; pre-Independence "Vote" PikeStaff Confiscation Enabling Bill...

Meaty wrote:Correct me if I have misunderstood this issue but is it just the fact that the bayonet in question has a point that makes it an OW? If you were to make a blunt ended sleeve (or a modified brass case) and bond it over the end of said pointy thing would it be sufficient for no law to be broken? Bonding agent could be chosen so that it could be removed with a small hammer and drift and not damage the bayonet. I have looked at a mates M44 and it looks like there is enough clearance for such an adaptation to fit without fouling the stock.

The feature that makes it an OW by definition is that is was made for the specific purpose of inflicting harm on a person. Exactly what mechanism is used to inflict the harm is not relevant (except that in England & Wales, anything controlled under the Firearms Acts cannot be classed as an OW by definition under the Criminal Justice Act - though a gun can still be such in other ways, for instance if you use the blunt end as a club). I think that trying to come up with a viable "deactivation" scheme for a bayonet is heading into difficult and uncertain legal territory.

Remember that it is the Scottish legislation on knives that has kicked all this off.

Who was feeding into the creation of this act on behalf of shooters?