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

Alan D wrote:You sound like you are enjoying Peters misery Sim.
Oh well, I guess some people just relish sticking in the boot when a man is down.

given SimG's profession, I would say his view is right and proper.

Ovenpaa wrote:Well now I am really confused, 3 years so out in 15-18 months for the theft of firearms including a Hi power and SA80 as well as what looks to be an L96. What happened to the mandatory 5 years for such offences?

Strangely Brown wrote:

Mattnall wrote:I believe the HiPower was a deact, the SA80 in the pic looks like it might be a DP, no idea on the L96.

I rather think they got him on theft regarding the Browning HiPower; which I notice the press are calling a high powered pistol!

For the avoidance of any doubt (and I say this knowing the facts of the case very well), the charge relating to the Browning Hi Power was a Section 57(1) firearm charge, NOT theft.

Peter owned the Hi Power prior to the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act handgun ban. Prior to the ban, he deactivated it himself (entirely legitimately), and took it off his certificate. As such, it was deactivated under the earliest and most open deact regulations.

The case revolved around whether or not it was still a firearm under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.

I shan't go into details, but the case was a mess for a number of reasons, and the Browning should not have been classified as a firearm, but as a deact. It is as simple as that really.

Morning David,
this sounds dangerously like the truth! Yikes, that never goes down well.

I do hope you are pleased with yourself getting in the way of a good old fashioned gossip fed internet lynching and spoiling the crowds fun....

Morning Alan

Yes, sorry, I only post the facts, and the truth!

It is no great secret I have involvement in this case, and the Modplod investigation in to allegedly stolen MOD property. As such, I do know the facts pretty well.

I am neither defending nor criticising Peter, but merely want to see the facts represented fairly if the case is being discussed here.

Peter cannot defend himself right now, and it is not fair when people put the boot in on incorrect statements.

"Put the boot in on incorrect statements".

How true, it's so easy to give someone a good kicking when he can't defend himself, perhaps the baying mob could put their pitchforks and blazing torches down now?

David TS wrote:Morning Alan

Yes, sorry, I only post the facts, and the truth!

It is no great secret I have involvement in this case, and the Modplod investigation in to allegedly stolen MOD property. As such, I do know the facts pretty well.

I am neither defending nor criticising Peter, but merely want to see the facts represented fairly if the case is being discussed here.

Peter cannot defend himself right now, and it is not fair when people put the boot in on incorrect statements.

It would be very helpful and informative to the community if someone were to produce a factual analysis of the case, including the evidence, the points of law in question, and the reasoning behind convictions.

Pretty much every single firearms case in the public domain is obfuscated by bad reporting and apparently ill-informed comment from the authorities themselves. It would be exceptionally useful, for example, for many of us shooters/RFDs to hear about any clarifications or rulings that have been made over the ownership of ex-military weapons and components, the position in law of components themselves, any issues of proof and/or deactivation, etc.

Alan D wrote:Morning David,
this sounds dangerously like the truth! Yikes, that never goes down well.

I do hope you are pleased with yourself getting in the way of a good old fashioned gossip fed internet lynching and spoiling the crowds fun....

Get over yourself. Laidler’s a thief. He committed that theft whilst in a position of trust. That evidently is the character of the man.

Sim G wrote:

Alan D wrote:Morning David,
this sounds dangerously like the truth! Yikes, that never goes down well.

I do hope you are pleased with yourself getting in the way of a good old fashioned gossip fed internet lynching and spoiling the crowds fun....

Get over yourself. Laidler’s a thief. He committed that theft whilst in a position of trust. That evidently is the character of the man.

Alan D was, I hope, being ferric.

Alan D wrote:Morning David,
this sounds dangerously like the truth! Yikes, that never goes down well.

I do hope you are pleased with yourself getting in the way of a good old fashioned gossip fed internet lynching and spoiling the crowds fun....

I am sorry you feel that way. When I started this thread it was not my intention to promote a hanging party and being quite honest, I still do not see it that way either. From a personal view point I have been reasonably non-committal on the whole affair. The law has shown Laidler and Smith to be guilty and that should be the end of it.

I have kept my personal opinion well out of this thread and I suspect a few others on here have done the same which is very fair, to comment further would be wrong.

David TS wrote:

Strangely Brown wrote:

Mattnall wrote:I believe the HiPower was a deact, the SA80 in the pic looks like it might be a DP, no idea on the L96.

I rather think they got him on theft regarding the Browning HiPower; which I notice the press are calling a high powered pistol!

For the avoidance of any doubt (and I say this knowing the facts of the case very well), the charge relating to the Browning Hi Power was a Section 57(1) firearm charge, NOT theft.

Peter owned the Hi Power prior to the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act handgun ban. Prior to the ban, he deactivated it himself (entirely legitimately), and took it off his certificate. As such, it was deactivated under the earliest and most open deact regulations.

The case revolved around whether or not it was still a firearm under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.

I shan't go into details, but the case was a mess for a number of reasons, and the Browning should not have been classified as a firearm, but as a deact. It is as simple as that really.

David,
Thank you for confirming the exact details on the Hi Power Browning; I thought if anybody knew the correct details in this case it would be you!