Rude Fat Dog Long Barrelled Revolvers

[MistAgain]

Depending on the type of FFL the American company has , they can rename and renumber a firearms that has been assembled from other companies component parts legally in USA.
They just cant remove a name or number .

If they want to call the S & W an Upyours and give it a new serial number they can . The export licence would show it as an Upyours 357 Long Barrel Revolver and the serial number .

If the importer has an open import licence there will be no makers name on the licence .

When customs check the firearm , they will find it has S & W stamped on the frame , maybe Aristrocrat on one side of the sight rib , and Upyours engraved somewhere else , and it all agrees with any paperwork that comes with the shipment so at first glance its legal if its got a 12 inch barrel and is 24 inches long .

Of course the importer is taking a small risk , but I will bet good money that he has had a “get out of jail letter” for a long time . Gareth used one to get away with a small slap on the wrist many years back , so I wont say what it is .

The only people who could suffer would be the FAC holder as they could get their firearm confiscated and get no compensation .

Apart from that , at present we are fighting to retain firearms that are 100% legal , yet a dodgy rogue RFD is bringing in firearms that he knows damm well could cause the HO to take a closer look at all other LBP's .

So why do they do it ?

[Sim G]

This subject was done to death only seven months ago, or so...

https://full-bore.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=32508

I’m of the same opinion that I was then, that unless the S&W based LBR has component parts that were never previously were part of a firearm that would make them subject to general prohibition as per s5 of the 1968 Act, then they would be prohibited under s7 of the 1988 Amendment Act, regardless of what was done to give them the appearance of conforming to s1.

If individual RFDs and FAC holders want to sail that close to the wind, then ordinarily I would say, “Good luck to them, by its not my bag....” However, as we have seen just over the last few weeks, the authorities really don’t give a rats ass how “facts” are presented to Parliamentary Committees. As the reduction of illegal firearms is a national policing priority, led by the NCA and supported by NABIS, the risk of having all LBRs and LBPs banned on the back of this is very real, should the authorities pick this up and decide to run with it.

[the running man]

Again, being around for a long while accounts little for knowing the intricacies of the legislation in the UK.

The police force has been around a long while and they still give out incorrect information when talking about firearms legislation from time to time - I've known it happen.

Look a little while back and see that southern gun company got in a lot of bother with the first batch of lever release that were considered not fitting within the law, after people took delivery and had them on ticket - they had a long history of making straight pulls behind them, too.

Whilst experience goes some way, when moving into murky waters and the path not yet taken it stands for very little.

out of interest, what makes the S&W frames illegal? presumably it is barrel length? , so if the design incorporates a legal length barrel and an ext to bring the overall length into the realms of the legislation. where is the problem?
where would that make them different from Taurus revolvers for example?
obviously with rifles such as the M1 they are section 5 due to their self loading action, and in order to convert to sec 1 straight pulls certain measures have to be taken, to alter the action in a way that it cannot be easily changed back. anyone who does that without clearing it with the relevant authorities in advance is playing with fire, SGC appear to have been caught by a retrospective investigation, in the same way that the MARS and lever release rifles appear to be in danger of reclassification (moving the goal posts) I find it hard to believe that they would have gone into production without some clearance from the authorities, even if at a later date someone decided there was an issue that needed to be amended

As is my understanding, and I am welcome to be put right, items such as the buckmark start from a carbine which is within the UK law. Similarly, the k22 comes from the factory to UK spec and I read the other day that the walther that's recently graced us has had the extensions made in the UK and shipped to the factory to comply with 'once section 5 always section 5' interpretation of the law.

So because these are leaving the factory as what would be section 5 and then from RFD's own post are being altered to UK spec, is this a technicality, or does it open the door for other manufacturers and models?

If that is the case, why hasn't anyone done it previously with very popular models such as flocks and the like? My understanding was that without aftermarket frames and assembling as a UK spec from the very beginning it was not possible to import.

I'm asking here because I'm wondering if anyone knows or has proof that this is no longer the case, if indeed it ever strictly was??

All this has come up before,the UK government is only interested in the gun if it does not enter the UK as sec 1, ie it was made UK legal then brought in........the checks and thumbs up by several uk government departments will hold any RFD in good steed should a legal challenge be mounted.....this was tested in the courts before with straight pull ar rifles were being brought into the UK that were converted outside the UK but we're indeed once semi auto and full auto in some cases...brought in as sec 1 perfectly legal,all those charges were dropped embarrassingly so if I remember correctly..

[FredB]

Section 5 is part of UK legislation and as yet the British Government does not attempt to control what goes on in other countries. Read the legislation: it does not mention the manufacture of the revolver, just that it has been a section 5 pistol in the UK, in which case it must not be modified to section 1. Lots of guns start off in one country and are finished in another--- the Miroku / Browning products are a good example.
Fred

[Sim G]

Section 5 is part of UK legislation and as yet the British Government does not attempt to control what goes on in other countries. Read the legislation: it does not mention the manufacture of the revolver, just that it has been a section 5 pistol in the UK, in which case it must not be modified to section 1. Lots of guns start off in one country and are finished in another--- the Miroku / Browning products are a good example.
Fred

No, your assessment is wrong.