But antiques are still ok, arent they?
The surrender value of the firearms accessories strikes me as being a profit making opportunity!
Actually the prices seem to be on the low side for many items. A scope can easily cost £2,000 and a typical one around £500-£1000.
You also don't seem to be able to claim for unused amunition and reloading supplies and equipments, something that could cost well over £1000.
Just imagine if all bushcraft-style knifes were banned and you could only claim £20 per knife. I expect there'd be a few collectors a bit out of pocket!
I would have thought reloading gear, mostly, was transferable and sellable. Lots of accessories too.
Not necessarily. The commonest lever release rifle is the 9mm and there aren't many other 9mm rifles about. So, your dies, cases, heads, prep tools and even powders may well be no use. Some are likely to give up shooting that discipline so will have no use for the equipment.I would have thought reloading gear, mostly, was transferable and sellable. Lots of accessories too.
I once had a conversation with a serous gun user after the ban and he was not happy about the surrender value of items. He basically got screwed on what his stuff was worth and then saw it for sale at the proper prices and he had friends who had the same experience.The surrender value of the firearms accessories strikes me as being a profit making opportunity!
I submit that it is a peashooter m'lud, a rolled piece of tinplate with a soldered seam constructed in the traditional manner with a plastic mouthpiece.Can you imagine the court case for owning a blow pipe? Would you not be able to own one if it was made according to the traditional methods by hand;
I bet there is a reason, what was the last pattern military sword maybe?That makes sense, I suppose but it seems a bit arbitary, -why 1954?
I bet there is a reason, what was the last pattern military sword maybe?
Were do movie props fall in this?
Some are and some are not. A lot of replica swords need sharping.I dont think they are sharp
Must have missed that. It a nightmare read.To be honest it's quite clearly covered in the act (no pun intended)
Someone on EdgeMatters who works in the legal field describe the people who write laws, not as thoughtful and well reasoned law makers, but as exhausted and overworked legal clerks attempting to produce a single document to satisfy multiple (often ego driven and warring) departments.
The answer to making "zombie" knives illegal is simple. People who buy huge, jagged, spiky knives painted with fake blood and designs glorifying beheading people, albeit fictional un-dead ones, are; not likely to have real need, have a warped childish idea of what is impressive and want to impress peers with same. I suspect that on average such people should not be allowed to indulge such desires. Why buy a scary looking knife unless part of you wants to scare people? Banning them doesn't solve the problem, but it chips away at it.
Curved swords are similar in that morons with blade fetishes fancied themselves samurai and bought cheap stamped out swords, then ran around the streets with them, sometimes naked. Longer swords give more reach which makes them more dangerous (in theory). How is a cheap samurai sword to be described, vs other swords? Its hard to write specifications like this, even if you know the subject. Looking for it to make technical sense is a lost cause because it is only partly about the technical. Its also driven by the behaviour of morons on the street and often by single brutal crimes.