New rules from Revenue?

meathstevie

Folks, I think we’re well going around in circles by now.

I found using a simple rule of thumb for nothing that’s not strictly defined in law like nightvision scopes and suppressors etc etc very effective.

It goes like this; if it’s essential to make your gun go boom safely while expelling a projectile from the muzzle it’s an essential component. If not it isn’t.

That firmly throws the likes of barrels, hammers, bolts, firing pins, springs, receivers, slides, trigger mechs etc etc in the essential component category. The likes of stocks, sling studs, scope mounts or rails, bipod etc etc clearly are not.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

I have explained it till I'm blue in the face..

You really haven't. You have constantly pushed an opinion that everyone and myself have told you is wrong.

i reinforced post 230... Night night

I seen the changes and for the most part you're still wrong.

The pigeon man

Cass wrote: »

By the way we're focusing on Nightvision.

The law says any light amplification, light emitting or infra-red device is also a firearm. So your thermal scopes, laser range finding scopes, etc. all fall under the same category.

I don't believe that you require authorization to mount a thermal scope on a rifle under the SI

kunekunesika

The pigeon man wrote: »

I don't believe that you require authorization to mount a thermal scope on a rifle under the SI

Light amplification??? Not in the visible spectrum, but light all the same.

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

You really haven't. You have constantly pushed an opinion that everyone and myself have told you is wrong.


I seen the changes and for the most part you're still wrong.

I didnt retract anything.. its still the same... I not accepting that I'm wrong..

I have asked you and other to please show me how you have arrived at this notion.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

I didnt retract anything..

Never said you did. You need to read more carefully.

I not accepting that I'm wrong..

Fair enough.

I have asked you and other to please show me how you have arrived at this notion.

Read the last 15 or so replies, this time slowly.

After that all i can say is carry on in ignorance.

Cass

The pigeon man wrote: »

I don't believe that you require authorization to mount a thermal scope on a rifle under the SI

Fair enough. Do your own thing, i'm not here to police anyone on their actions in the real world.

The law is clear on this whether you believe it or not.

Mellor

"Zxthinger wrote: »

I have asked you and other to please show me how you have arrived at this notion.

My last couple of posts are about as clear as I can make it. Other have made it equally clear.
If you are refusing to accept that’s the law then there’s nothing much more to be said.
Good luck with it.

Zxthinger

Mellor wrote: »

My last couple of posts are about as clear as I can make it. Other have made it equally clear.
If you are refusing to accept that’s the law then there’s nothing much more to be said.
Good luck with it.

Lets look at some of your statements.. and lets not fall-out..

Mellor wrote: »

It's not a licensing issue. It's an importation issue.

I fully acknowledge that its an importation issue.. I dont think I ever said that it wasn't..

The issues is that the items were not deemed to be components under Section one of the Firearms act 1925, and the regulations made thereunder ..... thus they didn't require an importation licence...

See the extract below from post 170.. Court Statement..

donkeykingkong wrote: »

The following order was read into court......


(i) Quashing the Notice of Seizure dated the 1st April 2020 on the grounds that no importation license was required for the goods, specifically (a) 2 Empty Magazine Cartridges for TAC21, (b) 1 Buttpad Spacer Kit (c) 1 ORYX Chassis System (hereafter “the goods”) because the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts and the regulations made thereunder;
.

and that reference in red relates to "component" and not to "essential components" nor does it relate to any other facet of the items description, traits, characteristic or functionality.

The only place within the act that define a 'component part' is section one of the 1925 act (as amended). A court would have to refer to this if they wished to determine if an item was a component..

and they determined that the items were not component parts....!
See the court ruling...

Below is the relevent legislation.. from which they were required to obtain a definition of a firearm, (extended to a 'component part' via amendments over the years)

any object (i)manufactured for the use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm and (ii)without which it could not function as originally designed, is a firearm.

Do you agree with that synopsis thus far?

The pigeon man

Cass wrote: »

Fair enough. Do your own thing, i'm not here to police anyone on their actions in the real world.

The law is clear on this whether you believe it or not.

(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

tudderone

The pigeon man wrote: »

(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

I wouldn't build a house on those foundations.

kunekunesika

The pigeon man wrote: »

(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

First thing a solicitor will do is Google, thermal scope how it works. The answer will leave you very exposed.

BattleCorp

kunekunesika wrote: »

First thing a solicitor will do is Google, thermal scope how it works. The answer will leave you very exposed.

To be fair, that only says that the scope detects infrared rays through an array of detector elements, it doesn't say anything about emitting anything.

kunekunesika

BattleCorp wrote: »

To be fair, that only says that the scope detects infrared rays through an array of detector elements, it doesn't say anything about emitting anything.

Neither does the legislation.

It mentions electronic amplification of light, and so does Google. That's without even discussing infra red

kunekunesika

kunekunesika wrote: »

Neither does the legislation.

It mentions electronic amplification of light, and so does Google. That's without even discussing infra red

Not the bit of legislation listed above

BattleCorp

kunekunesika wrote: »

Neither does the legislation.

It mentions electronic amplification of light, and so does Google. That's without even discussing infra red

Fair point.

Although I don't see anything that says electronic amplification of light in that link you posted. Or in Wikipedia either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

By the way, I'm tired so maybe I'm missing it.

Cass

The pigeon man wrote: »

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

Can you see thermal heat with the naked eye?

Perhaps the scope "amplifies" this or makes its visible!

Then it falls into the cateogry, but again do your own thing. No skin off my nose who abides by or ignores the law.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

, it doesn't say anything about emitting anything.

But it does amplify it because you do not see this with the naked eye and this device helps you do so via amplification, manipulation, or whatever adverb you wish to assign to it.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

But it does amplify it.

I'll always err on the side of caution so I'm not advocating for putting one of these on a gun without permission but I love a good argument.

Is converting light the same as amplifying it?

Because the thermal scope info I've read says that it converts it into electrical impulses, it doesn't say anything about amplifying it. Splitting hairs I know, but sure I'm bored in lockdown.

kunekunesika

BattleCorp wrote: »

Fair point.

Although I don't see anything that says electronic amplification of light in that link you posted. Or in Wikipedia either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

By the way, I'm tired so maybe I'm missing it.

I'm tired too. So much easier over a pint.
Your correct, my screen shot doesn't say the word amplification.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is converting light the same as amplifying it?
.

To amplify is to enlarge, increase, add detail to soemthing.

Now if you want to go to court, like the OP, to fight the meaning of the word and its application to the legislation then haveatit.

The law that governs this was written in 1990. Thats 31 years ago when thermal scopes were pipe dreams due to them being military items or costing the same a house (back then).

Roll on 30 years and they're common as muck and cost less than the guns they're fitted to.

So which is easier while at the same time keeping you "right".

Go for gold and ignore the legislation?
Apply for authorisation?

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

To amplify is to enlarge, increase, add detail to soemthing.

Now if you want to go to court, like the OP, to fight the meaning of the word and its application to the legislation then haveatit.

The law that governs this was written in 1990. Thats 31 years ago when thermal scopes were pipe dreams due to them being military items or costing the same a house (back then).

Roll on 30 years and they're common as muck and cost less than the guns they're fitted to.

So which is easier while at the same time keeping you "right".

Go for gold and ignore the legislation?
Apply for authorisation?

It was also a time when the IRA were running amok in the north, and anything like useful to them like night vision or thermal would have been frowned upon by the ptb.

BattleCorp

kunekunesika wrote: »

I'm tired too. So much easier over a pint.
Your correct, my screen shot doesn't say the word amplification.

Jaysus, I'd murder a pint. Actually, at this stage of the lockdown I'd say I'd be merry after a pint.

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ), we (the Forum, I'm not hitting on you ) should have a meet-up for pints. I've seen the After Hours Forum crowd do it.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

Jaysus, I'd murder a pint. Actually, at this stage of the lockdown I'd say I'd be merry after a pint.

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ), we (the Forum, I'm not hitting on you ) should have a meet-up for pints. I've seen the After Hours Forum crowd do it.

Bsatard thing keeps changing and getting more dangerous, the South African variant, the brazilian variant...................

kunekunesika

BattleCorp wrote: »

Jaysus, I'd murder a pint. Actually, at this stage of the lockdown I'd say I'd be merry after a pint.

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ), we (the Forum, I'm not hitting on you ) should have a meet-up for pints. I've seen the After Hours Forum crowd do it.

Jaysus, we'd end up getting barred, can only imagine the arguments....

Feisar

kunekunesika wrote: »

Jaysus, we'd end up getting barred, can only imagine the arguments....

It'd be like a scene from Unforgiven!

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ).

Things will look a lot different then.

Zxthinger

meathstevie wrote: »

Folks, I think we’re well going around in circles by now.

I found using a simple rule of thumb for nothing that’s not strictly defined in law like nightvision scopes and suppressors etc etc very effective.

It goes like this; if it’s essential to make your gun go boom safely while expelling a projectile from the muzzle it’s an essential component. If not it isn’t.

That firmly throws the likes of barrels, hammers, bolts, firing pins, springs, receivers, slides, trigger mechs etc etc in the essential component category. The likes of stocks, sling studs, scope mounts or rails, bipod etc etc clearly are not.

Triggers are not covered in the SI 420/2019. But I see yer logic but.....

Mellor

Zxthinger wrote: »

I fully acknowledge that its an importation issue.. I dont think I ever said that it wasn't..

I don't think that accurate.
The previous post, to which that quote referred, and other posts, you made reference to what can be done various firearms dealer in the country.
Paying for goods and services from a dealer is not importation.
Hence the comments pointing out the same.

So you concede now that those comments were wrong.

The issues is that the items were not deemed to be components under Section one of the Firearms act 1925, and the regulations made thereunder ..... thus they didn't require an importation licence...

----

Do you agree with that synopsis thus far?

I'm sorry you've lost me there.

The items were deemed to not be components required to function, therefore are not considered firearms and could be imported.

I haven't disputed the outcome or logic of the case. Neither have posters above. The dispute was on your claims subsequent to this. You've shifted the goalposts quite a bit with this latest revision.

The determination above was based entirely on the function of the items. He had nothing to do with the fact that the poster in question already possessed similar parts. Which is what you claimed.

If the OP lost his magazines. And it firearm couldn't function as a semi automatic. A magazine wouldn't suddenly become a component again.
If you've dropped the earlier claims and are now agreeing with us? Great, you conceded and we can move on.

If this was a preamble to a some other point, by all means continue, but maybe get to the point.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll always err on the side of caution so I'm not advocating for putting one of these on a gun without permission but I love a good argument.

Is converting light the same as amplifying it?

Because the thermal scope info I've read says that it converts it into electrical impulses, it doesn't say anything about amplifying it. Splitting hairs I know, but sure I'm bored in lockdown.

Amplify, from the point of physics definition, would mean to increased the energy of light (or sound). In plain terms, to make brighter (or louder)

A night vision scope takes low amounts of visible light and amplifies it. So the image is brighter.

Thermal imaging takes infrared light, converts to electrical signals, and displays on a screen (light).
There may or may not be amplification, but that's irrelevant, as the detection falls under the infrared part anyway.

The pigeon man wrote:

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

Heat is infrared radiation.