Jump to content
ruxy

Thoroughly examine your DEAC Launcher(s)

Recommended Posts

i guess if they find a cannabis factory in your flat everything else is fair game to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know and accept that 'the law is the law' and all that (as daft sometimes as we may well think it is) but....

with no missile/projectile it wasn't really dangerous was it?...

Now..... I know weapons and ammunition are apparently widely available on every street corner (according to The Sun they are anyways ! :D) but seriously now.....where would you possibly find a rocket for that launcher?...some 9mm ammo is one thing and also possibly some 7.62 but....... an anti tank missile???..

not really likely to be in the inventory of the average street gang gun supplier is it?

Like Griff said to be fair...

the fella was stupid enough to have a 'drug factory' in his flat, so the Judge wasn't going to let him off and rightly so but..........laying it on a bit thick weren't they?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also a disposable launcher so cant be made to fire anything more than piece of drain pipe... still as you say teh law is the law.

 

I had one confiscated once when shipped from US, had huge holes cut in but didnt have proof house mark so they destroyed it ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile" is a Section 5 weapon.

 

What I find more worrying is the judge's comment that the owner "should have checked if this was a potentially dangerous weapon or not". Does this suggest that a deactivation stamp and certificate isn't good enough, an owner must somehow check the weapon themself?

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps,

 

Out of interest, what is done to deactivate a tube when it has no firing pin or breach ??.

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaps,

 

Out of interest, what is done to deactivate a tube when it has no firing pin or breach ??.

 

Ian

 

I have seen a whole cut in the tube and bars welded inside, a mortar I have has the latter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presuming the Daily Mail article is correct and is quoting the judge correctly (its a big assumption that) his TA service is being used against him in that he would have known what was or wasn't deactivated.

 

If the judge is saying that the proof house marks cannot be trusted then thats a problem that affects everyone.

 

Really this should go to appeal as some of the evidence that the judge has based his judgement on is iffy to say the least. It could also be said that the defendant has been poorly advised into pleading guilty when he could have found his own expert witness to disprove the crowns evidence. Lack of money maybe or lack of knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presuming the Daily Mail article is correct and is quoting the judge correctly (its a big assumption that) his TA service is being used against him in that he would have known what was or wasn't deactivated.

 

If the judge is saying that the proof house marks cannot be trusted then thats a problem that affects everyone.

 

Really this should go to appeal as some of the evidence that the judge has based his judgement on is iffy to say the least. It could also be said that the defendant has been poorly advised into pleading guilty when he could have found his own expert witness to disprove the crowns evidence. Lack of money maybe or lack of knowledge?

 

It's easy to check which proof house proofed it.. may be it was deactivated & someone messed with it, remember if you alter anything on a deac then in the eyes of the law it reverts back to it's former category, in this case a Section 5 Weapon. It could be a case of poor reporting & all the facts are not clear..

I presume he would of been convicted of the two charges separately & the sentence for each read out in court, what was the actual sentence for possessing the Launcher??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more info...

Mark Chalcroft was spared a mandatory five-year prison sentence for possession of a rocket launcher after Judge Richard Bray ruled there were “exceptional circumstances” to the case.

 

Charges of firearm or gun possession carry minimum sentences, and Chalcroft had faced at least five years behind bars.

Sentencing him last Thursday, Judge Bray said: “This is a serious weapon, which could have very serious consequences if it fell into the wrong hands. I accept your basis of plea, that you purchased the weapon as a kind of souvenir and never intended to use it.

“It has a deactivation stamp on it, which suggests it could not be fired.

“But as a former member of the Territorial Army you should have checked if this was a potentially dangerous weapon or not.”

He added: “I accept that there are exceptional features in this case and the five-year minimum sentence doesn’t need to be applied

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise a Judge could overrule mandatory sentences, I thought that was the whole point of them.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was it marked with a proof house stamp.......or ....... was it marked "INERT" by the army? "INERT" is NOT deactivated to proof standards, but how may Judges/police/people know the difference?we used to reload the 66 tube quite often...... with the sub calibre 21mm rocket. it dose have a firing pin. there are many 66 tubes (and 94mm LAWs ) out there stamped INERT but advertised as deactivated. I would have thought a proof house stamp (and certificate) would be a good defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was it marked with a proof house stamp.......or ....... was it marked "INERT" by the army? "INERT" is NOT deactivated to proof standards, but how may Judges/police/people know the difference?we used to reload the 66 tube quite often...... with the sub calibre 21mm rocket. it dose have a firing pin. there are many 66 tubes (and 94mm LAWs ) out there stamped INERT but advertised as deactivated. I would have thought a proof house stamp (and certificate) would be a good defence.

 

A factory Inert Firearm/Weapon does not need a deac cert & it can not be deactivated either as it was never a Firearm/weapon in the first place..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Army INERT launcher tubes 66 and 94mm law were made from fired (live) weapons... then made INERT by the unit armourer (66mm.... the 94mm were made inert at the factory but they did not deactivate the 9mm spotting rifle)

 

launcher tubes I would not touch without a Deact. cert......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the mail headline

which could destroy a tank hidden under his bed

 

Nobody says whether the tank had been deactivated.......

Edited by rog8811

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A factory Inert Firearm/Weapon does not need a deac cert & it can not be deactivated either as it was never a Firearm/weapon in the first place..

 

My AK74 comes from the manufacturers of the real thing - Izhmash - and has a certificate from them saying it is not and never/can never be a real one. UK dealer also included a kind of "letter of authenticity" - if that's the right word - stating the relevant parts of the law that apply to Factory inerts.

Its made from out of tolerance parts and is a pig to field strip because of this............ :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting subject. My thoughts...

 

I don't know whether the Russian certificate would be material in a UK court. It may relate to the currently (AFAIK) unresolved question of whether the UK's recognition of non-UK proof marks applies to deactivation? As I've mentioned on here before, a chap on the wwiireenacting forum wrote to the Home Office for clarification and they didn't actually give him a straight answer.

 

The version I've heard on these foreign made factory inerts is that their import and possession is *tolerated* as there doesn't seem to be anything in the current law that makes them specifically illegal. I think it would be fair to say though that they're the sort of thing (like pre95 deacts) that are vulnerable to future legislative changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CPS won't take people to court over foreign deacs because if they lose, they will open the flood gates to all signatry countries. So there prefered option is for the Police to make it really hard work for the individual, they threaten legal action and suggest that if you surrender the item, they will take it no further. I over heard a conversation with Rytons who stated that they have been asked to collect many confiscated deacs from Dover Police and alter them to UK spec and have them UK proofed. The individual concerned then has had no action taken against him, even though the Police claim he/they was/were in posesion of a restricted item. As yet, no one has had the big cahoonas to challenge them.

 

How many people know that the official DP SLR can be owned without being deactivated? One owner went to court over his example, and he had the assistence of a wel known British Armourer, the same Armourer who helped design the spec for these DP SLRs (I can't remember the L?A? designation). After the court was told that the rifle was altered beyond what is required for deactivation, the case was dismissed. Now this only applies to genuine DP SLRs and not any kind of dealer knock ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a bit Google around on Mark Chalcroft Mark Chalcroft served in the Territorial Army for 12 years. There is no info. to be found stating that in those 12 years he had in fact received infantryman training including that particular weapon.

 

Without such training , then his status is same as a civilian who has never worked in the arms industry.

 

http://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/mark-chalcroft-under-the-bed-rocket-launcher/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CPS won't take people to court over foreign deacs because if they lose, they will open the flood gates to all signatry countries.

Perhaps, but I suspect that would be very rapidly followed by emergency legislation to ban them. Can you imagine the shock! horror! outrage! headlines? Yes the UK is a CIP signatory, but they'd find a way of fudging it if they really wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting subject. My thoughts...

 

I don't know whether the Russian certificate would be material in a UK court. It may relate to the currently (AFAIK) unresolved question of whether the UK's recognition of non-UK proof marks applies to deactivation? As I've mentioned on here before, a chap on the wwiireenacting forum wrote to the Home Office for clarification and they didn't actually give him a straight answer.

 

The version I've heard on these foreign made factory inerts is that their import and possession is *tolerated* as there doesn't seem to be anything in the current law that makes them specifically illegal. I think it would be fair to say though that they're the sort of thing (like pre95 deacts) that are vulnerable to future legislative changes.

 

Point here is the item in question never was a weapon so is not/cannot be deactivated. It has no barrel as such and no firing pin etc. Put simply it is merely a replica made by the company who make the real thing - this is what the Russian certification and the one provided by the UK dealer states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point here is the item in question never was a weapon so is not/cannot be deactivated. It has no barrel as such and no firing pin etc. Put simply it is merely a replica made by the company who make the real thing - this is what the Russian certification and the one provided by the UK dealer states.

 

But presumably therefore subject to the usual VCR restrictions?

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But presumably therefore subject to the usual VCR restrictions?

 

Andy

 

I assume so for safeties sake. Good reason to be with AFRA :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...