S1 to S2 shotgun proof: A cautionary tale

[leadpig]

Actually your not all correct.iirc there's is a time period where the gun does not need to be crimped. Unfortunately I can't remember when at the moment.but aything made before this date does not need a crimp

I can't recall the specifics either but had a feeling about this to.

it is before 96 for us bud
not arguing about uk law as i am not 100% sure,but i have heard it a few times before

[Asher]

it is before 96 for us bud
not arguing about uk law as i am not 100% sure,but i have heard it a few times before

Yeah, I think the IoM very sensibly decided not to mirror the Mainland UK's 1988 debacle and hang onto their pistols and full capacity shotguns, electing instead to adopt a seperate act several years later. I haven't read the Manx 96 act but I suspect its significantly different to anything we have in statute.

I'd be delighted if we had non-retroactive laws in the UK: that way the government wouldn't have criminalised all those Brocock owners and anyone who didn't apply for an FAC or get their shotguns restricted. I don't suppose you could row a couple of your legislators over on an exchange programme? ;-)

[normanb]

Argument about law aside , the gun should have been returned to the seller at his expense as soon as the problem was found. He has sold a gun illegally and if he did not either refund your payment or agree to have the gun restricted again at his expenses, he should have been reported to the police . I realise honest mistakes can be made but if they are the person responsible should put them right . I do see the occasional pump or auto that has slipped through the net and am in the position where I can not legally return a gun to its owner even though it is on his certificate until the mag has been restricted.
Dealers who do not know what they are doing need to be put out of business .