Dear All,
It has been most interesting following this thread and its sister thread started by Paul S: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/inert-ordnance-data-t75039.html
Clearly in many countries (I apologise for the partisan UK perspective adopted by my posts) the law regarding ordnance collecting is unclear in a number of areas:
Proving that an item that once contained explosive content is "inert" is currently difficult in law.
If it is now declared inert - how was it inerted, by whom, where & when. The item may well have been rigorously inerted under (for instance) UK MOD defined procedures. It may have been inerted by shall we say less rigorous procedures. Either way there is no formal legally recognised certificate that is currently in existence to prove either way.
There is currently no official authorising body (anywhere) that can issue a recognised legally binding certificate.
Items may currently be inerted by anybody(!!) this includes a wide range of people through competently trained professionals within the Armed Forces, Civilians working for Private companies or even unqualified individuals. Here of course the presumption is that ownership of the object must be defined as legally owned when held as live
Inerting in the context of this thread refers to items of explosive ordnance (i,e not small arms ammunition propellant as this is not defined as explosives)
The ideal situation would be to have a clearly defined legal process that defines an item as inert. For all the above reasons this is currently not the case and not likely to be in the near future.
Regarding explosive traces this is currently under review with the HSE (in the UK) to define what may constitute a legal level.
No clear directive exists regarding the legal ownership of AP projectiles (in relation to definition of calibre/size). A well placed Forum member is currently pursuing this to maybe get a better idea.
By raising these questions a risk does exist that may result in a simplistic ban the lot official stance being adopted in some way. A vein of opinion probably exists within some members that keeping a low profile may be more advantageous.
My own personal opinion is that it is far better to try and get some form of legal accommodation rather than keep mum. I think to proactively been seen to responsibly address the question as a more sensible approach and would hopefully be seen as such should the need ever arise to prove so legally.
By the amount of very sensible and thoughtful comment generated by this thread and others on this forum, I think shows that as responsible collectors, many forum members have a genuine desire to educate, research, inform and study. We also are law abiding citizens within the global community. The forum is an audit trail and testament to this.
I think it is fair to raise the very real fear, that raising this topic may lead to some form of knee-jerk drastic official response. I believe that this should not deter us from trying to create solutions to some difficult questions. I would hope that the blanket ban approach would be unlikely for many reasons I will not list here as I dont think a defensive posture is helpful.
Would it be worth asking the moderators to consider adding Pauls (evolving) Inert Ordnance data sheet to the forum, as a voluntary approach to help in proof of inert status of certain items? This might help in both practical terms for collectors and if also recognised quasi-officially by BOCN lend it some credence. I know there is a long way to go with this, but feel we do need to start somewhere!
Cheers
Mark
It has been most interesting following this thread and its sister thread started by Paul S: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/inert-ordnance-data-t75039.html
Clearly in many countries (I apologise for the partisan UK perspective adopted by my posts) the law regarding ordnance collecting is unclear in a number of areas:
Proving that an item that once contained explosive content is "inert" is currently difficult in law.
If it is now declared inert - how was it inerted, by whom, where & when. The item may well have been rigorously inerted under (for instance) UK MOD defined procedures. It may have been inerted by shall we say less rigorous procedures. Either way there is no formal legally recognised certificate that is currently in existence to prove either way.
There is currently no official authorising body (anywhere) that can issue a recognised legally binding certificate.
Items may currently be inerted by anybody(!!) this includes a wide range of people through competently trained professionals within the Armed Forces, Civilians working for Private companies or even unqualified individuals. Here of course the presumption is that ownership of the object must be defined as legally owned when held as live
Inerting in the context of this thread refers to items of explosive ordnance (i,e not small arms ammunition propellant as this is not defined as explosives)
The ideal situation would be to have a clearly defined legal process that defines an item as inert. For all the above reasons this is currently not the case and not likely to be in the near future.
Regarding explosive traces this is currently under review with the HSE (in the UK) to define what may constitute a legal level.
No clear directive exists regarding the legal ownership of AP projectiles (in relation to definition of calibre/size). A well placed Forum member is currently pursuing this to maybe get a better idea.
By raising these questions a risk does exist that may result in a simplistic ban the lot official stance being adopted in some way. A vein of opinion probably exists within some members that keeping a low profile may be more advantageous.
My own personal opinion is that it is far better to try and get some form of legal accommodation rather than keep mum. I think to proactively been seen to responsibly address the question as a more sensible approach and would hopefully be seen as such should the need ever arise to prove so legally.
By the amount of very sensible and thoughtful comment generated by this thread and others on this forum, I think shows that as responsible collectors, many forum members have a genuine desire to educate, research, inform and study. We also are law abiding citizens within the global community. The forum is an audit trail and testament to this.
I think it is fair to raise the very real fear, that raising this topic may lead to some form of knee-jerk drastic official response. I believe that this should not deter us from trying to create solutions to some difficult questions. I would hope that the blanket ban approach would be unlikely for many reasons I will not list here as I dont think a defensive posture is helpful.
Would it be worth asking the moderators to consider adding Pauls (evolving) Inert Ordnance data sheet to the forum, as a voluntary approach to help in proof of inert status of certain items? This might help in both practical terms for collectors and if also recognised quasi-officially by BOCN lend it some credence. I know there is a long way to go with this, but feel we do need to start somewhere!
Cheers
Mark