British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Is it Illegal?
- Thread starter allgss
- Start date
Panzerknacker
Well-Known Member
As far as im aware it is ! thanks to princess Diana ! even de-activated ones are illegal to sell ! you would have thought they would draw the line between live and de-activated ! there no different to weapons like guns, it makes no sense ! especially to collectors, some one should get this law changed .....
Ok next question, is it illegal to own them as a collector or is that ok ? just the selling of them is illegal?
It depends very much on which country you are in. Also the means/level of deactivation. If the legal question is in reference to the mine treaty, different mines have different levels of dismantling before they meet the legal definition of "destroyed". Once it meets that point it is no longer a mine. Cutaway models are popular in many areas because of this.
Panzerknacker
Well-Known Member
YOU can hold them in this condition legally as a collector, its just selling them that's illegal ! What i don't get is some of the older mines are rusty or in bad condition are all included in this ban, Who in there Wright mind would want to use them again !, but i can understand it more on the modern plastic ones are there condition doesn't deteriorate over time ! But Anti tank mines are un-effected , Diana was just trying to stop this civilian cost of anti-personnel mines but went over the top on banning all A/P mines even useless de-activated ones ! This just apply s to the U.K and any other country that signed the treaty ...
For almost any of the weapons treaties the requirements apply to empty bodies. This prevents a country that wants to circumvent the treaty from refilling empty munitions in secret, or selling them to be refilled. But each munition also has what is considered an "end point of destruction". In some cases this may be the body, in others a critical component. It may be as simple as a small hole, or a cut at some point. Once this is complete the item is no longer legally defined as a munition, the munition was destroyed. Generally at this point the item is treated as scrap, but it can vary. I was in the Czech Republic shortly after they joined the treaty (entry into force) and they were putting PP Mi Sr's on a can opener and opening the bottom, removing one internal piece for accountability and dumping out the flake TNT. The mine bodies then went out the door as scrap, no longer landmines.
The purpose and spirit of the AP ban was to stop armies and manufacturers from selling and using these mines in conflict or war, the ban, which only applies to countries who signed up to the treaty. AP mines being a real nuisance weapon, 10 pence to lay and 100s of pounds to dispose off, rightly so, any de-miner will tell you that. I don't think the spirit of the ban was to pick on collectors, individuals or museums with old rusty relics etc of wars gone past many years ago, of course the local plod would interpret the law as meaning all AP mines, inert from rusty to new but that's what they usually do even when it comes to firearms laws etc, I think a court would throw out such prosecutions if ever a case came to light, i have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for having an old relic S-mine ever since the ban started, there's also a lot of scaremongers out there and rumours spread amongst the ill informed and so called experts. Remember even shells, mortar bombs can be turned into AP mines just by fitting a different fuze or igniter, even an anti tank mine fitted with a more sensitive igniter can act as an AP mine, just kills more people. In hostile countries where the enemy improvises munitions, they can turn a bean tin or a wooden box into an AP mine, so where does it stop. Does this mean that all bean tins, wooden boxes, shells and mortar bombs are banned because they could be made into potential AP mines.
Last edited:
I have to agree with BMG50, this legislation was poorly implemented. For my money, a better result would have been a 'ban' on the concept of deliberately buried explosive devices of any sort. There are a number of anomalies with the AP landmine ban as it stands, for example, the FMK-1 AP mine is fitted with a plastic reinforcing cap and placed on a large block of HE to make the FMK-3 AT mine. I am not aware that any permanent changes to the FMK-1 design have been made, so when does the FMK-1 stop being an AP mine and start being a component of an AT mine? How can this be policed?
Not banning the concept of deliberately burying items also leaves the field open for improvisation, which means future 'minefields' could be considered 'IED fields' instead. I'll bet the cost of clearance will become extortionate once the known fields of standardized factory produced items have been cleared.
Not banning the concept of deliberately burying items also leaves the field open for improvisation, which means future 'minefields' could be considered 'IED fields' instead. I'll bet the cost of clearance will become extortionate once the known fields of standardized factory produced items have been cleared.
Most of these treaties are very similar in their approach to disarmament, and the text is readily available for you to pull up on the internet and read. In general, the ban is for any AP mines and any munitions used as AP mines, whether by initial design or not. As with most multi-nation treaties the push is for the countries to willingly abandon the ordnance and practice, but with provisions for other members to complain ans ask for review of compliance.
Back to the original question, as with most treaties, the mine ban requires signatories to the treaty to enact legislation within it's own borders so that no private citizen can do what the country itself has pledged not to. So if your country cannot have an AP mine, neither can you.
Obviously this is not intended to attack collectors or museums. In most treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention special allowances are made for training and display items. But this does not mean that it cannot be used by law enforcement when they desire. This was one aspect recently under discussion about the loss of a chemical rocket that had been offered for sale in the US.
Some of the applicable text directly from the mine treaty:
Back to the original question, as with most treaties, the mine ban requires signatories to the treaty to enact legislation within it's own borders so that no private citizen can do what the country itself has pledged not to. So if your country cannot have an AP mine, neither can you.
Obviously this is not intended to attack collectors or museums. In most treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention special allowances are made for training and display items. But this does not mean that it cannot be used by law enforcement when they desire. This was one aspect recently under discussion about the loss of a chemical rocket that had been offered for sale in the US.
Some of the applicable text directly from the mine treaty:
- "Anti-personnel mine" means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.
- "Mine" means a munition designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or a vehicle.
- Each State Party shall take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control.
Again, the question is not so much about the treaty, but your country and their applicable laws. Don't forget also what has already been said about what is "destroyed".