Livens Projector

[siegfreid]

I just watched a program on C4 called 4 rooms . The historian , Andy Robertson , sold a Livens projector for 475 . My question is , do they need a deact certificate ? I'm sure some of our knowledgeable members in the UK can answer this . Thanks ! Siegfreid.

 

[peteblight]

475!!! At that price i know someone who's sitting on about 10 grands worth!

Pete

 

[butterfly]

I just watched a program on C4 called 4 rooms . The historian , Andy Robertson , sold a Livens projector for 475 . My question is , do they need a deact certificate ? I'm sure some of our knowledgeable members in the UK can answer this . Thanks ! Siegfreid.

I saw one of these recently and wondered the same thing. Unlike a mortar though this is just basically a very heavy tube, no firing pin, but not sure if that makes it exempt?

regards Kev

 

[siegfreid]

Kev . I agree but better safe than sorry these days . I'm sure someone here must know the Act involved .

 

[TonyE]

It is stretching things a bit, but technically I suppose it is a missile launcher and pressure bearing so is a Section 5 item.

A comparison is the cup discharger for a SMLE which the Home Office consider Section 5.

Regards
TonyE

 

[TimG]

It falls within the definition of mortar other than the I wouldn't call a Liven's projectile a 'stabilised missile'. However, it could fit 'any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing; and. ' Depending on the legal definition of discharge.

With the demise of the FSS, I don't have much faith in any common sense being applied.

TimG

 

[siegfreid]

It is stretching things a bit, but technically I suppose it is a missile launcher and pressure bearing so is a Section 5 item.

A comparison is the cup discharger for a SMLE which the Home Office consider Section 5.

Regards
TonyE[/QUOTE

Tony . The cup discharger for the SMLE has been deemed NOT to be covered by Section 5 in several recent court cases , including one that involved a member of this forum . After being confiscated , it was eventually returned with a clean bill of health in totally original & unmodified form . However , I do realise that it's a difficult area.......

 

[TonyE]

I am aware of the case you mention and the result, but I was told by the Home Office that it does not create a precedent. I would love to have some offical documentary evidence that what you say is now the accepted status.

thanks,
Tony

 

[siegfreid]

I see your point but the owner now displays it on his web page & has not been arrested again . As you say , a difficult one . Perhaps the rule of double jeopardy applies here .

 

[TimG]

The following are lifts from 'Firearms Law Guidance to the Police 2002' https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ent_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf

3.8 In category (vi), a rocket launcher is effectively a tube designed to launch a rocket propelled missile, whereas a mortar uses an explosive charge to launch a bomb. All modern rocket launchers and mortars are caught by this sub-section. Antique or replica mortars (often used by historical re-enactment groups) are used to fire blanks or unstabilised projectiles, and are subject to control under section 1 or 2 of the 1968 Act, depending on the size of the bore and the length of the barrel.

3.9 For category (vii) weapons..........This section not only includes flame throwers and poison gas projectors, but also personal protection sprays using CS, Mace or OC pepper.

Thus due to the poison gas aspect it would appear the Livens Projector would fall under section 5 of the Act. If not it falls under section 1 or 2.

However, as a member of the now defunct Forensic Science Service pointed out to me - it's guidance and not law. Furthermore, there are errors in the document; namely what they (The Home Office) consider to be sec. 5 A.P. ammunition. The gentleman who pointed it out to me would know, as he was the country's leading legal expert on Sec 5 A.P. ammunition.

TimG