The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

25Pdr wrote:Here's one Bayonet that is definitely illegal in the UK.....



Clicky...

NOPE...NEITHER UK legal nor a bayonet...

saddler wrote:

25Pdr wrote:Here's one Bayonet that is definitely illegal in the UK.....



Clicky...

NOPE...NEITHER UK legal nor a bayonet...

Reminds me a bit of the Spetsnaz NRS-2 knife that has a single-shot internally silenced 7.62x41 round in the hilt, top one in the pic.

IainWR wrote:There is a classic problem underlying this. Clarification of law is done by taking the matter to court and establishing precedent. Therefore, to clarify any point in the criminal law relies on someone being at risk of prosecution.

Personally I don't think such a case will EVER get to see the inside of a court room never mind for a judge to set a precedent on, for the shooters side

As before it gets to that stage then it would need to go through a few different stages

1, a person would of needed to have carried out a "questionable action" with a bayonet, for ANY PC to have reasonable cause to charge the person in the first place
2, I assume that the PC's superiors are going to have to look at the case before it gets to the PF
3, IF a PC and superiors decides that a "questionable action" has taken place and charges the person then the case needs to go to the PF complete with all statements so it can be decided if it even needs to go to court

Now IF the PC has acted in haste coz they have had NO idea of what they were dealing with then either the PC's superior or the PF is going to see that, then throw out the case before it even gets to court stage

BUT most importantly

I can't see ANYONE that has a legit bayonet for their rifle giving ANY PC "good reason" for that PC to charge them in the first place, for the following reasons

1, they are NOT going to risk the forfeiture of their rifles by committing a questionable act in the first place
2, they will have a "reasonable excuse" to have the bayonet, that ANYONE with an ounce of sense will see as being correct, therefor giving NO grounds for arrest

ONLY precedent that I can see happening is IF someone does infact get threatened with a bayonet, which could put a blanket ban on bayonets I suspect

Personally I think this will only be sorted, is by influential people from org's that does have sense and know what they are talking about, sitting down with the decision makers in Police Scotland, and convincing them to stop this before it gets completely out of hand

But this is only my opinion

Only your opinion.... But spot on with my own, as a former soldier with exemplary conduct, and a former police officer as well as a very highly vetted individual to date, I would never forsee a circumstance that an officer of the law would have reason to challenge me on my use of a legally held firearm with attached bayonet en route to or from a range.

Even if I were unfortunate to come across such an officer with that opinion, I would be amazed if his/her superiors wished to risk derision in a court of law over such a prosecution.

The same applies to the Procurator fiscal or the CPS in England, they have enough difficult cases such as rapes and murders to deal with rather than waste time on flights of fancy by individuals looking to score political points.

Again though this is my own opinion.... Officer.... LOL

here in Oz we have a different problem, our main body, SSAA (sporting shooters assossiation australia) has decreed we cannot shoot rifles on their ranges with bayonet fixed. we can send pills downrange at 2800fps, but a pointy bit on a rifle is too dangerous wtfwtf and as we all know, the m44 and no4mk1 were designed to be fired with bayonet fixed at certain distances, more insanity.

eljay wrote:here in Oz we have a different problem, our main body, SSAA (sporting shooters assossiation australia) has decreed we cannot shoot rifles on their ranges with bayonet fixed. we can send pills downrange at 2800fps, but a pointy bit on a rifle is too dangerous wtfwtf and as we all know, the m44 and no4mk1 were designed to be fired with bayonet fixed at certain distances, more insanity.

Eljay;

I note that the SSAA's reason for existence is indicated as 'to promote and protect shooter's rights in Australia'. How do they hope to reconcile that statement with this crazy stance on the issue of not firing a rifle with the bayonet fixed? Like you, I wonder what is going through the minds of these 'elected officials' when they make these crazy decisions. I mean .... where is the sense / logic behind it? Have the SSAA been infiltrated by the anti-gun fraternity and are they influencing the decision-making process?

:roll: Mezzer

eljay wrote:here in Oz we have a different problem, our main body, SSAA (sporting shooters assossiation australia) has decreed we cannot shoot rifles on their ranges with bayonet fixed. we can send pills downrange at 2800fps, but a pointy bit on a rifle is too dangerous wtfwtf and as we all know, the m44 and no4mk1 were designed to be fired with bayonet fixed at certain distances, more insanity.

Not doubting you in the least, but the only reference to bayonet law and the SSAA, I could find, was for South Australia. It also looks like Victorian clubs are still holding bayonet shoots - could the problem be at State level rather than national? Then again, there is no mention of bayonets in the Combined Services Manual and since I'm not there you're better placed to comment than me.