Possession was never threatened. It’s (legal) buying and selling that stand to be made impossible, as well as making a “realistic imitation firearm”, the definition of which is likely to be fully established only by legal precedent. *cough* chair leg in a bag *cough*

Sorry am I missing the point here, where does it say that re-enactors are prohibited from walking around with Bren Guns etc…. ?

I think that Section 32 shows that museums and re-enactors will be able to carry on plying their trade, unaffected by this law.

Specific defences applying to the offence under Section 32

(1) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 32 in respect of any conduct to show that the conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2).

(2) Those purposes are—

a) the purposes of a museum or gallery that does not distribute any profits it makes;

b) the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;

c) the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48) – see section 5B of that Act);

d) the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) – see section 405(1) of that act)

e) the organisations and holding of historical re-enactments organised and held by persons specified ir described for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Section 34 defines the meaning of a realistic imitation as such:-

34 Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

(1) In section 32 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which-

a) Has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and

b) Is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.

I’ve read through this proposed law several times now and must be missing something everyone else can see. To me, among laws to do with drink related crimes, it prevents the manfacture, modification, selling and importation of realistic imitation firearms and also licenses the use, sale and purchase of air guns, primers and ammunition loading presses. I doubt any of which affects warbirds and their operation.

However if it did, would it be such a big deal if the warbirds were not fitted with their original weapons. As many are not today !!!!

I get the feeling some people are jumping on somesort of band wagon.

Perhaps I’ve gone bog-eyed, but as far as I can tell, the link to the bill you provided doesn’t contain that apparent set of amendments. Where did you find them?

Regardless, you might be right in that bill as (I believe) it stands, banning manufacture/sale/import, wouldn’t particularly affect “warbirds” ie flying historics, but it sure as hell would affect museum restorations. Sure, you could probably make replica barrels/muzzles for your Spit V or Sea Fury without falling foul, but what about First World War aircraft? Bombers with turrets? Warplanes tend to look a little less warlike without their visible weaponry.

There’s still hope of exemptions for museums, and maybe re-enactors, but the market will still collapse. If exempted, at least Duxford and co will still be able to manufacture their own replicas, and to purchase and import where they can find them. Deacs may no longer be made however – no reason to “demill” if no-one here can buy them.

Most museums (I believe) can obtain a firearms ticket to cover most if not all sections of firearm; they just need to be displayed (depending on local police forces) in alarmed, armoured glass cases. Which rules out aircraft and vehicle installation.

I popped into Duxford this week but could’nt see her,maybe i walked past her whilst helping my son do his scouts badge but missed her,where has she been put now?

It was moved outside briefly the other week during other movements, but is now back in Hangar 4, wings folded.

If its about architecture it’ll be all about the triumph over function that the AAM is.
The AAM is aweful, cramped, atrocious lighting (if its sunny outside – on those rare occasions when it’s not raining – its difficult if not impossible to see anything inside properly), and it has aircarft suspended on wires. Oh and lets not forget, its full of un-interesting American rubbish.

Perhaps the name of the place might have tipped to off that it wasn’t likely to be your cup of tea?

If you can stand, one day, to cross the threshold, it’s worth considering just how many of those American designs were relied upon by RAF and Commonwealth flyers over the years, as well of course as the US service personnel whose contribution the building is there to commemorate.

A sad day that’ll be for the Fleet Air Arm, after all they have nothing to replace it. Typical government thinking: They have not been called into action for ? years so there is no need to keep them (until the next time they’re needed, then the cry will be “Why haven’t we got anything to do the job?)

That’s OK; the USMC have plenty of AV-8Bs to lease to us next time we’re in a tight spot somewhere in the South Atlantic, say. Then we just need to get Sharkey and the gang out of retirement, Hot Shots! Part Deux style, and we’re set.

Word of warning; I went to use some of the Spitfire plans several weeks ago and found the majority to be somewhat “squished” looking. I think at least some are simply artists impressions of plans.