End of sword collecting in the UK

[kronckew]

The UK govt. in their wisdom has declared any curved sword over 50 cm. (19.675 in) is to be illegal after april 6th. exceptions are any sword made in japan before 1954 and any made in japan by traditional methods.

sale or importation is an offense.

so, the law which started off to ban cheap samurai swords will now ban any antique sabre such as a 1796 light cavalry sabre, dhas, darbs, tulwars, shamshirs, kilij etc... cheap samurai swords are OK as long as they are made in japan and 'by traditional methods' whatever they mean by that.

re-enactors and martial artists may be arrested but can defend themselves in court by proving they are legit & by paying a lawyer a fortune. no exemption for collectors.

as straight swords are not mentioned i guess they are not dangerous.

draft text of act: Linky to silly law

this is in response to the massive increase in cases of assault on MP's by samurai sword welding nutters. (at least a whopping 2 cases in the last 20 years) ( thinking out of the box, why not punish the nutter for misuse, rather than banning an inanimate object)

i guess straight swords will be next, then daggers, then normal knives then plastic ones, paper drawings, and thinking of them will follow in succession.

nanny state in action.

[Gavin Nugent]

Silly law it is, other than legal mumbo jumbo words, no other words of any sense have been displayed in coming to these conclusions. Very sad

I wonder what tomorrow will hold for collectors and historians of this great country.

[Rick]

Time to join the N.R.A.

So where does this leave the collections in private hands that are extant in the UK .
Will you be getting a knock on the door upon some midnight dreary ?

Or will it be an axe rather than a knock .







" Dont it always seem to go
That you dont know what you've got
Till its gone ......... "

[Lew]

Well if you want you can send all of those old swords to us collectors across the pond and we will hold on to them for you until you get this mess straightened out I really feel that there will be an clause for collecting antique pieces added to the books when this is all done.

Lew

[spiral]

Well, worst than I had imagined.

So Long kukris are from Aprill now Illegal to buy ,sell or transfer. No exclusian for Antiques or Religious reasons it seems.

Still legal to own if you already posses it.

50cm from top of handle could mean blade length or overal length, depending on what a judge decides first time someone is arrested with one.

If you live in "Blighty" "land of the free" & want a longish curved blade youve got 8 weeks to get it.

Wheres the vomit smiley?

Spiral

[VANDOO]

A TRUE SHAME THE ENGLISH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SOME OF THE GREATEST COLLECTORS IN THE WORLD AND THE TRADITION OF BRINGING BACK THE SPOILS OF WAR OR ETHINOGRAPHIC ITEMS GOES BACK TO BEFORE WRITTEN HISTORY. MANY ITEMS INCLUDING WEAPONS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORN OUT OR THROWN AWAY IN TIME WERE PRESERVED BECAUSE A COLLECTOR TOOK THEM HOME AND TOOK CARE OF THEM. IF IT WERE NOT FOR COLLECTORS THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE NO EXAMPLES OF MANY DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE WORLD TODAY. MOST SCIENCE WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF COLLECTORS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN STUDYING VARIOUS ODD THINGS. THE APOTHEOCARY LIKE HIS PREDACESOR THE MEDICINE MAN/ SHAMAN, LIKED TO TRY TO FIND IF THERE WERE ANY MEDICAL PROPERTYS IN ODD OR UNUSUAL THINGS AND STARTED CABINETS OF NATURAL CURIOSITIES WHICH EVOLVED INTO TODAYS MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND MUSEUMS. THE ALCHEMISTS COLLECTING AND EXPERIMENTING WITH ODD THINGS BECAME CHEMISTRY. SO DOING AWAY WITH THESE COLLECTORS AND THINKERS WOULD HAVE SEVERLY IMPACTED TODAYS WORLD. WITHOUT A DESIRE TO GET OUT IN THE WORLD AND STUDY ITS MANY THINGS AND COLLECT THEM WHO IN FUTURE WILL BE INTERESTED IN BECOMING OUR NATURALISTS AND SCIENTISTS.

TODAY RADICAL ENVIROMENTALISTS DON'T WANT US TO COLLECT ANYTHING ,JUST STAY ON THE PATH DON'T TOUCH AND JUST TAKE PICTURES. DON'T HUNT, DON'T FISH,DON'T CUT DOWN TREES OR WEEDS, DON'T BUILD DAMS, NUCLEUR POWER STATIONS,REFINERYS OR HOUSES AND DON'T DRILL FOR OIL. I THINK OF IT AS A RETURN TO THE STONE AGE EXCEPT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO HUNT OR FISH OR GATHER. IT WOULD NO DOUBT HELP MOTHER EARTH BECAUSE THE HUMAN RACE WOULD SOON BE AS DEAD AS THE DODO BIRD. WHEN WE ALL GET AS DAFT AS SOME GROUPS ARE NOW PERHAPS IT WILL BE TIME FOR MANKIND TO GO THE WAY OF THE DODO AND PUT US OUT OF OUR MISERY.

WE ALSO SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY WEAPONS OF ANY TYPE AS IT MAKES US TOO HARD TO CONTROL BECAUSE WE MIGHT FIGHT BACK WHEN WE ARE DONE DIRTY AND ENSLAVED. IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC THE PEOPLE OWN THE GOVERNMENT AND ULTIMETLY THEIR COUNTRY. IN SOCALISM AND COMMUNISM THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE LIFESTOCK. LIFESTOCK IS TAKEN CARE OF AS LONG AS IT SERVES THE FARMERS PURPOSE AND IS NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE. EXCESS LIFESTOCK OR THOSE THAT CAUSE TROUBLE OR DON'T FATTEN UP GOOD ENOUGH ARE SOMETIMES SOLD TO OTHER FARMERS BUT USUALLY END UP AT THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE.

[A. G. Maisey]

Right now in the state of NSW, Australia, edged weapons collectors are waiting for the report and recommendations flowing from the review of the Prohibition of Weapons Act.

There will be restrictions on the ownership of swords , as yet we do not know how severe those restrictions will be.

In respect of the UK legislation:- I do not see the term "sword" in the definitions.

Exactly what is and is not a "sword" ?

Richard Burton was unable to define sword, I think from memory he finished up by saying something like :- "well, when you see one, you'll recognise it"

Lacking adequate definition of a "sword" this legislation is for practical purposes not able to be universally enforced. Yes, it will certainly apply to all those easily recognisable swords, but there are many other implements that could be considered to have the nature of a sword, and that could lead to a prosecution being launched. If the prosecution is unsuccessful , this will weaken the law.

From what I have just read in this legislation, it seems to be remarkably poorly drafted. I doubt that much thought went into this.

Consider this:- this legislation relies on a measurement taken from the handle.
If there is no handle, there can be no measurement taken, thus, demount the blade and you no longer have a sword.Perhaps sword collectors may have to consider their collecting in a different form. With many Asian weapons, this would present no problem at all.

[dennee]

The law appears to exempt "antiques," but antiques are defined as at least a century old, and I suppose that the burden of proof will fall to the owner, most weapons not being blessed with a date inscription or detailed provenance.

[Sikh_soldier]

typical Knee-jerk reaction.

Those intent on harming others and possibly themselves, will not be thinking 'oh no, The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Amendment) Order 2008, means I mustn't'
This will not curb the alleged epidemic, but like speed cameras, fines for not wearing seatbelts, using a mobile phone etc, just create easy targets out of us law abiding citizens!

ps
Anyone extremely distressed over the new law, can contact me to sell me their valuable antique arms and armour at a greatly discounted price

Happy collecting 2008!
Best regards to all

Bali

[Andrew]

This very topic necessarily involves political discussion. However, let's stay on topic--which is infuriating enough--and otherwise avoid gratuitous political commentary.

[fearn]

Yes, please! Speaking as an environmentalist, I'd rather talk about the extreme short-sightedness of the British law, rather than go off on all the limits in modern life. I don't like many of the prohibitions either, but in the absence of personal responsibility and reasoned judgement, sometimes they're the only thing that works even slightly.

Does that mean I want to defend this law? --three lines of profanity excised-- NO! I personally think it's a stupid, pointless waste of time, and it's not even a good grandstanding move by the government. As a non-Brit, I'm just not sure what can be done about it, other than mocking any government who thinks that this is a good idea.

I forgotten who said it, but someone noted that while the amount of intelligence and knowledge in the universe is limited, the amount of idiocy and foolishness is not. This is another example of that truism.

F

[Jim McDougall]

In this Orwellian nightmare, does it mean that swords in museums and in private collections are now outlawed and subject to confiscation? I cannot believe that these important artifacts of monumental historical importance can possibly be included in such ridiculous legislation, and that bonified collectors and institutions such as museums would not be exempt.

In the many years I have studied swords and edged weapons, I have sought to convince museums and historical organizations that these artifacts are soundly representative of cultural, traditional and historical symbolism and not to be emphasized as tools of destruction. In many cases, these weapons are deeply imbued with religious significance and often considered elements of art in material culture.

It is time that the legal machine recognizes that criminal action cannot be eliminated by removing weapons themselves, as the inherent behaviour of such individuals knows no bounds in creativity in using all manner of 'weapons of opportunity', and virtually any object will serve.

I can only express outrage and disappointment in this news,

Jim

[Gavin Nugent]

I think this will only pertain to weapons brandished in the streets or found in vehicles or similar situations were the weapons law is not adopted convincingly, I cannot foresee the English police kicking down doors of collectors to get to these edged weapons. This law is an Amendment of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, one would have to find the complete law governing the ownership and use of these edged weapons to comment further I believe. Though saying that, I do wonder what knee jerk reaction there would be if a daft person saw a collector walking from a dealers shop front with a sword? Would that be considered a breach?

Hmmmmm

Gav

[kronckew]

freebooter,

the act prohibits the sale, trade, importing, loaning or giving away of the covered weapons, so both the the seller and the buyer are committing an offence. you can keep existing items in your home, (or museum) they can never leave tho, no loaning between museums. (or sending to collecters overseas, sorry)

dealers who are afraid they will get arrested due to the vagueness of the law will err on the side of caution and just not sell anything remotely similar. ebay will just ban the sale of anything that might be.

reminds me of the breed specific 'dangerous dogs act' that banned american pit bulls and 'pit bull types' - who defines what a 'pit bull type' is? the police, and the courts, lawyers and politicians, who have no idea or training. a chihuahua is genetically the same species as a pit bull, or a timber wolf. they can interbreed, is a chihuahua a pit bull type? it basicly means that any dog is liable. the 'if it looks like a pit bull, it is one' attitude is a bit vague for me. it's not the inanimate piece of steel, or the badly behaved dog, it's the owner and how he uses, or trains, them.

the police over here had to enter the home of a suspect, there was a dog in the back yard. to gain entry, they shot the dog. turned out to be the wrong house. no apology, no remorse, it was a dangerous dog. it barked at the invaders. distraught owners have no course of action. police said they did it to protect their men.

one of the incidents that lead up to the ban was a man brandishing a cheap stainless steel 'decorator' samurai sword at people from his front steps. the police arrived, and to protect themselves, shot him when he wouldn't put it down. the fact he was legally entitled to have it on his property was not a factor. the police did not apparently have any other means to subdue him, tho why they did not just isolate him & wait till he calmed down & talk to him i do not know. seems they justify it by saying he was on the steps, which were a public walkway so he was fair game.

there will likely be an 'amnesty' where people are allowed to bring in their swords to police stations for destruction. they had one for knives recently, and tv showed piles of them, most were kitchen knives, or those odd spikey fantasy knives, but you could spot the odd antique treasure soon to be a puddle of molten iron. more history down the tubes by unthinking barbarians.

my first father in law was a royal navy officer, lost his leg in battle with german patrol boats in the channel, he had two german short hunting swords he captured after a boarding, they were the typical bronze sculpted hilts with shell guards, blued blades with gold inlayed figures, complete with scabbards and sword knots. beautiful. he'd promised i could have them after he was gone. meanwhile they passed one of the earlier knife banns, had an amnesty & he turned them in, fearful of being a criminal - i was in the states at the time so by the time i found out it was too late. yet another anecdote of history down the melting pot.

the odd bit to me is that japanese swords are effectively and specifically exempt in a law intended to prohibit them, and i do not see any provision for antiques. i have a hand forged & tempered katana made this century which i guess is still legal but only if it was made in japan. it's unmarked, unsigned, does that mean it illegal, i am guilty unless i can prove i am innocent. though it was supposed to be i am innocent inless they prove i am guilty. the early 20th c. dha with the silver inlayed blade is no longer legal, the 19c. one may or may not be.

it is a draft, so maybe some sense will prevail, but with less than a month to go before it gets rammed past any opposition, i doubt it. will it do any good? i doubt it. criminals do not obey the law, only honest citizens (who will now soon be criminals). it'll make a good sound byte on tv, and make the sheeple feel more secure in their beds, even as the crime figures continue to rise. yobbos and gang members who might have carried one will just shift to cricket bats (baseball is not played here, so carrying a baseball bat is already considered to be armed with a dangerous weapon).

as anyone using an edged weapon in public is already illegal, even for defense, i do not see why the law is needed in the first place, i did not see why they needed to ban guns either, the crooks still have them, and still get them, it's the honest sportsman and home owner who again suffer. they cannot accept the facts that where guns are banned crime, inc. gun crime goes up. where guns are allowed and encouraged, crime goes down. the spate of university shootings on campuses where guns are specifically banned, in states where concealed carry is allowed under permit shows that the ban areas are just a target area for those who want to kill with impunity without risk they themselves may be stopped before they are done.

arghh!

[fearn]

Hmmmmm.

Actually, I can understand why they focused on curved blades.

There's a little problem with straight blades. They're religious objects to druids and similar pagans in the UK. There was a case a few years ago of a "sword-bearer" getting arrested while carrying a wrapped ritual sword to a ceremony. He stopped at a drug store, was arrested, and eventually got the sword back. Religious freedom is still one reason to carry a blade.

I wonder what will happen if the sikhs protest about losing their sabers in the UK? Or perhaps, what will happen when the druids lose their sickles?

While I don't think that "the Church of the Curved Blade" will have too many converts (I'd join, but who else?), I think there is a legitimate religious freedom case here. Perhaps some collectors might be interested in joining forces with a suitable Sikh or pagan group to get their rights back?

Just a thought,

F

[Tim Simmons]

This does at first appear very worrying. However I feel Freebooter is correct that this law is only part of a bigger picture. Law and enforcement are shades of grey not always black and white. There is a date factor to this bill and as mentioned the environment in which this weapons appear may be more crucial to the laws interpretation. Do you really think that the big auction houses in London will stop auctions of fine antique weapons? Are the feudal landlords going to be banned from maintaining and adding to there estate collection? many members of the public spend good money to view thier castle, country house. Do you really think Lord so and so will be banned from buy an antique sword from Sotheby's and the others. In action I imagine it will be akin to the sale of ivory. If you are an idiot or a scum bag caught with a weapon openly displayed in the wrong place then you only have yourself to blame. I hope

[ashoka]

Antique swords over 100 years old are exempt. For clarification the chap fielding enquiries is Jonathon Batt tel: 0207 0351807 who should be able to answer any queries.

[Andrew]

Thanks for the info, Stefan.

[Mark]

Is there another law over there that deals specifically with antiques of any nature? One argument would be that if the sword is an antique under such a law, it should be permissible to own, sell, etc. Laws should not conflict, and generally the earlier law governs absent specific limitation or supercedence by a later law.

I am still always amazed at the idea of going after the means used to commit a crime, rather than the criminal. Shouldn't crowbars be made illegal, as they are often used in breaking and entering? Here in the US, as I imagine in the UK, there are some many laws already on the books that can be used to target criminal behavoir, yet they are so often laxly or inconsistenly applied. It comes down to pure politics, of course. Some MP, or Congressman, grabs a headline and runs with it for the attention it gets them as a crusader against crime.

[Lee]

Fortunately America's Founding Fathers saw the potential for exactly such abuse of governmental authority and addressed it in the Bill of Rights. Still, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and we would do well to fear that our goverment could also do something so foolishly expedient as to tamper with the Bill of Rights.

I cannot say that stopping the flow of so many of these modern mass produced 'junk' weapons into Britain will be entirely bad; but the impact upon serious modern bladesmiths and upon those wishing to study and collect legitimate ethnographic and historical military arms of the twentieth century is obvious, even in the unlikely event that the government handles the exemption of antiques competently.

[A. G. Maisey]

Those of you who live in countries that did not start life as a penal colony, might like to consider this:-

AUSTRALIA IS THE ONLY COMMON LAW COUNTRY WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS.

That's right, Australia has no Bill of Rights.

The result of this is that in Australia citizens really cannot claim to have the right to anything, but they have been given numerous "privileges" by their elected governments.

Thus, in Australia we may possess certain specified firearms, under extremely stringent conditions, but that possession is a privilege, it is not a right.

Similarly, possession of various other objects is subject to "privilege", not to any inherent right.

These "privileges" do not stop just with ownership of certain things, they extend to actions in which citizens may wish to engage.

In respect of the possibility of the existence of legal avenues which could give some protection to the continued existence of a sword, but not necessarily ensure its ownership by any particular person, it might not be a bad idea to have a look at United Nations Agreements dealing with the preservation of important cultural heritage. I've forgotten the details, but I used an argument that included this, in a fight against some proposed NSW legislation of perhaps 15 or 16 years ago.
I suspect that a strong case could be mounted on the foundation of United Nations Agreements, that could argue against the destruction of many items of historic weaponry.

[Mark]

A quote I love (I can't remember where I read it, but I think it was on Antonio's Bladesign Forum):

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the results."

[Jens Nordlunde]

This subjects has been discussed before, and will no doubt come up for discussion again when other countries 'turn the screw'. Here is a link to an earlier discussion http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...Armour+Society
Collectors have to be registered by the police as collectors, and if they buy a sword or a knife fromt an antic dealer or an auction house they have to show their collectors certificate, or they will not get the item.
The rules in Denmark are, at the moment so, that in some towns you are not allowed to wear a normal pocketknife during the night, and the police can search you without any warning - so be warned, if you want to see the nightlife in some of the bigger Danish towns.

[VANDOO]

LAWMAKERS OFTEN LOOK AT THE LAW THEY ARE MAKEING IN ONE WAY ,FOR INSTANCE IF ONE MADMAN GOES ON A RAMPAGE WITH A SWORD THEY TRY TO COME UP WITH A LAW THAT MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THAT ONE OCCURANCE. THEY NEVER TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE MADMAN IF THE LAW WAS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS OR THAT THE CRIME HAD ONLY HAPPENED ONCE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.
WITH GUN/ SWORD/ KNIFE/ ECT. CONTROL THERE ARE USUALLY GROUPS WHO WANT MORE POWER OVER THE PEOPLE AND USE LAWMAKERS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE UNREALISTIC TO PARADE ON CAMERA FOR THE MEDIA THAT THEY CONTROL. THESE LAWS ARE ALWAYS MADE BY THE FEW FOR CONTROL AND POWER OVER THE MAJORITY.

SO THE LAWMAKERS PASS A LAW THAT IS VAGUE AND OPEN TO MANY WAYS OF INTREPTATION, PAT EACH OTHER ON THE BACK AND FORGET ABOUT IT. PERHAPS THEY WERE REASONABLE PEOPLE AND DID NOT INTEND TO ENFORCE THEIR NEW LAW ON EVERYONE , GOOD LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S NEED NOT BE BOTHERED. MANY SUCH LAWS REMAIN ON THE BOOKS AND NEVER CAUSE A PROBLEM UNTIL SOME GROUP OR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR LAWYER ,ECT. DECIDES TO USE IT TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF. THE MAKEING OF A NAME REQUIRES THAT YOU CAUSE SOMEONE (USUALLY GOOD CITIZENS) A PROBLEM THRU FINES, LAWSUITS, ARRESTS, CONFISCATION, ECT. THIS WILL ATTRACT THE PRESS AND THE PERSONS NAME BECOMES KNOWN AND IF HE WINS A LEGAL PRECIDENT IS SET AND THE GOOD PEOPLE LOSE ANOTHER FREEDOM AND PERHAPS BECAUSE IT CAN BE ENTREPRETED SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS MAY LOSE MORE THAN ONE FREEDOM PER CASE.

A LOCAL EXAMPLE IS A POLICE OFFICER FOUND A VAGUE LAW THAT HAD BEEN PASSED BUT NEVER ENFORCED SO HE TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO LAUNCH A PERSONAL CRUSADE. HIS ENTREPETATION OF THE LAW WAS THAT A DOG OR CAT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE LOOSE IN THE AUTOMOBILE AND HAD TO BE RESTRAINED. HE STARTED PULLING PEOPLE OVER AND GIVING TICKETS. WHEN HE HAD GIVEN ENOUGH TICKETS THE LOCAL NEWS PICKED IT UP AND AIRED IT SO NOW ALL THE POLICE HAVE TO ENFORCE THIS LAW. THE ONE GUY WHO STARTED IT STILL WRITES MOST OF THE TICKETS AS HE GOES TO THE PARKS WHERE PEOPLE COME TO WALK THEIR DOGS AND WAITS TO GIVE THEM TICKETS. HE HAS MADE A NAME FOR HIMSELF LOCALLY AND ENJOYS MAKEING PEOPLES AND DOGS LIFES A BIT MORE MISERABLE IN THE NAME OF SAFETY. I SUPPOSE SOON WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BUY DOGGIE AND CAT CARSEATS AND STRAP THE ANIMALS IN WHEN TAKEING THEM IN AN AUTOMOBILE. I AM GLAD I HAVE A DOG AND NOT A CAT AS I SUSPECT TRYING TO STRAP IN A CAT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO ME.

[A. G. Maisey]

The actual process for the drafting and passing of laws is a long drawn out and complex one, at least it is in this country---Australia--- and I imagine that what I know to be true here would also be true in many other countries.

The hands-on writing of the legislation to be brought into law is most often done by a fairly junior member of the relevant department, passed through a review process carried out by more senior people, and then submitted to the minister for approval. Often it will be bounced backwards and forth a number of times before the minister is satisfied that he can get it passed, and make no mistake about it, getting the new legislation accepted by all involved, and its politically positive impact, is what the game is all about. That proposed legislation needs to be designed to be acceptable to not only the politician who is responsible for its administration, but also to the other politicians, perhaps from different parties, upon whom he will rely to see the proposed legislation passed into law.

After such a long drawn out process a reasonable person may expect that the final draft of the legislation would reflect an attitude that was representative of the prevailing attitude in the broad community.

Regrettably, in so far as weapons related legislation is concerned, this is not always so.

The mindset of the original person who prepared the initial draft is often still evident in the final draft. In recent years these initial writers of weapons legislation in at least one state in Australia have been socially aware ladies of relatively immature years and with a minor degree in something like arts-law, or sociology.

I believe that politicians in general see the issue of possession and carriage of weapons other than firearms as a fairly minor issue, and because of this they are loathe to spend more than a bare minimum of resources on it.So it is that the original draft suffers only cosmetic changes before it becomes law.

Now, when that vague and very non-prescriptive law falls into the hands of an officer of the law, such as the one whom has been described by Barry, you create a situation that can only result in the law being badly administered, unenforced, or perhaps unenforceable, by the courts, and laughed at by the general public. When that situation has been created we have the exact opposite of what was intended when the law was brought into being:- widespread non-compliance, a loss of respect for the police, and contempt for the lawful regulation of society.

Going back a few years a law was introduced into the state of NSW , that prohibited the carriage of any bladed implement. It was directed at certain types of individual and certain areas where it was known that knives were being carried for the specific purpose of being used as weapons in crime.
Nobody could have a knife or other bladed implement in his possession in a public place without a lawful excuse for having that implement. The legislation provided an example of a lawful excuse as "being for the preparation and consumption of food".

Heavy reliance was placed on the good judgement of police officers in the administration of this law.

Some months after this law came into force trainee police officers from the police academy in a large provincial town were directed to raid the local stock auction and confiscate all knives found in the possession of people attending the auction. Most people who live in rural areas in Australia, particularly those who run stock, or who farm, habitually carry a pocket knife in a small belt pouch. The police cadets confiscated all the knives from all the farmers and graziers present at that auction, took names, and issued cautions. No prosecutions were launched..

Another incident occurred when an apprentice carpenter who had forgotten to remove his fishing basket from the boot of his car was stopped for a traffic offence. The police officer considered that it was necessary to search his vehicle, he found the knife in the fishing basket, and because that apprentice carpenter had not been fishing that day, nor did he intend going fishing that day, he was charged with being in possession of a knife without lawful excuse.

Then there was the 50 year old lady who was in the habit of carrying her large knife to and from her job in a fruit market. She used the knife to cut pumpkin and did not want to leave it at work because she had nowhere at her place of work that was a secure place to keep her property, and a previous knife had been stolen. This lady was cautioned by a police officer and the knife was confiscated, she was not charged, but she lost the knife.

These are just a few incidents that occurred when that law was introduced. The situation has now pretty much settled back to what it was before the law was introduced. Mostly people take little or no notice of it, and the police only use it as incidental to the apprehension of somebody who is acting in a socially unacceptable way. But during the first few years the law was in force, it was very badly administered by many police officers.

Because the law was non-prescriptive and largely left to the discretion of the police in its application, the predictable thing happened:- society as a whole has decided to ignore that law. When one law is treated with contempt, it is a very short step before other laws are treated with contempt. When the courts fail to convict people who have offended against the letter of the law, but not against its intent , those non-convictions can be used as precedent by people who have offended against both letter and intent of the law, leading to non-conviction of persons who should have been convicted.

Poorly drafted, non-prescriptive laws that rely in their application upon the judgement of police officers have the effect of causing widespread disrespect for the law, for those who administer it, and bring about a weakening of the fabric of society.

[spiral]

Poorly written laws from a goverment that is mostly made up of barristers is deliberate not an error.

They can interpret such a law in any way they wish. That give them greater power than if the law looked written by someone over the age of 10....

Trying to proove an undated tulwar is probably 150 years old not 90 in an antique shop or market or if stopped driving home to the average PC plod should be interesting & probably rather futile though.

WW1 Austrian, Gertman & British trophys will be officialy legal to trade.

if your wealthy enough to have a top lawyer & barrister to pay experts, {such as ourselves?} to proove its over 100 years old your probably ok, if your on legal aid or low wages, your in trouble.

"Wish i were a rich man Yabba , yabba doo, all daylong etc. etc....."

Spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, I understand why you might think in this way Spiral, and quite honestly, I used to hold the same opinion.

I no longer hold that opinion as one that is universally applicable.

I think that in some instances the attitude might be:- " that's good enough for the purpose; let the courts sort it out"

I think in other cases the attitude could be:- "not politically important, we've already spent more than enough time on this; let it go as is"

In other cases---and this I know to be true--- the responsible politician doesn't even look at the report or the proposed legislation, and acts on the advice of a bureaucrat.

However, whatever the reason might be that poorly written legislation is passed into law, the end result is too often the same:- a weakening of the legal fabric that could be regarded as the primary control ensuring a well regulated society.

[Kate]

Sorry chaps there is no exemption of "antique". Even if there were, there are many of us who collect named regimental blades of WW1
Please see the Act -

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra...110810324_en_1

Very simple - all banned except Japanese made!

[spiral]

No thats an over simplification Kate!

Its an ammendment to the offensive weapons act, the antique exemption to this ammendment are already written in that act.


The new ammended exceptions to the sword part are....

5. For the purposes of paragraph 4—

“historical re-enactment” means any presentation or other event held for the purpose of re-enacting an event from the past or of illustrating conduct from a particular time or period in the past;
“insurance” means a contract of insurance or other arrangement made for the purpose of indemnifying a person or persons named in the contract or under the arrangement;
“permitted activity” means an historical re-enactment or a sporting activity;
“sporting activity” means the practising of a sport which requires the use of a weapon described in paragraph 1(r);
“third parties” includes participants in, and spectators of, a permitted activity and members of the public.


To use your own words "its that simple!" Or more complicated than it seems at first perhaps!

But in 10 years time you might be right.

Spiral

[Tim Simmons]

We need a real lawyer to expand on this point, especially when a venue has third party insurance.

“historical re-enactment” means any presentation or other event held for the purpose of re-enacting an event from the past or of illustrating conduct from a particular time or period in the past;

A militeria fair or exposition would include-

"illustrating conduct from a particular time or period in the past"

So as I read it, if the venue is an organised event with the necessary insurance in place the purchase and sale of ww1 and ww2 items should be okay. It means that you just cannot pick the things up anywhere anytime from anybody unless they are less than 50cm from tip to handle in a straight line? In this I can see a vain attempt to stop the opportunist use of a longish sharp sword.