End of sword collecting in the UK

fearn · 5th March 2008, 06:16 AM

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 · 5th March 2008, 08:46 AM

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 · 5th March 2008, 11:38 AM

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 · 5th March 2008, 02:27 PM

Thanks for the info, Stefan.

Mark · 5th March 2008, 02:53 PM

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 · 5th March 2008, 05:00 PM

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 · 5th March 2008, 10:01 PM

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.

5th March 2008, 06:16 AM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

5th March 2008, 08:46 AM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	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

5th March 2008, 11:38 AM	#3
ashoka Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 61	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.

5th March 2008, 02:27 PM	#4
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Thanks for the info, Stefan.

5th March 2008, 02:53 PM	#5
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	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.

5th March 2008, 05:00 PM	#6
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 940	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.

5th March 2008, 10:01 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	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.