German pensioner given hefty fine for WW2 tank in house(bbc.com)
bbc.com
German pensioner given hefty fine for WW2 tank in house
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58077039
83 comments
gun laws are not that strong in Germany actually, they are just strong in the sense that you cannot carry/own without a license, but for collection purposes I'd say they are even lighter than the US' in some aspects.
this video by JoergSprave explains it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-J2pYLCvI
this video by JoergSprave explains it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-J2pYLCvI
Indeed. It’s often the nuances that matter. My understanding is that acquiring a silencer in Europe isn’t much harder than acquiring a firearm (obviously country dependent).
While in the US it’s much harder to get a silencer as they fall into a category similar to automatic weapons.
And the US laws are very strict for things like tanks and such since they fall under the NFA which again, lumps all these things into a similar category as automatic weapons and even if you’re a cop they’ll put you in prison for violating those laws.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-taneytown-police-c...
While in the US it’s much harder to get a silencer as they fall into a category similar to automatic weapons.
And the US laws are very strict for things like tanks and such since they fall under the NFA which again, lumps all these things into a similar category as automatic weapons and even if you’re a cop they’ll put you in prison for violating those laws.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-taneytown-police-c...
This is one of the ways in which the USA is more like 50 little countries than a single one. At the federal level most everything besides post 1986 machine guns, including 120mm cannons and explosive shells along with a tank to move them around, can be had with some paperwork and a tax stamp, which is $200 or less.
There are businesses in Nevada[1] that will let you drive tanks and fire off howitzers[1] that are privately owned. However many states, and in some states counties and cities, have additional restrictions on what they permit. For example, a muzzle loading revolver isn't even considered to be a firearm federally, but in NY State if you happen to have powder and lead handy congratulations you're now a felon even in your own home unless you have a handgun permit.
[1] https://www.battlefieldvegas.com/
There are businesses in Nevada[1] that will let you drive tanks and fire off howitzers[1] that are privately owned. However many states, and in some states counties and cities, have additional restrictions on what they permit. For example, a muzzle loading revolver isn't even considered to be a firearm federally, but in NY State if you happen to have powder and lead handy congratulations you're now a felon even in your own home unless you have a handgun permit.
[1] https://www.battlefieldvegas.com/
Excuse me, "muzzle-loading revolver"?
Would that not entirely defeat the point of a revolver?
Would that not entirely defeat the point of a revolver?
Not always. One of the biggest advantages of a revolver is that if you have a misfire you still have your next chamber waiting for you. That doesn't go away.
You load all six chambers, or five if it’s an antique without a firing pin safety. Typically this is accomplished by pouring the powder charge into the front of the cylinder and then placing a lead ball on top of it and ramming it into place, although one can also remove the cylinder altogether with some models and load it externally.
The end result is you can get 5-6 shots off quickly, but reloading will take rather a lot longer than with a cartridge firearm. This is one reason people carried two revolvers in the old West. Needless to say they’re of little interest to criminals, but fairly popular amongst sportsmen and re-enactors and such.
The end result is you can get 5-6 shots off quickly, but reloading will take rather a lot longer than with a cartridge firearm. This is one reason people carried two revolvers in the old West. Needless to say they’re of little interest to criminals, but fairly popular amongst sportsmen and re-enactors and such.
They probably mean an old revolver such as the 1851 Navy revolver. See the loading video here https://civilwarhorror.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-load-and-...
The barrel of the revolver is effectively 6 terribly short smooth bore muskets. Be sure to load them before the shooting starts. Then you can fire six shots in rapid succession, before changing to your other revolver. You did remember to buy two?
The barrel of the revolver is effectively 6 terribly short smooth bore muskets. Be sure to load them before the shooting starts. Then you can fire six shots in rapid succession, before changing to your other revolver. You did remember to buy two?
> My understanding is that acquiring a silencer in Europe isn’t much harder than acquiring a firearm (obviously country dependent).
True. You don't need any special permits for suppressors at all here in Finland as long as you got a valid permit for the gun it will be installed on. So basically the seller just checks that you actually legally own the gun you say you are going to install it on (nobody actually checks what you install it on)
True. You don't need any special permits for suppressors at all here in Finland as long as you got a valid permit for the gun it will be installed on. So basically the seller just checks that you actually legally own the gun you say you are going to install it on (nobody actually checks what you install it on)
Being a licensed hunter near urban areas is enough to have the right to get silencers. E.g. boar hunters in Berlin.
Suppressors are not hard to get in the US. They're just subject to an extra $200 tax stamp.
You have to invite a notoriously capricious and hair trigger federal agency into your life, sure less so than an automatic weapon but you still need to put yourself on their radar to some extent. After you've done that the first time $200 a pop isn't that big a deal but a lot of people are unwilling to take the initial plunge of putting their name on that list.
Harder than Europe though. Basically the same amount of effort as getting a machine gun. Full fingerprints, $200 tax, submit to ATF, wait months, then take possession.
And each state can have additional laws that differ from federal laws. CA bans ownership entirely I believe.
And each state can have additional laws that differ from federal laws. CA bans ownership entirely I believe.
$200 tax is quite crazy though. You can get a cheap suppressor for that (or less). So the "tax" is literally doubling the actual price of a suppressor in the worst case.
The tank had some maintenance from an official German army depot, it seems.
> and was trying to rearm it.
Where does it say that in the BBC or Spiegel article?
Where does it say that in the BBC or Spiegel article?
I never heard of that. If he did indeed try, the sentencing is quite light.
At most this is as legitimate as seizing someone's house because they once sold some pot to a friend in said house. Yeah it's within the letter of the law but it's still dumb and wrong.
"Rearming" a 70yo tank is fundamentally a historical restoration project and the kind of people who do it are no hazard to public health. The law was not written for these kinds of people. It was written for people who are actually up to no good. It's pretty clear from patterns of behavior who is arming tanks to have a cool historically accurate tank and who is doing that sort of thing as a means to a more nefarious end.
Defending this sentence is only a hair away from defending insane drug sentencing "because the law is the law". The law is dumb and if this were the US I'd say the judge has poor judgement for not using his discretion to hand down a practically nonexistent sentence. I don't know to what extent German judges can influence sentencing.
"Rearming" a 70yo tank is fundamentally a historical restoration project and the kind of people who do it are no hazard to public health. The law was not written for these kinds of people. It was written for people who are actually up to no good. It's pretty clear from patterns of behavior who is arming tanks to have a cool historically accurate tank and who is doing that sort of thing as a means to a more nefarious end.
Defending this sentence is only a hair away from defending insane drug sentencing "because the law is the law". The law is dumb and if this were the US I'd say the judge has poor judgement for not using his discretion to hand down a practically nonexistent sentence. I don't know to what extent German judges can influence sentencing.
Calling arming a tank a "historical restoration project" is already quite an example of Olympics-level mental gymnastics. And no, it's not comparable to selling pot either.
> The law was not written for these kinds of people. It was written for people who are actually up to no good.
What "good" purpose does arming a tank have then? Authorities don't like to wait and find out, and that's not unreasonable in any way.
> The law was not written for these kinds of people. It was written for people who are actually up to no good.
What "good" purpose does arming a tank have then? Authorities don't like to wait and find out, and that's not unreasonable in any way.
> the kind of people who do it are no hazard to public health.
Well they do, you know, keep weapons of war in their homes.
Unless they have 24/7 armed guards and their home is defensible from armed invasion that alone is a pretty sizable risk to public health.
Then of course there is the added factor of what sort of person thinks this is a good idea. If someone is going to have an armed tank, it would be preferable if they also didn't have questionable judgment.
Well they do, you know, keep weapons of war in their homes.
Unless they have 24/7 armed guards and their home is defensible from armed invasion that alone is a pretty sizable risk to public health.
Then of course there is the added factor of what sort of person thinks this is a good idea. If someone is going to have an armed tank, it would be preferable if they also didn't have questionable judgment.
The only reason I'm agreeing with you is he didn't have enough control over his domain to maintain the secret.
I think the number of people killed in the world each year by personally owned novelty military vehicles is approximately zero. Hundreds of people are killed in the United States every year by unarmed assailants. When will we wake up and pass common-sense karate-chop control?!
How many people would die from personally owned military vehicles if they were not illegal and how many people would die from karate chops if there were (magically enforced) laws banning them?
Please also compare the relative numbers of people with rearmed military vehicles and people with karate-chop capable arms. The important comparison is the conditional probability, not the total numbers.
0 divided by a small number is going to be smaller than a small but nonzero number divided by about seven billion.
If you want to be obtuse you should argue the "tanks in the service of foreign warlords seeking to overthrow their local governments are privately owned" angle.
If you want to be obtuse you should argue the "tanks in the service of foreign warlords seeking to overthrow their local governments are privately owned" angle.
Something being irrelevant in war between nations doesn't mean that it is irrelevant at all scales. You could make the same argument about a Spanish galleon, and that for historical accuracy it should be stocked with at least a few tons of gunpowder, but I'm still not allowed to stockpile more than 50 pounds of black powder. And that's reasonable, because there's a lot of other uses for large quantities of gunpowder.
Rearming a 70yo tank greatly increases the likelihood for neighborhood disputes to become, um, "explosive".
Rearming a 70yo tank greatly increases the likelihood for neighborhood disputes to become, um, "explosive".
I added the source for it above
Posting an AMP link by Spiegel as "German source"? The original source is a dpa article by Carsten Rehder btw.
> must sell or donate ... to a museum or collector within the next two years.
What is a "collector" in this context? Wasn't he a collector, because he... Hmm .. collects?
What is a "collector" in this context? Wasn't he a collector, because he... Hmm .. collects?
Well, contrary to the BBC, the Spiegel source does not directly specify if he was arrested for the possession of the tank. It simply says "he agreed to sell the tank".
Quite possibly, there might be nothing illegal about owning the disarmed tank for a law-abiding collector.
Quite possibly, there might be nothing illegal about owning the disarmed tank for a law-abiding collector.
I don't recall the details, but from memory prosecuters dropped charges directly related to the tank itself. It seems that having demilitarised tank is indeed not per se illegal in Germany.
There was some other stuff going on, like shit loads of live ammunition in the guys possession.
There was some other stuff going on, like shit loads of live ammunition in the guys possession.
I was wondering this too. Could he not just register his home address as a museum?
"Previously violated weapon control laws" is not exactly helpful to obtaining a license to legally own them. (And I'm not sure how they apply in the case of a tank, even though collection licenses cover a lot I don't think the usual ones apply). If the alternative is seizure without compensation, being allowed to sell it seems fairly nice.
1. It was foolish of the man to have munitions stored with the weapons, he was asking for big government to come knocking.
2. Equally, the man has been known in the Heikendorf community for years and restored the tank, after buying it from the British Army's REME. Even helped the locals get out of snowdrifts with the tanks. If he was going to cause trouble he would have.
3. In the BBC article it says - "Many US historians argue it was the most efficient such vehicle deployed by Germany during World War Two. " The Panther was a good tank but was over-engineered, the Panther Ausf G versions were better and had the issues rectified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lssU69QJZk4
2. Equally, the man has been known in the Heikendorf community for years and restored the tank, after buying it from the British Army's REME. Even helped the locals get out of snowdrifts with the tanks. If he was going to cause trouble he would have.
3. In the BBC article it says - "Many US historians argue it was the most efficient such vehicle deployed by Germany during World War Two. " The Panther was a good tank but was over-engineered, the Panther Ausf G versions were better and had the issues rectified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lssU69QJZk4
[deleted]
He was prompted to sell the tank to a museum, or collector - what distinguishes him from a "collector"?
Perhaps the other collector has friends in high places and he doesn't.
Or simply a licence.
Or simply a licence.
Is there a Tank Driving test or something?
Came here to ask this :)
He sounds to have had quite the collection. If he actually had it in a shooting condition complete with a big case of live shells I can imagine it but the article doesn't really specify.
He sounds to have had quite the collection. If he actually had it in a shooting condition complete with a big case of live shells I can imagine it but the article doesn't really specify.
>If he actually had it in a shooting condition complete with a big case of live shells I can imagine it but the article doesn't really specify.
They almost certainly wouldn't omit that kind of thing if he did.
They almost certainly wouldn't omit that kind of thing if he did.
Fun fact: The Panther tank's engine was refurbished by the German Army maintenance some years back. And the guy used it for a while as a snow plower.
IMHO the amount of ammunition he had is more of a problem. That and the general amount of WW2 / Nazi memorabilia.
IMHO the amount of ammunition he had is more of a problem. That and the general amount of WW2 / Nazi memorabilia.
If you want ammo, just get yourself some field where a trench war has been fought. It will spit out unexploded ammo, bombs and mines at an alarming rate. You'll fill about a shed every year.
It is of course illegal to own these things. You're supposed to call the army (DOVO in my case), who will then tell you they have no time, have lost the capability to process these things, are on holiday for the next 5 years, whatever.
If this bothers you, you might drop them in a truck and dump them off at an army base, which will scare the bejeesus out of the poor soldiers, especially if you start jumping up and down on the heap like an angry madman (this might make it to some local newspaper). The army will declare this stuff far too dangerous for their base, and demand you to drag them back to your own field. If you can get kids to steal the stuff, this solves your problems with both the ammo and the kids. You might have a new complaint about noise levels.
What exactly is the problem with an old farth owning a few sheds full of world war ammo? Damn, my sarcasmometer just broke.
It is of course illegal to own these things. You're supposed to call the army (DOVO in my case), who will then tell you they have no time, have lost the capability to process these things, are on holiday for the next 5 years, whatever.
If this bothers you, you might drop them in a truck and dump them off at an army base, which will scare the bejeesus out of the poor soldiers, especially if you start jumping up and down on the heap like an angry madman (this might make it to some local newspaper). The army will declare this stuff far too dangerous for their base, and demand you to drag them back to your own field. If you can get kids to steal the stuff, this solves your problems with both the ammo and the kids. You might have a new complaint about noise levels.
What exactly is the problem with an old farth owning a few sheds full of world war ammo? Damn, my sarcasmometer just broke.
"What exactly is the problem with an old farth owning a few sheds full of world war ammo?"
Uh, the explosive potential? If his house catches fire and firefighters arrive only to be hit by a vicious explosion, that is quite a problem? IDK if that particular person lives in wilderness or has close neighbours, but if the latter, those people may also be pissed of when they learn that they live next to an improvised Vesuvius?
Old ammo is unstable and the region of former trench fighting of the Great War is still restricted for development, 100 years after the war has ended:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge
Uh, the explosive potential? If his house catches fire and firefighters arrive only to be hit by a vicious explosion, that is quite a problem? IDK if that particular person lives in wilderness or has close neighbours, but if the latter, those people may also be pissed of when they learn that they live next to an improvised Vesuvius?
Old ammo is unstable and the region of former trench fighting of the Great War is still restricted for development, 100 years after the war has ended:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge
Just to be clear as this post managed to reach a scary -1 in less than 3 minutes.
That post was pure sarcasm. Nobody young or old should own live ammo that has been rusted away for about a century, especially if they desperately want to get rid of it. The governement should start funding the relevant orgs again so they can collect and safely disarm these things.
That post was pure sarcasm. Nobody young or old should own live ammo that has been rusted away for about a century, especially if they desperately want to get rid of it. The governement should start funding the relevant orgs again so they can collect and safely disarm these things.
I see ;)
Sarcasm does not travel well over TCP/IP.
Sarcasm does not travel well over TCP/IP.
Sorry to everybody who was offended. I appended the line about the sarcasmometer, but the damage was done by then.
I wasn't sure at first, but I like it!
On a serious note, that's the reason why private EOD is quite busy in Germany. And the reason why Baltic Navy mine divers are among the best in the world, apparently these guys see more live WW1+2 mines in 6 months of training than US Navy divers in their whole career. Might be a tad exaggerated, but the Baltic sea is among the heaviest mined ones on the planet.
On a serious note, that's the reason why private EOD is quite busy in Germany. And the reason why Baltic Navy mine divers are among the best in the world, apparently these guys see more live WW1+2 mines in 6 months of training than US Navy divers in their whole career. Might be a tad exaggerated, but the Baltic sea is among the heaviest mined ones on the planet.
Civilians (including museums) that wish to own tanks need to cut out enough of the armor to make it unusable for war purposes.
That's why the Tank Museum in Munster is the only [correction: not only] museum in Germany where you can see tanks without modifications: the museum is technically part of the Bundeswehr's 9. tank brigade that is stationed there, and the civilian staff around it is just "in cooperation".
That's why the Tank Museum in Munster is the only [correction: not only] museum in Germany where you can see tanks without modifications: the museum is technically part of the Bundeswehr's 9. tank brigade that is stationed there, and the civilian staff around it is just "in cooperation".
Seems a bit silly, the amount of armour on most WW2 tanks is trivial to penetrate for nearly anything made post-WW2.
> That's why the Tank Museum in Munster is the only museum in Germany where you can see tanks without modifications
That can't be right, there's also the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr in Dresden.
That can't be right, there's also the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr in Dresden.
Yeah, I know. And still some years ago the Army did an engine revision on that particular tank. Through official channels and properly invoiced. Not saying that owning a tank is good, bit having thousands of rounds of ammo might be more critical. I'd have to look up the details so to be sure.
Given the strong gun laws in Germany, I think he's lucky to get away with a fine for illegally acquiring a tank, anti-aircraft cannon, mortar, torpedo as well as an assortment of guns.
There is the "Kriegswagfenkontrollgesetz" (law to control weapons of war) that deals with owning and trading these kind of things.
Source in German: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/k...
Comment on rearming: »Ich wollte den Panzer so herrichten, wie er aus dem Werk kam«, soll F. am 12. Juli 2015 gesagt haben. In einem Telefonat am 12. August 2015 soll ihn ein Gesprächspartner daran erinnert haben, wie er ihn mehrfach darauf hingewiesen habe, den Panzer zu demilitarisieren. »Aber Sie, Herr F., sagten: Einen Teufel werde ich tun«, zitiert der Staatsanwalt aus den Protokollen.
Source behind paywall: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/k...