Not surprising seeing how he bought this tank disarmed and was trying to rearm it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 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.
"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:
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".
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.
Readit News
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...
this video by JoergSprave explains it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-J2pYLCvI
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...
Where does it say that in the BBC or Spiegel article?
What is a "collector" in this context? Wasn't he a collector, because he... Hmm .. collects?
Quite possibly, there might be nothing illegal about owning the disarmed tank for a law-abiding collector.
There was some other stuff going on, like shit loads of live ammunition in the guys possession.
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 Comment
Or simply a licence.
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.
They almost certainly wouldn't omit that kind of thing if he did.
IMHO the amount of ammunition he had is more of a problem. That and the general amount of WW2 / Nazi memorabilia.
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.
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
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 can't be right, there's also the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr in Dresden.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment