Multi-shot air pistol

[ikarma70]

A- Air Pistol, because there are no .177 pistols sold in the UK that require a legal defence to sell or have to be painted funny colours for sale to the general public.
B- Airsoft because if it chronos at this UKARA members will allow you to skirmish with it, I think they use a standard weight ball for testing so I'll assume your reading is taken with that weight

a .2gr ball is the standard weight for chrono testing at airsoft skirmishing sites, if you are using another weight of ball then you should inform the tester.

[magicniner]

In the real world it IS an RIF as far as I'm and the law is concerned, in practice it's one that has slipped through the multi-coloured net.

If the Home Office, Police and Courts agreed with you there would be prosecutions and withdrawal of stock - I'll keep an ear open for the rush of RFDs taking them off the shelves.
Meanwhile please find below CPS guidance on deciding if something is a firearm and note that although "Lethality" is used in the description of "Firearms" what a court actually evaluates is whether it is capable of causing "more than trifling and trivial" injury and anything which is is therefore is a "firearm"

A firearm is "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged" (section 57 (1) Firearms Act 1968), it includes:
any prohibited weapon (see below in this guidance section 5 Firearms Act 1968), whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and
any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and
any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.

Lethality is a complex issue and although case law exists (Moore v Gooderham [1960] 3 All E.R. 575), only a court can decide whether any particular weapon is capable of causing "more than trifling and trivial" injury and is therefore is a "firearm" for the purposes of the Acts.

A well placed .177 dart would be a capable of causing a "more than trifling and trivial" injury and that this capability alone would keep any .177 gun firmly in the "Airgun" classification

[magicniner]

As someone is neither clued up, nor a RFD, I would say that it was a case of exclusion.
The latter pistol meets the criteria of airsoft, so unless modeled on a pre 1870 pistol is classed as a RIF, whereas the former doesn't, so isn't

Ian

He didn't specify the style, but if it was modeled on a Star Trek Phaser it would be post 1870, wouldn't be a RIF, but would still be Airsoft

[RichardH]

A- Air Pistol, because there are no .177 pistols sold in the UK that require a legal defence to sell or have to be painted funny colours for sale to the general public.
B- Airsoft because if it chronos at this UKARA members will allow you to skirmish with it, I think they use a standard weight ball for testing so I'll assume your reading is taken with that weight

Interesting.....

Now demonstrate where the law supports that position

Complicated isnt it

[magicniner]

Interesting.....

Now demonstrate where the law supports that position

Complicated isnt it

No it's not complex, if you know what to look for, CPS guidance on what a firearm is, for instance.
See the CPS guidance quoted elsewhere in number 32 in this freaky, time-shifted post order.

[RichardH]

No it's not complex, if you know what to look for, CPS guidance on what a firearm is, for instance.
See the CPS guidance quoted elsewhere in number 32 in this freaky, time-shifted post order.

CPS Guidance isnt the law, the firearms acts and the VCR bill are the only relevent documents.....

Using those documents can you support your earlier statement?

[jassi]

Can you get an airsoft phaser? I want one

Ian

[Bjacobs571]

I found this document

http://www.publications.parliament.u...47/447we24.htm

Firearms Control - Home Affairs Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by the Home Office
This text is taken from this document

Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile. Lethality has been interpreted by the courts as meaning "capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury"—which means that if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is a firearm. Under this definition, some air weapons are controlled by this legislation and some are not. There are three basic categories of air weapons.

. Airsoft guns—which usually have muzzle energy of less than one joule, and because of this they are not considered lethal and do not fit the definition of a firearm and do not come under the control of the Firearms Act.

▪ Low-powered airguns—which have muzzle energies above one joule. Due to their comparatively low power, the law does not require these to be kept on a police-issued firearm certificate or otherwise licensed but, because they are capable of inflicting a penetrating wound, they are nonetheless classed as "firearms".

▪ Higher powered airguns—these are air pistols with muzzle energy in excess of 6 foot pounds or other air weapons with muzzle energy in excess of 12 foot pounds. They must be kept on a firearm certificate in the same way as any other of the firearms which come under the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act. High-powered air pistols are treated as conventional handguns and are prohibited accordingly.

If the home office doesn't know the law who does?
Every source I have looked at states less than 1 joule not a firearm above 1 Joule a firearm. if a pistol looks real and it is not a firearm or deactivated or an antique then its a Imitation Firearm or Realistic Imitation Firearm. Its not just the BASC its on many police websites, its on the gun trade website, its on gun club websites, its everywhere.

Just be glad we don't live in northern Ireland. In northern Ireland if its a firearm of any description then you need a FAC, even for a Gat gun assuming its over 1Joule

[Minuteman]

I'm still waiting to find out about Section 5 - (b)any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.

*Quickly hide penis back in Y fronts.

[harvey_s]

If the Home Office, Police and Courts agreed with you there would be prosecutions and withdrawal of stock - I'll keep an ear open for the rush of RFDs taking them off the shelves.
Meanwhile please find below CPS guidance on deciding if something is a firearm and note that although "Lethality" is used in the description of "Firearms" what a court actually evaluates is whether it is capable of causing "more than trifling and trivial" injury and anything which is is therefore is a "firearm"

A firearm is "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged" (section 57 (1) Firearms Act 1968), it includes:
any prohibited weapon (see below in this guidance section 5 Firearms Act 1968), whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and
any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and
any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.

Lethality is a complex issue and although case law exists (Moore v Gooderham [1960] 3 All E.R. 575), only a court can decide whether any particular weapon is capable of causing "more than trifling and trivial" injury and is therefore is a "firearm" for the purposes of the Acts.

A well placed .177 dart would be a capable of causing a "more than trifling and trivial" injury and that this capability alone would keep any .177 gun firmly in the "Airgun" classification

"You're again quoting a GUIDE which is not THE LAW...." mmmm, heard that before - I wonder where?

So in other words, you can't and this is YOUR interpretation of the law unsupported by the guidance above especially as we're not defining 'lethality', we're talking about what distingiushes an RIF from an air weapon.
The sarcasm at the beginning doesn't help much either - just because there hasn't been a need to have a test case doesn't prove your point at all.

In this case I don't care if you're an RFD or not, I think you're wrong and I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this occasion unless you've something written IN LAW to bring to the debate to support your own definition based on bore & projectile.

[magicniner]

CPS Guidance isnt the law, the firearms acts and the VCR bill are the only relevent documents.....

You are wrong, CPS Guidance, Home Office Guidance and Case Law are all relevant, the chuff from BASC made the school boy error of thinking that English Law was just the acts & bills as published & ended up deleting half his posts and running away when he discovered he was wrong and that semi-auto air guns are not illegal as initially stated in the BASC guide to air gun law and that this is a result of Home Office guidance.

Using those documents can you support your earlier statement?

Nice try but I don't have to, I choose to use empirical evidence and direct you to what's on the shelves, painted black, selling every day and resulting in no prosecutions since the VCR act, despite regular FEO visits to all RFDs.
Can you show just one instance of an RFD being prosecuted for selling a .177 RIF ?
Any argument that all these sales are "slipping through the net" is Walter Mitty territory,
- Nick

[magicniner]

I'm still waiting to find out about Section 5 - (b)any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.

*Quickly hide penis back in Y fronts.

This was the bit they used to keep CO2 guns Section 1 FAC and illegal for general sale until after the hand gun ban, the Home Office then issued Guidance that CO2 was no longer to be considered a noxious gas for the purpose of firearms law.
So Home Office Guidance is the only reason CO2 guns were, then weren't S1, the law remained the same.

[Minuteman]

This was the bit they used to keep CO2 guns Section 1 FAC and illegal for general sale until after the hand gun ban, the Home Office then issued Guidance that CO2 was no longer to be considered a noxious gas for the purpose of firearms law.
So Home Office Guidance is the only reason CO2 guns were, then weren't S1, the law remained the same.

If we were to be really cynical / realistic then one might conclude the reason all of our firearms law are kept slightly vague, is to keep it as flexible as possible for the powers that be so that should they so chose they can prosecute where they see fit, or to suit the political will of the day. They can tweek the word of law by either guidance, or by letting the courts rule upon it and create a precedent, which they can bolster or remove as they see fit with alteration to the word or further guidance.

Large parts we all know can be questioned over what it allows or disallows, SGC pumpers capacity, semi-auto, what constitutes pump action (Skan and others way round that with the 'grip shift' I find most amusing), defining 'capable' etc. etc.

All we are left with ultimately is what guidance exists and what has passed through the courts recently, and it is all subject to change as time passes.

Where I think we would all agree is that what we should take issue when someone chooses to fly in the face of what is accepted as permissible and lawful - inviting destruction as it were. Destruction is destruction whether it starts with well intentioned clarification, helpful suggestion, devilment or testing the boundaries.

[magicniner]

If we were to be really cynical / realistic then one might conclude the reason all of our firearms law are kept slightly vague, is to keep it as flexible as possible for the powers that be so that should they so chose they can prosecute where they see fit.

This is exactly the case in many areas of UK Law, anything couched in terms which are too narrow invites circumvention and could also deny the judiciary the opportunity to deal fairly with accidental and incidental transgressions.

- Nick

[willie the pimp]

Maybe one of these would do the job. It's multi shot and no CO2 required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maverickrev6.jpg

Not much cocking effort either.

With practice you can achieve some quite good groupings.