FX Wildcat

[SuffolkRifle]

Getting back on topic

i picked up a .22 today

I'll wait until the .177s come in (end of August) haven't really got any use for another .22 rifle at the moment (so it'd sit with the other 10 .22's in the cupboard not getting used - seen the price of .22 pellets lately? & knowing the amount of pellets I used in the Bobcat over the 10 weeks I had it)

[Rich]

What's happening in Scotland right now and what happened in New Zealand are matters of airgun crime in the wider sense, which of course it is right to be concerned about, firstly for the victims and secondly for its potential impact on the shooting public, not to say the impact on the trade.

Semi auto is not part of that debate, unless someone wants to make it so.

If I need to know something about which rifles I can hold either on or off ticket, the resource I turn to is the FEO. Firearms Enquiry Officer, it's his job to deal with the licence-holding public. An enquiry to a local FEO regarding the possible ownership of a semi auto Steyr either on or off ticket produced a response to the effect that so long it is under 12fpe it is classed as an airgun and therefore not subject to licensing. That was given in writing. The FEO also said, in writing, and I paraphrase as I don't have the document in front of me, you are at liberty to go out and buy one if you want. We [police] don't need to know about it.

Now, I would imagine that the training of FEOs includes something like, if you can answer the question with a reply that conforms to policy, do so; if the potential reply doesn't sit within policy, boot it up the line for approval before making any commitment.

I have to give such a reply more credence than any advice I get on this or any other forum.

[Terry D]

What's happening in Scotland right now and what happened in New Zealand are matters of airgun crime in the wider sense, which of course it is right to be concerned about, firstly for the victims and secondly for its potential impact on the shooting public, not to say the impact on the trade.

Semi auto is not part of that debate, unless someone wants to make it so.

The 'someone' most likely to make ANY airgun part of that debate is any criminal who misuses one to such an effect that the media gets hold of it.


If I need to know something about which rifles I can hold either on or off ticket, the resource I turn to is the FEO. Firearms Enquiry Officer, it's his job to deal with the licence-holding public. An enquiry to a local FEO regarding the possible ownership of a semi auto Steyr either on or off ticket produced a response to the effect that so long it is under 12fpe it is classed as an airgun and therefore not subject to licensing. That was given in writing. The FEO also said, in writing, and I paraphrase as I don't have the document in front of me, you are at liberty to go out and buy one if you want. We [police] don't need to know about it.

The most authoritative 'resource' we have is the home office and it has stated that SA is prohibited. Should we ignore that resource, and would you consider your FEO better informed than the Home Office?

Now, I would imagine that the training of FEOs includes something like, if you can answer the question with a reply that conforms to policy, do so; if the potential reply doesn't sit within policy, boot it up the line for approval before making any commitment.

I have to give such a reply more credence than any advice I get on this or any other forum.

I fully agree, Rich. The question is, do you give such a reply more credence than one that comes directly from the Home Office?

Apologies for the off-topic, everyone. I'll do my best to leave this one now.

[Logunner]

I fully agree, Rich. The question is, do you give such a reply more credence than one that comes directly from the Home Office?

Apologies for the off-topic, everyone. I'll do my best to leave this one now.

When someone provides proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles I will listen to what you have to say.

Sadly that writren proof is still lacking..

[Jackel]

When someone provides proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles I will listen to what you have to say.

Sadly that writren proof is still lacking..

And how exactly is that Terry's fault?

[Kyoto]

Yipee another muppet gone!

Jackel, is that your honest appraisal of the contributors to this Ramsbottom forum. did you ever think how damaging such remarks might be to the site owners business? Baz was removed for just such a contempt of us......why do you think you should be different?

[Jackel]

Yipee another muppet gone!

Jackel, is that your honest appraisal of the contributors to this Ramsbottom forum. did you ever think how damaging such remarks might be to the site owners business? Baz was removed for just such a contempt of us......why do you think you should be different?

No thats an honest appraisal of a troll with an agenda who is getting his strings pulled by others elsewhere and frankly it's beyond tedious,,,, Baz was and still is a very well respected member And whatever went on between Him and the site owner is their business


99.9999% of the people on this site are great well respected people always willing to help and have well constructed debate and ideas,,,, However the .00001 % I wouldn't trust to sit on the bog the right way judging by some of their comments we see (and we see more than you do)

[Logunner]

And how exactly is that Terry's fault?

The only fault is the continued referral to HO advice/reply, but where is this advice/reply? If it exists then there should be no problem in publishing it, documents are easily scanned and uploaded, so if it truly does exist then lets see it. Or let us all know when it will put in one of the publications, I'll willingly spend my money on buying just that one edition.

proof of a change to the previous HOC is all I ask, I will be more than willing to accept the decision once proof is given.

The GTA seem to have put up the shutters since the claim was made on here by their spokesperson regarding the alleged meeting to seek clarification, could it be that the FOI requests won't back up the claim so they have retreated leaving their spokesperson to fight alone?

Put another way.... Terry spoke out on behalf of others, so who else do you expect people to look at when it comes to "fault"?

[Jackel]

The only fault is the continued referral to HO advice/reply, but where is this advice/reply? If it exists then there should be no problem in publishing it, documents are easily scanned and uploaded, so if it truly does exist then lets see it. Or let us all know when it will put in one of the publications, I'll willingly spend my money on buying just that one edition.

proof of a change to the previous HOC is all I ask, I will be more than willing to accept the decision once proof is given.

The GTA seem to have put up the shutters since the claim was made on here by their spokesperson regarding the alleged meeting to seek clarification, could it be that the FOI requests won't back up the claim so they have retreated leaving their spokesperson to fight alone?

Put another way.... Terry spoke out on behalf of others, so who else do you expect people to look at when it comes to "fault"?

And if he hadn't of spoken out to advise people he'd be getting asked why,,, either way certain people with agenda's (who have been proved wrong before) would be moaning

either way Terry cannot win with some people

[Terry D]

When someone provides proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles I will listen to what you have to say.

Sadly that writren proof is still lacking..

Here's what the Home Office sent to me, and others:

From: Lassman Adam [mailto:Adam.Lassman@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2015 15:38
To: Doe, Terry
Subject: Airguns

Dear Mr Doe,

I understand that the following thread on the airgunBBS.com website has caused some confusion:

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-auto-nest-but

I would, therefore, like to explain that the situation is:

Under section 5(1)(ab) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), all self-loading or pump-action rifled guns are classified as prohibited other than those which are chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. You will note that there is no exemption in this provision for air rifles/weapons.

The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Lassman
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Crime and Policing Group

----------------------

Now, that was sent, unsolicited, to me and others, directly from the Home Office. I'm sure you've already seen it. So, there's your 'proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles'. Now, until changes are made to the law, I am obliged to accept what the Home Office says as fact. What you do is entirely up to you, but the statement you wanted to see has been made by the Home Office.

[cumbrianbob]

Can we get back to the fx wildcat now please?

[PAUL600RR]

Can we get back to the fx wildcat now please?

well said that man

[Terry D]

Can we get back to the fx wildcat now please?

Apologies, Bob, but sometimes things need to be said, and just as I've always done my best to defend this sport, I'll also defend those who work damn hard to protect it. If the tiny minority of sad creatures who make unfounded accusations were to put that energy into doing something positive, we'd all be in a better place.

[Logunner]

Here's what the Home Office sent to me, and others:

From: Lassman Adam [mailto:Adam.Lassman@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2015 15:38
To: Doe, Terry
Subject: Airguns

Dear Mr Doe,

I understand that the following thread on the airgunBBS.com website has caused some confusion:

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-auto-nest-but

I would, therefore, like to explain that the situation is:

Under section 5(1)(ab) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), all self-loading or pump-action rifled guns are classified as prohibited other than those which are chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. You will note that there is no exemption in this provision for air rifles/weapons.

The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Lassman
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Crime and Policing Group

----------------------

Now, that was sent, unsolicited, to me and others, directly from the Home Office. I'm sure you've already seen it. So, there's your 'proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles'. Now, until changes are made to the law, I am obliged to accept what the Home Office says as fact. What you do is entirely up to you, but the statement you wanted to see has been made by the Home Office.

With respect that is not proof, it could be created by anyone with ease. I'm talking documents, scanned and published for all to see, it will then be irrefutable proof that takes the previous HOC out of the equation.

You cannot expect everyone to take your word, or that of the GTA, as proof. I understand it irks you that many don't accept your word, but when they have a HO document saying one thing and you another it is only to be expected.

Sorry but to me this whole subject has been about trade bodies protecting revenue, and I base that on the original claim that the GTA instigated the meeting to confirm their illegal status.

[Terry D]

With respect that is not proof, it could be created by anyone with ease. I'm talking documents, scanned and published for all to see, it will then be irrefutable proof that takes the previous HOC out of the equation.

You cannot expect everyone to take your word, or that of the GTA, as proof. I understand it irks you that many don't accept your word, but when they have a HO document saying one thing and you another it is only to be expected.

Sorry but to me this whole subject has been about trade bodies protecting revenue, and I base that on the original claim that the GTA instigated the meeting to confirm their illegal status.

Are you genuinely saying I faked that email from the Home Office? Really? Are you so desperate to see what isn't there that you'd come on a public forum and suggest that the email from Adam Lassman was 'created'? Come on, that's just embarrassing.

This isn't 'my word', it's a communication directly from the Home Office. Please cut and paste it and email Adam Lassman to ask him if he sent it.

Now, please explain how confirming the legal status of SA is about 'trade bodies protecting revenue', and just for once, can you provide some of the proof you demand of me. I promise I won't dismiss anything credible, as you have done with Adam Lassman's email.