Reply With QuoteI wish I had not started the thread now.
Lloyd
Administrator
Not a clue, mate. Whether it has or not, it was guidance to ACPO and CPS, not a change in the law.Originally Posted by SteveH
Again, ask the HO, because whatever some may wish to believe, I'm no expert in these matters and that email from Adam Lassman is the only contact I've had with the Home Office for many, many years.
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge
Registered User
I wish I had not started the thread now.
Lloyd
Administrator
Sorry, Lloyd, but threads do tend to go off on tangents, whatever their subject. As I said, sometimes I have to correct untrue statements and insinuations, and there are more than enough of those going around at the moment. The truth will out, though, and even though the agenda-led minority find that truth inconvenient, it doesn't change the facts.
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge
Registered User
It isn't clear to me at all and, frankly, if that's an example of the standard of HO communications then it's no wonder there is confusion surrounding this issue.
Administrator
No changes made to legislation - the prohibition remains.
That's about as clear as it could be, surely?
Oh well, at least you believe the HO email was genuine!
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge
Registered User
There have been no changes to legislation; that much is already known and there was no need for a press release.No changes made to legislation - the prohibition remains.
That's about as clear as it could be, surely?
Oh well, at least you believe the HO email was genuine!
What is in doubt is the HO guidanace. The guidance issued in 1997 was a formal document and cannot be changed by an email to a journalist. The guidance may have been wrong (and I said this many times in 'the thread that never was') but if it has changed, then new guidance must be issued and we would have seen it.
I'm surprised you take this at face value without question.
Also remarkable is that a thread on airgunBBS that was important enough to have been the subject of a Home Office email to the press, was censored by the forum that hosted it.
Registered User
Glad you posted that, I could not have put my point across as well as you have done. Terry D, the above just sums it up when it comes to proof.... It is clear none exists and therefore the original HOC remains in force.
So glad you were able to allow someone to clear it up...
Administrator
Really? You're surprised that I take an official communication directly from the Home Office at face value? Should I have simply ignored it, or sought a more qualified source than the Home Office? Please direct me to that source and I'll ask them.
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge
Administrator
You keep poking your fingers in your ears and doing the 'can't hear you ...' thing, and the rest of us can get on with the real world, mate.
Tell me, do you still think that email from the Home Office was 'created', or do you now accept it is genuine? Just so we know what we're dealing with, here.
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge
Registered User
The very same person that emailed you that has emailed other people stating that semi auto airguns were not meant to be caught up in that legislation, a totally contradictory stance on different sides of a meeting with the GTA....
It kind of discredits anything he says, does it not?
As for Adams email, its incorrect. HOC68/97 (section 10, source: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%29%281%29.pdf) states this:
Continue being the key word. No where does it state anything like "to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons"."We have consulted ACPO and the Crown Prosecution Service about the legal status of these weapons and have agreed, in the absence of a court ruling, that the issue should resolved formally at the next legislative opportunity. In the meantime chief officers are advised that self-loading or pump action rifled airguns should CONTINUE to be regarded as falling outside the certification process provided they are low powered and do not fall within the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969"
Registered User
Let me be clear; I do not think s/a's are legal per se, and we are in complete agreement that guidance is just guidance; it is not the law. I said this throughout 'the other thread'. I also said that those importing 2000 euro s/a's should be aware they might become worthless at any time.
Having said that, the guidance from the HO is likely to be relied on in any defence that might be needed, and therefore should not be taken lightly.
At the moment, there are at least 2 versions; the 1997 formal public document, and what apears to be some sort of vague alternative interpretation sent to a few people by email.
Yes, I certainly think that, as a journalist, you should be seeking clarification of what is a poorly written communication. For some reason though, you seem more anxious to put a spin on what has been said.
Registered User
..I want one!
Stunning accuracy at 65 yards in .25 FAC - very impressive!
.22LR CZ452; .22 Hornet CZ527
Tikka T3 Varmint .223; .204 Ruger CZ527 Varmint;
6.5 Creed Bergara B14 HMR
Administrator
That is an incorrect assumption on your part. What 'spin' have I applied to anything? So far, the Home Office has stated that SA rifles are prohibited as stated in the Firearms Act, that no exemptions exist for airguns, and that the situation remains as stated in the act.
Now, that clarification came directly from the Home Office. Where do you suggest I go for this clarification?
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge
Registered User
The spin is in the fact that you place more emphasis on an email to a few people, than on the publicly issued formal guidance, which is still current.
Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but if I was a journalist had received that email, with its factual innacuracy and vague conclusion, I would be going back to the Home Office to ask for some clarity.
Last edited by banksy!; 26-06-2015 at 09:14 PM.
Registered User
@ Lloyd57. Yes great bullpup, my son remarked instantly how light and pointable it was. I think users would do well to keep the 'scope light and short too. Even a heavy lump like the Drone Pro would be good, and the entire outfit would still be lighter than the Pulsar heavyweight w/o a 'scope. Just hope any Pulsar fans aren't reading this and feel the need to further spoil the thread. Another thing just came to mind, on a certain one make forum, there are details of how to remove the barrel w/o damaging the rifle, and it would appear that trying to remove the shroud could , instead, just result in forcing the barrel to turn, upsetting the location of the transfer port
Last edited by CORKY.; 26-06-2015 at 11:16 PM.
Pick up your gun, shove a bullet up the spout
It's the Major Dennis Bloodnok Rock'n' Roll Call Tango
Posting Permissions
