and they all shout "why buy a gun from europe"

[Terry D]

No, that's not what Mr Lassman said. The meeting has been described separately as "a demonstration" and "a lecture" by the GTA, not that all parties were discussing the law. That part you either made up, or you know more than you say.

That email said, 'The meeting was a standard GTA demonstration to familiarise attendees with a wide range of firearm types and how the law applied to them. ' I am unaware of any 'lecture' and the meeting was not described as such in the email to which I was referring. If in this meeting the GTA 'demonstrated' a wide range of firearms types, why is it so difficult to accept that the legalities of these firearms was the subject of discussion, rather than a 'lecture' by GTA?
Your assertion that I've either made something up or that I'm concealing something is wrong, and frankly, rather insulting.


Yes, and as I said before, if you are sincerely concerned about giving your readers the facts, I would have thought you would have asked for clarification about an 'out of the blue' email that is vague and not consistent with current published Home Office guidance.

There is no 'if' about my concern for giving my readers the facts. Adam Lassman introduced his email to me by referencing a thread on this BBS. His email was consistent with the earlier GTA statement, so that was a cross-reference and until this information is updated, I'll accept it.

[Rob Edge]

The common theme on this thread is to lash out at people for explaining what the law defines. People have assumed that the BASC putting up an explanation to suggest that sub 12 SA are exempt is correct when in fact in all versions of the act their is no such exemption. It simply says SA are chambered for .22 rimfire only. In a nutshell you can shout all day long, you can spout bile and derision against members of this forum on other forums but nothing changes other than peoples perception. It is even more interesting when members choose to goad the admins into decisive action by making fools of themselves by insulting admin the team and the forum members.
If you have any questions about your purchase from an EU source of a prohibited weapon then take your moans and groans to the supplier. No amount of insulting, goading or personal attack will make the situation change regarding your purchase.
Out of interest the HO has meetings with other industry controlling bodies to clarify law and how it applies to products offered. There is nothing unusual about the meeting with the GTA.

[Logunner]

It doesn't increase cost but it sure as hell restricts the possible sales via delivery as opposed to collection which is what the VCR does. The VCR SHOULD apply to all UK sales regardless of origin. That would level up the playing field.
Someone mentioned earlier about cars bought abroad not having a warranty. The warranty on any car bought within the EU is valid in any member state.

Clearly the act restricts UK based deliveries, it is yet another badly thought out knee jerk reactionary piece of legislation I'm sure we all agree. The wish to apply it even further is borderline crazy and not the way to level the playing field.

The industry in this country needs to up it's game and provide it's customers with the service it demands at a price that is comparable to the alternatives. Further restricting trade is not the answer for consumers, and will only give short term benefit for the retailer, whilst the suppliers/manufacturers win on all counts.

As with so many things in this country the industry has no long term stratergy or forethought for it's clients.

Just now I need a gun cleaning/repair station, I could drive 6 miles and get one at £51, or go online and wait 2 - 3 days for £30, each would be an unfriendly inpersonal experience so why waste the £21.....

[banksy!]

If in this meeting the GTA 'demonstrated' a wide range of firearms types, why is it so difficult to accept that the legalities of these firearms was the subject of discussion, rather than a 'lecture' by GTA?

Because the HO, in their response to FOI requests, say so:

Thank you for your email of 22 May, in which you ask for the minutes of the meeting
between the Home Office and the Gun Trade Association (GTA) between April and May
2015. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the only meeting held between the GTA and the Home Office during
these months was on 21 April about various categories of firearms and how the law
pertains to each. There were no minutes of this meeting as this was effectively a lecture
about firearms.

I'll accept it.

That's the bit that worries me, but, your magazine; your readers.

[Blackmax]

To add to Rob's most recent thread, Home Office Guidelines and circulars cannot and will not ever supersede legislation even if there are errors, loop holes or grey areas in the law. What it does do is open it up to legal challenge should there be a prosecution and even a blanket policy decision not to prosecute by the cps or other legal bodies.

The only thing that can change the law is new legislation, amendment or a stated case and for the latter it would require a case being heard in a criminal court, which is highly unlikely due to the stance of the CPS and ACPO.

It appears from correspondence to do with the legislation that it was never intended to apply to airguns under the legal limit, but it does, are there likely to be any prosecutions for possession of such a rifle, no.
The reason there won't be a prosecution is because the CPS will not support it and neither will the Association of Chief Police Officers; this does not prevent the seizure and destruction of a such gun at this current time.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this anomaly or whatever you wish to call it needs clarification.

[RobF]

Because the HO, in their response to FOI requests, say so:

Thank you for your email of 22 May, in which you ask for the minutes of the meeting
between the Home Office and the Gun Trade Association (GTA) between April and May
2015. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the only meeting held between the GTA and the Home Office during
these months was on 21 April about various categories of firearms and how the law
pertains to each. There were no minutes of this meeting as this was effectively a lecture
about firearms.



That's the bit that worries me, but, your magazine; your readers.

So that could be interpreted as either the GTA lecturing the HO, or the HO lecturing the GTA?

[Terry D]

Because the HO, in their response to FOI requests, say so:

Thank you for your email of 22 May, in which you ask for the minutes of the meeting
between the Home Office and the Gun Trade Association (GTA) between April and May
2015. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the only meeting held between the GTA and the Home Office during
these months was on 21 April about various categories of firearms and how the law
pertains to each. There were no minutes of this meeting as this was effectively a lecture
about firearms.

Not a lecture about firearms law, delivered by the GTA to the HO, then? Surely, given the complexity of this issue, the HO would need detailed explanation of the 'various categories of firearm' in order to decide 'how the law pertains to each'? This is just my take on it.

You claimed I either made something up, or I know more than I'm saying. Neither is true. Please think before you make untrue allegations about me in future.

[Garvin]

To add to Rob's most recent thread, Home Office Guidelines and circulars cannot and will not ever supersede legislation even if there are errors, loop holes or grey areas in the law. What it does do is open it up to legal challenge should there be a prosecution and even a blanket policy decision not to prosecute by the cps or other legal bodies.

The only thing that can change the law is new legislation, amendment or a stated case and for the latter it would require a case being heard in a criminal court, which is highly unlikely due to the stance of the CPS and ACPO.

It appears from correspondence to do with the legislation that it was never intended to apply to airguns under the legal limit, but it does, are there likely to be any prosecutions for possession of such a rifle, no.
The reason there won't be a prosecution is because the CPS will not support it and neither will the Association of Chief Police Officers; this does not prevent the seizure and destruction of a such gun at this current time.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this anomaly or whatever you wish to call it needs clarification.

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread... but... I think this post gets to the nub of the issue. If legislation is poorly worded or open to question, it's for the courts to decide on the correct interpretation. If the Home Office changes its view on a given question, this may be persuasiave in court, but it has to get to court first. For the reasons set out above, this is unlikely at present.

[neil82]

To add to Rob's most recent thread, Home Office Guidelines and circulars cannot and will not ever supersede legislation even if there are errors, loop holes or grey areas in the law. What it does do is open it up to legal challenge should there be a prosecution and even a blanket policy decision not to prosecute by the cps or other legal bodies.

The only thing that can change the law is new legislation, amendment or a stated case and for the latter it would require a case being heard in a criminal court, which is highly unlikely due to the stance of the CPS and ACPO.

It appears from correspondence to do with the legislation that it was never intended to apply to airguns under the legal limit, but it does, are there likely to be any prosecutions for possession of such a rifle, no.
The reason there won't be a prosecution is because the CPS will not support it and neither will the Association of Chief Police Officers; this does not prevent the seizure and destruction of a such gun at this current time.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this anomaly or whatever you wish to call it needs clarification.

that last line just about sums up what they ALL should be doing, GTA, AMTA, BASC and the magazines, all forums, all members of forums ALL should push for clear guidance and a standard test
all threads of this type do nothing but stir up a hornets nest and create animosity as every one thinks only they have the correct answer

[Terry D]

that last line just about sums up what they ALL should be doing, GTA, AMTA, BASC and the magazines, all forums, all members of forums ALL should push for clear guidance and a standard test
all threads of this type do nothing but stir up a hornets nest and create animosity as every one thinks only they have the correct answer

Yet, when the GTA asked for clarification, certain people on here attacked them for doing just that.

Sometimes you just can't win, eh?

[Logunner]

The trade body works for it's members, a union if you like... The press works for whom ever pays the highest price... Both will 'spin' to achieve it's own ends and the consumer be damned!

Vote with your wallets, pressure your MP on any shooting related topic that concerns you, protect the freedom of choice when it comes to being a consumer or a shooting enthusiast. SA and buying from Europe are intrinsicly linked, any restriction could set a dangerous precedent in many other areas of both shooting and consumer rights.

The industry should hang it's head in shame for the way it has treated the consumers, and if any RFD feels the GTA has let them down, or no longer truly represents them, then stand up and say so.

[Terry D]

The industry should hang it's head in shame for the way it has treated the consumers, and if any RFD feels the GTA has let them down, or no longer truly represents them, then stand up and say so.

So, exactly what has the 'industry' or the GTA done wrong, here? Please stick to the facts, not your supposition and conjecture, and let's see the charges.

[Mog]

IMHO, All this affair has achieved is to have muddied the waters. It really doesn't matter about the legalities, we are now at a point where probably many people who had been considering ordering an airgun, not available from UK retailers, direct from the EU, are now not going to do so, due to a real or imagined belief that they are doing something illegal. Job done. I wouldn't think that the GTA, it's members or AMTA are loosing much sleep over this outcome.
Since living in France it's really brought it home to me how we're ripped off in the UK.

[Punchsteve]

I see the thread has disappeared with all the Euro shop links What on earth is going on on the BBS at the moment....

I've looked for the thread you mention, and it's deletion reason states that it was temporarily deleted as a list of shops on a forum paid for by a businessman who sells a lot of the same sundry items, may not be on. However, as the thread was really more orientated towards the import of guns, which our sponsor does not sell, I'll discuss this further with the mods and admin and if they cannot see a problem with it, perhaps the thread can be restored.

Well its a forum here where people should be allowed to post without fear of retribution unless you break the rules so I should imagine the admin has PM the OP who opened the thread and explained why it gone.

What fear of retribution? It's a forum on the internet. And no, we do not routinely pm posters every time we have to edit, move, or delete a post or thread, otherwise we'd be on here all day without getting anything done.

In fact, the fact that you have been able to continue derailing threads with this issue, what I would personally say amounts to trolling, and at the obvious prompting of certain members on other forums, counters your argument about fear of posting.

Now, Terry won't mention it, but I will. Your tone towards a person who has been nothing but polite with you, and has patiently and endlessly deciphered your posts and answered your comments, some of them over and over, does you no credit at all.

[Logunner]

So, exactly what has the 'industry' or the GTA done wrong, here? Please stick to the facts, not your supposition and conjecture, and let's see the charges.

Simple!

It rips off it's customers, treats them like an inconvenience, and has done for years. The availability of items from Europe at such reduced prices, including UK produced items, is clear evidence of the facts. The GTA represents the industry, you work out the connection...

To be honest I'm tired of your 'GTA might is right' songbook, to my mind it has overtures of the miners, dockers, BL workers and look how well that ended. Virtually extinct now..... Just in case you missed the world moving on.