LP5/50 now section 5.

[RobinC]

Terry
Have you read or seen the Home Office Circular No.68/97? This is dated from 1997 when the matter was first identified, and appears to clarify the issue then, and states :-

"We have consulted the ACPO and the CPS about the legal status of these weapons and have agreed, in the absence of a court ruling, that the issue should be resolved formally at the next legistalative opportunity. In the meantime Chief officers are advised that self loading or pump action rfle airguns should continue to be regarded as falling outside the certification process provided that they are low powered and do not fall within the Firearms (Dangerous Weapons) rules 1969."

No its not recent legislation, its an issue that was raised in 1997, reviewed by the HO, and clarified in black and white!

I would add that there have been several legislative opprtunities since, and if they wished they could have been specifically banned, they have not, HOC 68/97 has not been revoked, in fact the most recent HO guidance on firearms in 2015 states that air guns are exempt the certification process, and that covers all except those listed as Dangerous, and it lists various law and rules, and the only specification referred in those regulations and rules for Dangerous is below 12 and 6 ft lb, nothing about semi auto, just air guns. I have spoken to my own very efficient FA dept and they see this as very clear, under 6 pistol or 12 rifle is legal.

Looks like (yet again?) some Chief Officers, and some HO officials do not read their own documents, and are intent on making up their own laws and interpretations! These were never intended to be illegal, it was an error of ommision in the legislation, the HO office and the CPS accepted that in 1997, they circularised all Chief officers and HO with the sensible facts, they state it will be corrected at the next revision of legislation.

Nothing has changed, except people are discovereing old news, looking at part of the facts and jumping to conclusions.

[Terry D]

Looks like (yet again?) some Chief Officers, and some HO officials do not read their own documents, and are intent on making up their own laws and interpretations! These were never intended to be illegal, it was an error of ommision in the legislation, the HO office and the CPS accepted that in 1997, they circularised all Chief officers and HO with the sensible facts, they state it will be corrected at the next revision of legislation.

Nothing has changed, except people are discovereing old news, looking at part of the facts and jumping to conclusions.

Robin, trust me, I've read and re-read pretty much every communication on this subject and, like everyone else, I'd dearly like full clarification on this issue. As things stand, and according to every recent statement from the Home Office, the Section 5. 1 (ab) statement of the Firearms Act remains valid. I've asked my own advisers this morning and they tell me nothing has changed since the last statement from the Home Office.

Personally, I'd just like a simple, unequivocal, plain-speak statement, directly from the Home Office, that actually puts this one to bed once and for all. I completely understand that, with terrorism, border controls and everything else in the Home Office inbox right now, the clarification of the legality of SA airguns may not be at the top of the HO agenda, but if we push too hard for a 'resolution', it may arrive in a form not best suited to our sport.

Politics is a frustratingly complicated business and we need to play this game to our maximum benefit, as I'm sure you know. Thanks for your valiant attempts to clarify this situation, Robin, and I can only hope it's sorted as soon as possible. My breath is not held, mind.

All the best.

[RichardinDorset]

I see there is still no resolution to this issue!

NSRA are saying that the Home Office has still yet to provide any clear statement...

[Powderfinger]

Still no clarity, is there?
People are still shooting semi-auto airguns openly at comps and clubs without being arrested so it seems that no one has told the the police that the guns are Section 5.
I think that conclusively proves that the CPS would not win a prosecution.

[Brian.Samson]

I think that conclusively proves that the CPS would not win a prosecution.

No, it proves that the CPS don't intend to prosecute, it doesn't prove the outcome of a court case - only one thing would prove that.
As far as I know, nothing has changed in 19 years apart from there being a rumour that something might change.

The situation (which hasn't changed since 1997) is this :

Semi-Auto airguns according to the letter of the Firearms Act are a Section 5 prohibited weapon.

However... the Home Office and CPS have both said that their inclusion in Section 5 was an oversight and wasn't intentional. As a result the HO and CPS do not intend to prosecute anyone for possession of an SA airgun.

This following part is hypothetical, because as it stands at the moment, it won't happen... but...

IF it was brought to court at this time, in all likelihood you would lose the case, because the Judge in most cases would defer to the letter of the law and have no option. There are cases where judges take into account the spirit and intention of the law, but in most cases they go by the letter of the law.
But the CPS have said and continue to say that they won't take it to court, which is why that bit above is hypothetical.

[Headshotmike!]

I have noticed a couple of wasp nests in our garden.
They have given me great pleasure looking at the amazing paper construction of the nest and their aerial acrobatics chasing little flying critters.
But it has never entered my mind to poke or in any other way disturb the nest.

[RichardinDorset]

I was just curious as to what prompted Steyr UK to stop selling the LP50, presumably someone at the HO told them to stop selling them in May last year for some reason (other than the obvious..)