LP5/50 now section 5.

[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..)

[Powderfinger]

"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."

I am not sure that the defendent would lose the case. Judges do not have to just apply the exact wording of the statute. They also have to take into account police and HO guidance, statements about the intention of the law, custom & practice and precedents. I think the CPS know that they might well lose such a case because it might be ruled that previous guidance, statements about the intention of the statute, c&p and precedents indicate that SA airguns are not S5 prohibited weapons. It might take appeals to higher courts to establish this and I would not want to be the guinea pig but I think the CPS would eventually fail in the prosecution and they know it.

[Brian.Samson]

"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."

I am not sure that the defendent would lose the case. Judges do not have to just apply the exact wording of the statute. They also have to take into account police and HO guidance, statements about the intention of the law, custom & practice and precedents. I think the CPS know that they might well lose such a case because it might be ruled that previous guidance, statements about the intention of the statute, c&p and precedents indicate that SA airguns are not S5 prohibited weapons. It might take appeals to higher courts to establish this and I would not want to be the guinea pig but I think the CPS would eventually fail in the prosecution and they know it.

There are in fact statistics on this.. in more than 80% of cases the judge will go with the letter of the law instead of applying what they judge to be the intention of the law. There is no precedence on this particular question since it hasn't been to court in the past and judges do not have to take notice of HO or CPS guidance, although you would hope they would take them into consideration.

If it did go to court, you'd have some good arguments in your defence. However the outcome of a case is certainly not a foregone conclusion - so the fact that nothing has been done so far is certainly not conclusive evidence that you would win a case in court.

But ultimately It's a moot point, because if the CPS say they don't intend to prosecute (which is still the case) then it will never even go to court in the first place.

[tinbum]

North Yorks police are now confiscating LP5's

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....bate-continues

[gingernut]

So don't take one to North Yorkshire.
Not that you would with winter approaching.

[Modski66]

Presumably all the Drulov DU10's and other similar co2 SA pistols will be included in this caper...

Does anyone want a Zastava GP45?