12 foot pound Law Who's fault is it???

[lensman57]

Thank you for posting this, Jim.

Upsetting though that, as is often the case, the actions of one prat has a restrictive and long term effect on millions of the law abiding, responsible users.

Would have been better to string him up by his knackers!

It appears that our American friends have a different outlook on how to bring about laws. It seems that they are not too keen on punishing the public for the crimes of one idiot. It appears to be quite the reverse here. There was atleast one case of a resident, in NY I believe, using his air rilfe to take a pot shot at some construction workers who had made his life unbearable with the noise. I don't think that they changed their laws just because of the actions of one idiot.

A.G

[Barryg]

Back to the OP. The person responsible was the idiot who, annoyed by the noise from a construction project, decided to shoot at the plant and vehicles. He was caught, the air rifle in question (an American pump-up rifle capable of considerably more than 12 ft. lb.) identified and, due to the damage it had created, the Police, press and politicians decided 'something had to be done'. That something was a Statutory Instrument by James Callaghan declaring airguns capable of producing in excess of 12 ft. lb. being 'especially dangerous' and Section One firearms.

Interesting bit of airgun history

I wonder if it would have been the same if the airgun involved had have been a springer and not a reintroduced pcp to the market in the form of a pump up, as spring guns have a natural low power limit compared with pcp's.

[lensman57]

Interesting bit of airgun history

I wonder if it would have been the same if the airgun involved had have been a springer and not a reintroduced pcp to the market in the form of a pump up, as spring guns have a natural low power limit compared with pcp's.

I bet there is more to it than just one idiot taking pot shots at a construction site unless it was owned by someone high up in the government or top ranks of civil service .

A.G

[Northj]

Unfortunately this country's government seems to knee jerk react to anything regarding arms in public hands as we have seen in the past with firearms after Hungerford and then again after Dunblaine, which banned all handguns from being owned apart from black powder Colt old army style pistols which came with 2 cylinders with six shots held in each, but apparently you can't cause a massacre with them!
What needed to be done was more stringent and frequent checks regarding the license holding shooters.
I for one would have no problem, if I wanted a 12+ ft/lb air rifle, to apply for a air rifle license for guns, say, up to 16ft/lbs and then after that you go to FAC, that would allow users of .22 cal guns to shoot with more accuracy at range without the need for a full FAC licence.
Just a thought that we could start to petition for a mid air arms license!

[capt hindsight]

I for one would have no problem, if I wanted a 12+ ft/lb air rifle, to apply for a air rifle license for guns, say, up to 16ft/lbs and then after that you go to FAC, that would allow users of .22 cal guns to shoot with more accuracy at range without the need for a full FAC licence.
Just a thought that we could start to petition for a mid air arms license!

I too would have no issue with a sensible air gun licencing system but unfortunately that's not what we would get. We would get a Scottish style licence system that incorporated all power sub 12 ft/lb levels too and rules making recreational plinking not a good enough reason to obtain a licence.

OP - Unfortunately the culture towards guns in this country generally means legislation is just tightened and very rarely relaxed. The banning of handguns even included single shot competition pistols! We've ended up with our national shooting teams having to train abroad as their guns are illegal in the UK. There just doesn't seem to be the desire from the politicians to make sensible adjustments to legislation, even for the disciplines enjoyed by our national teams.

[Northj]

Capt hindsight, I agree, I should have been more clear in saying that the 12ft/lb limit still apply, but, for those people wishing to progress a little in power without going full FAC would be able to do so, with slightly less stringent laws, i.e. That you are and remain a gun club member and attend at least once a month and have a lockable gun safe installed at the address which the weapon is registered. This would not impose too much on the air rifle enthusiast's but should satisfy the public that it is being some what controlled.
To achieve this would be a long and hard struggle but maybe worth pursuing as it could open up a whole new interest in the sport.
Plus revenue from such a license should encourage the government to at least think about it!
It's something like £27 a year for a fishing license!!!

[capt hindsight]

Capt hindsight, I agree, I should have been more clear in saying that the 12ft/lb limit still apply, but, for those people wishing to progress a little in power without going full FAC would be able to do so, with slightly less stringent laws, i.e. That you are and remain a gun club member and attend at least once a month and have a lockable gun safe installed at the address which the weapon is registered. This would not impose too much on the air rifle enthusiast's but should satisfy the public that it is being some what controlled.
To achieve this would be a long and hard struggle but maybe worth pursuing as it could open up a whole new interest in the sport.
Plus revenue from such a license should encourage the government to at least think about it!
It's something like £27 a year for a fishing license!!!

I agree and to be honest I'd like to see a sensible licence rolled out for sub 12 ft/lbs too, a licence that gives unlimited number of guns and requires no specific reason for ownership but gives the authorities right to exclude certain people, for example those convicted of a violent crime, vandalism, anti social behaviour etc (over a set timescale).

But sadly I just don't think that is what we would get.


A 12+ ft/lb airgun certificate is a good idea, or possibly evolving the 'Shotgun Certificate' to become 'Shotgun and/or 12+ ft/lb Air gun Certificate) could be an alternative, that strikes me as more appropriate than having to obtain a FAC.

Ed

[lensman57]

Unfortunately this country's government seems to knee jerk react to anything regarding arms in public hands as we have seen in the past with firearms after Hungerford and then again after Dunblaine, which banned all handguns from being owned apart from black powder Colt old army style pistols which came with 2 cylinders with six shots held in each, but apparently you can't cause a massacre with them!
What needed to be done was more stringent and frequent checks regarding the license holding shooters.
I for one would have no problem, if I wanted a 12+ ft/lb air rifle, to apply for a air rifle license for guns, say, up to 16ft/lbs and then after that you go to FAC, that would allow users of .22 cal guns to shoot with more accuracy at range without the need for a full FAC licence.
Just a thought that we could start to petition for a mid air arms license!

I suggested exactly the same last year. I have no problem with registration and background checks and suitable security for the guns. TBH any responsible air rifle owner probably already has such security measures in place. My suggestion was that an upper limit of 20 ft.lbs ( 20 ft.lbs for .22 and .25 and 15 ft.lbs for .177 ) could perhaps be set for these mid powered air rifles on the special register and the really high powered ones will be on FAC.
Those who wish to have a 120 ft.lbs .303 then will probably have to go through the usual procedures.

A.G

[lensman57]

I agree and to be honest I'd like to see a sensible licence rolled out for sub 12 ft/lbs too, a licence that gives unlimited number of guns and requires no specific reason for ownership but gives the authorities right to exclude certain people, for example those convicted of a violent crime, vandalism, anti social behaviour etc (over a set timescale).

But sadly I just don't think that is what we would get.


A 12+ ft/lb airgun certificate is a good idea, or possibly evolving the 'Shotgun Certificate' to become 'Shotgun and/or 12+ ft/lb Air gun Certificate) could be an alternative, that strikes me as more appropriate than having to obtain a FAC.

Ed

At last some people who share the same ideas as me. I honestly can not get my head round the notion of having a 16 ft.lbs air rifle on the same certificate and with the same restrictions and prohibitive conditions as if you had applied for a 1300 ft.lbs .223 Remington. To me it just doesn't make sense.

A.G

[capt hindsight]

At last some people who share the same ideas as me. I honestly can not get my head round the notion of having a 16 ft.lbs air rifle on the same certificate and with the same restrictions and prohibitive conditions as if you had applied for a 1300 ft.lbs .223 Remington. To me it just doesn't make sense.

Yes it's utterly ridiculous, a 14 ft/lb TX200 is literally treated as being a significant higher risk to society than a 12 gauge. Yet anyone with whatever conviction they choose can buy a sub 12 ft/lb gun to do with what they will.

The middle ground is missing imo.

[Rob Edge]

If we push for a controlled system just to allow people a few more ftlb we will be voluntarily killing the sport. If ftlb is what you believe is needed then apply for your FAC and let the authorities decide if your need and the intended use over suitable land warrants issuing the FAC. I have FAC and I have two rifles sub 12 which are both not capable of producing greater than 11.5 ftlb. Both use pellets for accuracy over energy and both perform below 11 ftlb in the field.

[Terry D]

I agree and to be honest I'd like to see a sensible licence rolled out for sub 12 ft/lbs too ...

Be careful what you wish for, chaps.

So far, bringing previously non-licensed airguns under license has resulted in a drop in new uptake of between 85 and 95%. Even half of that figure would kill our sport at the root, and the rest would surely die.

We already have more than enough legal powers to punish those who misuse airguns. We need to use these properly, rather than place further restrictions and requirements on the law-abiding.

We turkeys don't need more Christmases.

[lensman57]

Be careful what you wish for, chaps.

So far, bringing previously non-licensed airguns under license has resulted in a drop in new uptake of between 85 and 95%. Even half of that figure would kill our sport at the root, and the rest would surely die.

We already have more than enough legal powers to punish those who misuse airguns. We need to use these properly, rather than place further restrictions and requirements on the law-abiding.

We turkeys don't need more Christmases.

You have a valid point Terry but at times I feel that perhaps a voluntary registration of the sub 12 or sub whatever scheme may get the antis off our backside.
Atleast we demonstrate that we are very serious about this sport of ours and that we do not want idiots asscociated with us. But on the other hand and as I have expressed in my previous posts there is always the danger of giving and inch and " they " taking a yard. I guess it would be wishful thinking to hope for the bringing this archaic and very one sided sub 12 ft.lbs malarky up to date.

A.G

[capt hindsight]

Be careful what you wish for, chaps.

So far, bringing previously non-licensed airguns under license has resulted in a drop in new uptake of between 85 and 95%. Even half of that figure would kill our sport at the root, and the rest would surely die.

We already have more than enough legal powers to punish those who misuse airguns. We need to use these properly, rather than place further restrictions and requirements on the law-abiding.

We turkeys don't need more Christmases.

Perhaps a better alternative would be for a the courts to more readily issue prohibition of ownership orders for those convicted of violent crimes and/or anti social behaviour (could incorporate crossbows etc too), meaning there would not be a negative effect on the shooting community.

[piggy589]

Perhaps a better alternative would be for a the courts to more readily issue prohibition of ownership orders for those convicted of violent crimes and/or anti social behaviour (could incorporate crossbows etc too), meaning there would not be a negative effect on the shooting community.

As far as I'm aware there is already legislation in place automatically excluding individuals receiving a custodial sentence.