RFD’s requirement if over 12ft/lbs

[secretagentmole]

The problem is the wording of the law.

If you found that an 8.4 grain pellet was super accurate at 11.5 ft lb in your rifle, and you kept it at that power level you would have an illegal gun, as it has the potential to be over 12 ft lb with a 10.3 grain pellet. Both are commonly available...

It matters not that your gun is perfectly legal at 11.5 with the 8.4 grain pellet, the problem is the word potential.

It would be like giving every car driver a speeding ticket as all cars have the potential to exceed the speed limit!

The thing is with driving offences you have to have proof, so Camera traps and policemen playing Dirty Harry with lasers abound. They have to show you were exceeding the speed limit at the time!

It matters not of your seized gun was only firing the 8.4 grain and was therefore at a legal power level, the problem is that with a 10.3 grain it is at an illegal level and therefore you are a criminal! If it is tested with a 10.3 grain and over you are criminal despite never having committed an illegal act!

[Jonjon79]

I would imagine there'd be an element of common sense used in these situations .....

A couple of my close friends are coppers down this way. One of them once told me that they couldn't give a monkeys if a genuine law abiding shooters air rifle creeps over by a couple of ftlb as, they'd probably never know about it, the owner would more than likely have plans to sort it and, they don't have the time or inclination to chase after airgun owners in a rural county.

But, he did say that some scrote taking pot shots at windows with a rifle doing 12.5ftlb or, someone deliberately taking the piss by running their rifle way over the limit would be a different matter.

I've got to know my RFD well - if he tested any of my rifles and found them to be a bit warm, I'm fairly certain he'd offer me a cuppa and half an hour in his workshop.
..... Not that he'd need to because he sold me my Combro and my Chrony.
Where as, if some chav walked in with an unlicensed .22 pcp kicking out 30ftlb, he'd have a lot more to say on the matter.

From what I've seen and, the people I've spoken to since I returned to the sport, as long as you keep an eye on what your rifles are doing, maintain them properly and, take any corrective action as necessary, there really is nothing to worry about.

[Fat_Controller]

The problem is the wording of the law.

If you found that an 8.4 grain pellet was super accurate at 11.5 ft lb in your rifle, and you kept it at that power level you would have an illegal gun, as it has the potential to be over 12 ft lb with a 10.3 grain pellet. Both are commonly available...

It matters not that your gun is perfectly legal at 11.5 with the 8.4 grain pellet, the problem is the word potential.

It would be like giving every car driver a speeding ticket as all cars have the potential to exceed the speed limit!

The thing is with driving offences you have to have proof, so Camera traps and policemen playing Dirty Harry with lasers abound. They have to show you were exceeding the speed limit at the time!

It matters not of your seized gun was only firing the 8.4 grain and was therefore at a legal power level, the problem is that with a 10.3 grain it is at an illegal level and therefore you are a criminal! If it is tested with a 10.3 grain and over you are criminal despite never having committed an illegal act!

it is very unfair, I believe muzzle energy for sub 12s should really be measured by the Volume & Pressure of the compressed Gas released (like a set charge weight)

[DJP]

Personally, I think there's a good case for testing only with the pellets found with the gun.

It's all very well saying that a gun is capable of being over with "Brand X" pellet but if the owner didn't have any Brand X pellets then the gun arguably wasn't capable at that time.

[snock]

Personally, I think there's a good case for testing only with the pellets found with the gun.

It's all very well saying that a gun is capable of being over with "Brand X" pellet but if the owner didn't have any Brand X pellets then the gun arguably wasn't capable at that time.

Agreed.

it's a little more of a stretch of imagination, but imagine if the same (bullshit) wording was attached to a vehicle's ability for exceeding the speed limit.
You might run it on normal unleaded, but if plod used ethanol in your car to test it, to push the 'capable' theory, it could very well exceed 70mph.

Whether you use it with ethanol, or not.

[DJP]

Agreed.

it's a little more of a stretch of imagination, but imagine if the same (bullshit) wording was attached to a vehicle's ability for exceeding the speed limit.
You might run it on normal unleaded, but if plod used ethanol in your car to test it, to push the 'capable' theory, it could very well exceed 70mph.

Whether you use it with ethanol, or not.

I don't like motoring analogies, but it's more like prosecuting someone for speeding on the basis that they would have been over the limit if they'd been driving on a different road.

More than a tad silly.

[snock]

it would be if they use xylene to get conviction

Max'll be along soon...

[bighit]

Max'll be along soon...

sorry Pete .I deleted it as i thought it was not in line with the thread .
No doubt he used it in the air rifle that his mate shot a rabbit stone dead with at a 1/4 of a mile . I wish i could find that post now


found that post Pete

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....73#post7431573 post 12.

[bighit]

Weapons with a muzzle energy that varies over time
1.189 The problem is illustrated in R v Puttick.
287 P pleaded guilty to possessing a .22 air rifle
(unloaded) without a firearm certificate contrary to section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968.
P told police that he had owned the air rifle for about 20 years. Upon testing, the
highest muzzle energy velocity was 13.7ft/lb, and therefore above the permitted level of
12ft/lb stated in the 1969 Rules (as an air rifle declared to be “specially dangerous”).
However, in mitigation, P adduced an expert’s report that at the time of purchase, the
rifle had been “within the limits” such that no certificate would have been needed for it.
The experts agreed (prosecution and defence) that with ordinary use over time, an air
rifle which was manufactured within the legal limits might creep over the limit without
further modification, “and that appeared to have happened in this case”.
1.190 The section 1 offence is one of strict liability, and thus, on the facts in Puttick, it seems
that a person in possession of an air weapon can creep in and out of the ‘legality zone’
depending on the condition of the gun.288
1.191 P’s counsel informed the Court of Appeal289 that, with expert assistance, the air rifle
could be brought back within the limits laid down by the 1969 Rules. The point is of
interest in that some regard would need to be had (it is submitted) to section 7 of the
Firearms (Amendment) Act

the above is from here
https://www.25bedfordrow.com/cms/doc...son_090715.pdf
page 51



288 See http://www.justairguns.co.uk/source/...ow_booklet.pdf - a useful publication by
the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which includes information concerning this
topic as well as the use of chronographs (and their limitations).
289 An application was made by P for the order for forfeiture of the weapon to be revoked. The
application failed.


No doubt its been up dated since that was published.

[nimrod177]

I have always worked on this principle:
customer: Can you test my air rifle please as i want to know the power?
me: Yes i can, however if i find it to be above 12ftlbs then you will not be allowed to leave here with it due to the fact it will be deemed to be a firearm requiring a valid firearms certificate and need to be entered onto your ticket. Or you can have it put within the legal limit at your expense, or you can surrender it for destruction. Or you can leave it at your expense in respect of storage until you have a valid firearms licence and it will be returned to you on production of the licence.
This then gives the customer the option to continue with the chrono test. If it is shown to be over the limit i then show them the whole process of testing. I also test a gun off the rack to ensure the chrono is giving a consistent reading. Meaning if i pick an air arms and it is shooting at 11.5 and theirs is shooting 14.5 there is very little argument that their rifle is fac. I will test both on the lightest pellet and the heaviest pellet thus giving very little grey area. Avon and Somerset, Dorset and Devon and Cornwall require us not to return a rifle to a customer that is over the limit. We abide by what they say as they are the ones who issue our rfd. I have only once had to with hold a rifle and that was from a customer who got very upset about what he was told. He was offered: a reasonable price for the gun, to put it within the legal limit at his expense or, apply for a firearms licence, or have the rifle destroyed. He wanted none of this until the point (stroppy) that he was told that we would have to call the police if he tried to remove the rifle. It was a BSA Buccaneer (export fac) "bought by a friend" direct from a company abroad because it was cheaper. It was running at 17.5 Ftlb on 18grn air arms. He opted to sell it to us. He had the choice to have it chrono'd and went ahead with it even after i advised him it was an export model and would most likely be fac. You just can't tell some people or they just don't want to listen. My advice will always be buy a sodding chrono. Confiscated doesn't always mean you can't have it back, it just means you can't have it back until either you or it is legal. If some people want to argue the fact then they are welcome to wait for the police to turn up and argue the fact with them and the courts.

[DJP]

...Avon and Somerset, Dorset and Devon and Cornwall require us not to return a rifle to a customer that is over the limit...

Under what Act & Section, I wonder?

The police have various powers of seizure, but AFAIK (and I'm happy to be corrected) you don't.

"But the police said so" isn't law (something that senior police officers seem to forget with monotonous regularity ).

And what would you do if it was a pistol? The Home Office seem to think that would be S5. Are you a S5 RFD? Because if not you would be committing the same crime as your customer.

And let's not forget that no gun is over the limit until a court says so and that your chrono is not evidence but merely an indication.

It's a minefield.

[Brian.Samson]

And what would you do if it was a pistol? The Home Office seem to think that would be S5. Are you a S5 RFD? Because if not you would be committing the same crime as your customer.

I've looked into this and was surprised at the answer.

An air pistol doing 6.1 fpe falls foul of Section 5(1)(aba) and as such is regarded as a prohibited weapon.

The confusing thing is that Section 5(1)(aba) has a specific exclusion : other than an air weapon but... an air pistol over 6 fpe falls outside of the definition of an "Air Weapon" in the act and therefore isn't excluded from 5(1)(aba).