FX Wildcat

[Kyoto]

Yipee another muppet gone!

Jackel, is that your honest appraisal of the contributors to this Ramsbottom forum. did you ever think how damaging such remarks might be to the site owners business? Baz was removed for just such a contempt of us......why do you think you should be different?

[Logunner]

And how exactly is that Terry's fault?

The only fault is the continued referral to HO advice/reply, but where is this advice/reply? If it exists then there should be no problem in publishing it, documents are easily scanned and uploaded, so if it truly does exist then lets see it. Or let us all know when it will put in one of the publications, I'll willingly spend my money on buying just that one edition.

proof of a change to the previous HOC is all I ask, I will be more than willing to accept the decision once proof is given.

The GTA seem to have put up the shutters since the claim was made on here by their spokesperson regarding the alleged meeting to seek clarification, could it be that the FOI requests won't back up the claim so they have retreated leaving their spokesperson to fight alone?

Put another way.... Terry spoke out on behalf of others, so who else do you expect people to look at when it comes to "fault"?

[Jackel]

Yipee another muppet gone!

Jackel, is that your honest appraisal of the contributors to this Ramsbottom forum. did you ever think how damaging such remarks might be to the site owners business? Baz was removed for just such a contempt of us......why do you think you should be different?

No thats an honest appraisal of a troll with an agenda who is getting his strings pulled by others elsewhere and frankly it's beyond tedious,,,, Baz was and still is a very well respected member And whatever went on between Him and the site owner is their business


99.9999% of the people on this site are great well respected people always willing to help and have well constructed debate and ideas,,,, However the .00001 % I wouldn't trust to sit on the bog the right way judging by some of their comments we see (and we see more than you do)

[Jackel]

The only fault is the continued referral to HO advice/reply, but where is this advice/reply? If it exists then there should be no problem in publishing it, documents are easily scanned and uploaded, so if it truly does exist then lets see it. Or let us all know when it will put in one of the publications, I'll willingly spend my money on buying just that one edition.

proof of a change to the previous HOC is all I ask, I will be more than willing to accept the decision once proof is given.

The GTA seem to have put up the shutters since the claim was made on here by their spokesperson regarding the alleged meeting to seek clarification, could it be that the FOI requests won't back up the claim so they have retreated leaving their spokesperson to fight alone?

Put another way.... Terry spoke out on behalf of others, so who else do you expect people to look at when it comes to "fault"?

And if he hadn't of spoken out to advise people he'd be getting asked why,,, either way certain people with agenda's (who have been proved wrong before) would be moaning

either way Terry cannot win with some people

[SteveH]

The most authoritative 'resource' we have is the home office and it has stated that SA is prohibited. Should we ignore that resource, and would you consider your FEO better informed than the Home Office?

With the greatest of respects Terry....

The home office are the correct people to go to, absolutely right. Thankfully way back in 1997 the home office released HOC 68/097, which states none FAC semi auto airguns were not supposed to be made illegal which was supposed to make it clear.

For years since then airguns like the LP50 have been sold up and down the country (as well as a whole host of other semi auto airguns with a rifled barrel).

There are emails from HO employees (civil servants?) who deal with this legislation as their job saying its legal.

FEO's up and down the country say its legal.

But organisations such as the GTA and AMTA are screaming at the top of their lungs that semi auto airguns are illegal... but the problem is other than a law which is to be amended at the next opportunity according to HOC 68/097, there is no evidence what so ever as it stands that these airguns are illegal.

Can you provide any sort of source of a Home Office press release or document released after HOC 68/097 which states a U turn on what HOC 68/097 states?

If you do that, the debate is over.

I appreciate you are probably sick to the back teeth of this, but if you do that I cannot see how anyone can argue with you and if you are correct then its in the best interest of us all that it happens ASAP.

Now I appreciate you think some of the conspiracy theories are mental, but the Home Office have admitted there was a meeting between the HO and the GTA since this issue has arisen, for which there were no minuets taken. You must surely appreciate that this looks incredibly suspect... an organisation which is against SA airguns, which on their own website state they take place in lobbying the government, meeting with the HO. Are we supposed to believe that this discussion was not about semi auto airguns?

Since this meeting it stands that the same HO employee who was saying they were legal has changed his stance... Very strange.

To the untrained eye where there is no more information available to us, it does appear that the GTA have lent on the HO to get these airguns banned, and when you consider this is a trade organisation that does not represent the shooters its not that hard to see why they would be motivated to do this.

Just my thoughts, its not meant with any disrespect.

[Terry D]

When someone provides proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles I will listen to what you have to say.

Sadly that writren proof is still lacking..

Here's what the Home Office sent to me, and others:

From: Lassman Adam [mailto:Adam.Lassman@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2015 15:38
To: Doe, Terry
Subject: Airguns

Dear Mr Doe,

I understand that the following thread on the airgunBBS.com website has caused some confusion:

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-auto-nest-but

I would, therefore, like to explain that the situation is:

Under section 5(1)(ab) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), all self-loading or pump-action rifled guns are classified as prohibited other than those which are chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. You will note that there is no exemption in this provision for air rifles/weapons.

The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Lassman
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Crime and Policing Group

----------------------

Now, that was sent, unsolicited, to me and others, directly from the Home Office. I'm sure you've already seen it. So, there's your 'proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles'. Now, until changes are made to the law, I am obliged to accept what the Home Office says as fact. What you do is entirely up to you, but the statement you wanted to see has been made by the Home Office.

[cumbrianbob]

Can we get back to the fx wildcat now please?

[PAUL600RR]

Can we get back to the fx wildcat now please?

well said that man

[Terry D]

But organisations such as the GTA and AMTA are screaming at the top of their lungs that semi auto airguns are illegal...

Can you please point me to any instances of either GTA or AMTA 'screaming at the top of their lungs' about this issue? Seriously, I'm sure I would have seen this, and I haven't. If you have, please show me where.

Can you provide any sort of source of a Home Office press release or document released after HOC 68/097 which states a U turn on what HOC 68/097 states?

If you do that, the debate is over.

I have provided that. Do you accept it?

To the untrained eye where there is no more information available to us, it does appear that the GTA have lent on the HO to get these airguns banned, and when you consider this is a trade organisation that does not represent the shooters its not that hard to see why they would be motivated to do this.

Why would a trade organisation, the chairman of which is the main UK importer of FX and Crosman, both of whom have semi-auto rifles in their line up, seek to ban semi-autos? There are over 700 members of the GTA, the vast majority of which could make serious money out of selling SA guns. I ask again, why would a trade organisation seek to cut off that source of income?

If that trade organisation was asked by its members to clarify the legal position of a product, do you think it would go to the Home Office for that clarification? Do you think that it would be the duty of a trade organisation to clarify the legal status of its members' products if requested?

There has been a shameful amount of utter nonsense, lies, and made-up crap spouted by the usual sources of such distortion. The fact is, no one lobbied the Home Office to ban SA guns. Until the email I had early this month from Adam Lassman, I have not been in contact with the Home Office for over 10 years, probably more. Yet I've been accused of all sorts of utter rubbish. The truth is very simple; clarification was required, and it was sought from the right source. That's it. The rest is made up by the very few tragic souls that want to see the trade as some sort of enemy.

Some of us have defended and promoted this sport of ours for decades, and we've worked bloody hard to do that. Don't let the idiots with their own sad agendas force them onto you.

[Terry D]

Can we get back to the fx wildcat now please?

Apologies, Bob, but sometimes things need to be said, and just as I've always done my best to defend this sport, I'll also defend those who work damn hard to protect it. If the tiny minority of sad creatures who make unfounded accusations were to put that energy into doing something positive, we'd all be in a better place.

[Logunner]

Here's what the Home Office sent to me, and others:

From: Lassman Adam [mailto:Adam.Lassman@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2015 15:38
To: Doe, Terry
Subject: Airguns

Dear Mr Doe,

I understand that the following thread on the airgunBBS.com website has caused some confusion:

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-auto-nest-but

I would, therefore, like to explain that the situation is:

Under section 5(1)(ab) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), all self-loading or pump-action rifled guns are classified as prohibited other than those which are chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. You will note that there is no exemption in this provision for air rifles/weapons.

The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Lassman
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Crime and Policing Group

----------------------

Now, that was sent, unsolicited, to me and others, directly from the Home Office. I'm sure you've already seen it. So, there's your 'proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles'. Now, until changes are made to the law, I am obliged to accept what the Home Office says as fact. What you do is entirely up to you, but the statement you wanted to see has been made by the Home Office.

With respect that is not proof, it could be created by anyone with ease. I'm talking documents, scanned and published for all to see, it will then be irrefutable proof that takes the previous HOC out of the equation.

You cannot expect everyone to take your word, or that of the GTA, as proof. I understand it irks you that many don't accept your word, but when they have a HO document saying one thing and you another it is only to be expected.

Sorry but to me this whole subject has been about trade bodies protecting revenue, and I base that on the original claim that the GTA instigated the meeting to confirm their illegal status.

[banksy!]

Here's what the Home Office sent to me, and others:

From: Lassman Adam [mailto:Adam.Lassman@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2015 15:38
To: Doe, Terry
Subject: Airguns

Dear Mr Doe,

I understand that the following thread on the airgunBBS.com website has caused some confusion:

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-auto-nest-but

I would, therefore, like to explain that the situation is:

Under section 5(1)(ab) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), all self-loading or pump-action rifled guns are classified as prohibited other than those which are chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. You will note that there is no exemption in this provision for air rifles/weapons.

The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Lassman
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Crime and Policing Group

----------------------

Now, that was sent, unsolicited, to me and others, directly from the Home Office. I'm sure you've already seen it. So, there's your 'proof of the HO statement which outlines their stance on SA sub 12ftlb rifles'. Now, until changes are made to the law, I am obliged to accept what the Home Office says as fact. What you do is entirely up to you, but the statement you wanted to see has been made by the Home Office.

That email is extremely vague and unhelpful. Is he saying that all S/A's in possession up to 1997 are considered legal, but those being purchsed now are not? That would obviously be nonsense. Or is he saying that the 1997 guidance no longer applies to any S/A's and if so, when was the new guidance published and why haven't we seen it?

[Terry D]

With respect that is not proof, it could be created by anyone with ease. I'm talking documents, scanned and published for all to see, it will then be irrefutable proof that takes the previous HOC out of the equation.

You cannot expect everyone to take your word, or that of the GTA, as proof. I understand it irks you that many don't accept your word, but when they have a HO document saying one thing and you another it is only to be expected.

Sorry but to me this whole subject has been about trade bodies protecting revenue, and I base that on the original claim that the GTA instigated the meeting to confirm their illegal status.

Are you genuinely saying I faked that email from the Home Office? Really? Are you so desperate to see what isn't there that you'd come on a public forum and suggest that the email from Adam Lassman was 'created'? Come on, that's just embarrassing.

This isn't 'my word', it's a communication directly from the Home Office. Please cut and paste it and email Adam Lassman to ask him if he sent it.

Now, please explain how confirming the legal status of SA is about 'trade bodies protecting revenue', and just for once, can you provide some of the proof you demand of me. I promise I won't dismiss anything credible, as you have done with Adam Lassman's email.

[SteveH]

Why would a trade organisation, the chairman of which is the main UK importer of FX and Crosman, both of whom have semi-auto rifles in their line up, seek to ban semi-autos? There are over 700 members of the GTA, the vast majority of which could make serious money out of selling SA guns. I ask again, why would a trade organisation seek to cut off that source of income?

If that trade organisation was asked by its members to clarify the legal position of a product, do you think it would go to the Home Office for that clarification? Do you think that it would be the duty of a trade organisation to clarify the legal status of its members' products if requested?

There has been a shameful amount of utter nonsense, lies, and made-up crap spouted by the usual sources of such distortion. The fact is, no one lobbied the Home Office to ban SA guns. Until the email I had early this month from Adam Lassman, I have not been in contact with the Home Office for over 10 years, probably more. Yet I've been accused of all sorts of utter rubbish. The truth is very simple; clarification was required, and it was sought from the right source. That's it. The rest is made up by the very few tragic souls that want to see the trade as some sort of enemy.

Some of us have defended and promoted this sport of ours for decades, and we've worked bloody hard to do that. Don't let the idiots with their own sad agendas force them onto you.

Terry, has Home Office Circular 68/97 now been withdrawn due to Adams reply?

[Terry D]

That email is extremely vague and unhelpful. Is he saying that all S/A's in possession up to 1997 are considered legal, but those being purchsed now are not? That would obviously be nonsense. Or is he saying that the 1997 guidance no longer applies to any S/A's and if so, when was the new guidance published and why haven't we seen it?

He says:
'The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.'

From that I understand that there is no need for new guidance because 'no changes were made to the legislation' and that 'the situation remains as set out' in the Firearms Act.

Why not ask him for further clarification? I think the situation is clear, but if you don't then get onto the HO and ask them.