New firearms Laws: Standard pellets to be used in power checks?

[Snapshot.]

The other thing is that Rob only seems to be defining 'weapon' as when an airgun is used against a human. If it's used for hunting or could be used for hunting then it's a weapon and this is a somewhat higher percentage than .03.

Jonathan

[figjam]

if your weapon is tested then all you have to do is specify whicj pellet you use, therefore when its tested it falls within the legal requirements!

once you start trying to dictate what pellet and method is used for testing your backing down!

at the moment if you set your rifle up with say air arms blah blah blah!

if your stopped for in example your car, what happens if youve just bought rabbit magnums for a mate, or you posess a F.A.C. rated air rifle, but you dont have it in your posession at the time of being stopped and tested!

then if for example they test your weapon with all types of ammunition on your posession, and you know for sure the rabbitt magnums are going to push it over the 12ft/lb limit. you will be charged!

i think not, they have no way of actually proving you have or will ever use those pellets, even if you have them in your posession!


i cant see what the fuss is all about

rgds

kenny

[Terry D]

Originally posted by figjam
they have no way of actually proving you have or will ever use those pellets, even if you have them in your posession!

They don't need that proof, mate. The law uses the phrase 'capable of exceeding the legal limit' - and it refers to the gun, not its user.

THAT'S what all the fuss is about.

For the record, the shooting lobby has been campaigning for a 'test round' for many years. The logic in support of it is overwhelming and we've even offered to fund the required pellet supply/development. We're still trying.

Terry

[Terry D]

Originally posted by TER...

I believe that much of the time the BASC simply give lip service to airgun issues;

TER…

Why do you believe this, mate?

I'm regularly there when the BASC are going into battle on behalf of airgunning and there's no 'lip service' going on at all.

BASC knows that airgunning is a major factor in the takeup of all shooting sports - and it defends us with full commitment.

Long may the BASC be our defenders, because nobody does it better.

Terry

[draftsmann]

Originally posted by Terry D
For the record, the shooting lobby has been campaigning for a 'test round' for many years. The logic in support of it is overwhelming and we've even offered to fund the required pellet supply/development. We're still trying.

I don't doubt what you say for one minute Terry. What has been the Home Office's response to this lobbying? I assume that the recent introduction of the 5 year mandatory sentence has renewed the campaign for clarity in this law?

Adrian

[Zanx]

From a newbies point of view the solution is (maybe naively) simple at the time of testing.

1) Fixed weight pellet.
2) Fixed air temp.
3) Fixed air density.
4) Clean barrel.
5) Access to a scince lab were all these things can be offered.

OR

Offer a 1ft/lb window to work within, if you're .5 over because of a certain pellet or a very shiny barrel then there's no problem.

I suspect this particular law has been created to intentionally increase the numbers of "Illegally held guns" bravely captured by our heroic policemen. There seems to be a common sense vacuum.

[Rob M]

Quote: "Out of interest Rob what term would you prefer used? Something like "gas powered firearm"?"

How about.... Airgun?

For most people gun can mean pistol or rifle...

Quote: "The other thing is that Rob only seems to be defining 'weapon' as when an airgun is used against a human. If it's used for hunting or could be used for hunting then it's a weapon and this is a somewhat higher percentage than .03"

I think that you'll find that an object only becomes a weapon if it's used against people. Sporting guns used against animals don't qualify to be called weapons... My dictionary here defines weapon as "any object designed or used to inflict bodily harm on a person, such as a gun, bomb or hammer", so even guns used to shoot deer don't qualify. Like I said before, shotguns aren't called 'shot weapons' are they? Golf clubs aren't called golf weapons? So why should airguns be different. For an object to be a weapon it has to be used against a person, that is why the word 'weapon' has connotations of violence for the public, and it's continual use in connection with airguns continually harms the public's perception of us and our sport.

I'm not squeamish about the term 'weapon' at all. I have shot Lee-Enfield .303s, FN SLRs and even an M16 and have no problem with those military guns being described as weapons. I just believe strongly that the term is a complete misnomer for airguns and having our guns referred to as weapons harms our sport. I am not being PC about this; airguns simply aren't weapons in my book.

I didn't mean to go on like this, this is just my opinion, I just think that as the firearms laws are apparently in a state of flux for the next year or so we should try and swing as much of the legislation our way as possible. That includes trying to get a standard test for power, and (in my opinion) trying to get politicians and policemen to stop using the 'W' word.

Rob M

[figjam]

Originally posted by Terry D
They don't need that proof, mate. The law uses the phrase 'capable of exceeding the legal limit' - and it refers to the gun, not its user.

THAT'S what all the fuss is about.

For the record, the shooting lobby has been campaigning for a 'test round' for many years. The logic in support of it is overwhelming and we've even offered to fund the required pellet supply/development. We're still trying.

Terry

sorry but there is no way you could possibly be procecuted for posessing a tin of pellets that are capable of exceeding the air rifle limit!

any laywer would laugh this out of court!


its a bit like 'doing' somebody for owning a subaru wrx!(or any other car)

its capable of exceeding the 70 mph limit but unless your actually caught breaking the law with it, im sorry i dont agree with your principle!

in the eyes of the law you would have top be caught using that particular pellet!

i'm not condoning the idea of single pellet test, but surely money and effort can be better used in fighting more impotartnat issues!

back to my original post.

would you be happy if you had your weapon confiscated and tested and you had a tin of heavy weight pellets, like rabbit magnums in your posession that were somebody elses!
or for a F.A.C. rated weapon that you owned but wasnt on you at the time of being stopped!

i dont think i would like to take the chance!

[draftsmann]

Originally posted by Rob M
How about.... Airgun?

For most people gun can mean pistol or rifle...

Problem is that legislative drafting is - or should be - a precise and technical exercise. "Gun" denotes a smooth bored, barreled weapon. The overwhelming majority of our air weapons are not, strictly speaking, "guns". This isn't being unduly pedantic, but the word that most people would use in everyday speech is not necessarily the correct word to use in the legislation.

Adrian

[Geordie]

Figjam - I think you've missed the point somewhat here..

It's not the pellets that are the issue - it's the gun.

If your gun is set to 11.9 with AA fields, and you get it taken off you and tested, the police are entitled (under current law) to use *any* pellet they see fit - they could even use Dai Sungs if the mood took them (although AFAIK this is yet to happen).

The lack of standardisation means that some forces use only the pellets found with the gun, wheras others use a variety of weights and shapes, ranging from lightweight up to bismags. In this case, with your 11.9fpe rifle, you'll get locked up - simple as.

[I. J.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mick H
[B]Yeah, the standard pellet / pellet weight would is a good idea,
QUOTE]

How about standardizing on a round lead ball (4.5mm, 5.0mm, & 5.5mm)

[figjam]

campaign for the the testing of the pellets your caught with!

personally if you standardise a test with heavy pellets, and as you might already not every rifle likes the same pellet.

so i choose to use a lighter pellet, which fires at 9.5 ft/lbs, surely then im affecting my capabilities of despatching quarry humanly.

does this not seem a bit stupid!

surely if you were to campaign for every rifle tested with the pellet stated to be used, does that not make more sense!




and if this fails is our club and every club in britain, aswell as the police forces going to be issued with these test pellets!

rgds

kenny

[draftsmann]

Originally posted by I. J.
How about standardizing on a round lead ball (4.5mm, 5.0mm, & 5.5mm)

Exactly - it's so obvious isn't it? Sometimes I wonder - there are one or two analogous situations in the tax legislation I work with in my day job where, despite the government's stated agenda of fairness and clarity, there are long-standing ambiguities that could be addressed easily. You really have to ask what is the government's underlying motive in choosing not to tie up these loose ends. It looks to me like they are playing a "heads we win, tails you lose" game......

Adrian

[rabbitman]

Yes Adrian very astutely put.
The upcomming firearms review is expected to extend to air guns which could be modified above the the 6ftlb and 12ftlb limits.Rumours within the trade suggest that mechanisms will be required to be tamper proof to prevent people winding up the power.eg hardened pins limiting transfer port dimensions ,sealed regulators,after market sales of springs.
The most worrying suggestion is that having avoided paying compensation to self contained gas cartridge weapon holders by offering them the opportunity to apply for an FAC at £58 and cabinet at £100 that all the older guns which are not tamper proof may have the same thing done to them.ie if you want to keep it pay up.
Legalised theft really!

[Beer Hunter]

Originally posted by Terry D
Why do you believe this, mate?

I'm regularly there when the BASC are going into battle on behalf of airgunning and there's no 'lip service' going on at all.

BASC knows that airgunning is a major factor in the takeup of all shooting sports - and it defends us with full commitment.

Long may the BASC be our defenders, because nobody does it better.

Terry

Terry,

My remarks were perhaps a little flippant; but based on many years experience as a member the BASC. However, my experience is mainly limited to reading the members magazine which drops through the door every few months.

While UK airgun shooters are undeniably more numerous than shotgun or firearms users, the magazine concentrates the vast majority of its pages to shotgun and firearm articles. Perhaps this is due to a relatively small number of airgun users being members? Perhaps shotgun and firearm users more effectively line their coffers?

I bow to your more active involvement.

Anyway, my point still stands – I still have faith in the BASC and believe that they are best placed to protect our sport. Supplying the BASC with our opinions and asking them for action must be more effective than individual members lobbying.

TER…