Air Pistol / Blank firing changes to law....
05 March 2005, 09:43 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Some blank firers are still available legally over the counter, however most retailers do mention that some modela have been withdrawn, good example here
There never was an actual amnesty for these toys, however there have been several generic "clear out your grandads attic" amnestys. The recent law making Brocock style air pistols illegal to own unless you held them on a FAC was not well publicised hence this was an enormous failure as only about 7500 were accounted for (handed in or licensed) and an estimated 68,000 are now held illegally - these also carry the manditory 5 year sentence so I suspect the jails will be overflowing shortly.
There never was an actual amnesty for these toys, however there have been several generic "clear out your grandads attic" amnestys. The recent law making Brocock style air pistols illegal to own unless you held them on a FAC was not well publicised hence this was an enormous failure as only about 7500 were accounted for (handed in or licensed) and an estimated 68,000 are now held illegally - these also carry the manditory 5 year sentence so I suspect the jails will be overflowing shortly.
05 March 2005, 09:56 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is truely disgusting if the facts are as they have been presented, not least by the way in which they are willing to spend man hours tracking people down through their credit cards to try and catch them with harmless toys that have been made illegal from under them!
It's a shame they don't put half as much effort into catching the criminals packing real firearms on the streets as they do persecuting legitimate shooters and misguided collectors of replicas.
I guess people should be careful buying fishing rods and fireworks with their credit cards, because when labour bans them you can expect your door to be kicked in by the police in a couple of years time!
Another sad example of the innocent being criminalised by an increasingly lunatic government, examples that are becoming ever more frequent.
I'm am appalled.
It's a shame they don't put half as much effort into catching the criminals packing real firearms on the streets as they do persecuting legitimate shooters and misguided collectors of replicas.
I guess people should be careful buying fishing rods and fireworks with their credit cards, because when labour bans them you can expect your door to be kicked in by the police in a couple of years time!
Another sad example of the innocent being criminalised by an increasingly lunatic government, examples that are becoming ever more frequent.
I'm am appalled.
05 March 2005, 02:09 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
That is truely disgusting if the facts are as they have been presented, not least by the way in which they are willing to spend man hours tracking people down through their credit cards to try and catch them with harmless toys that have been made illegal from under them!
It's a shame they don't put half as much effort into catching the criminals packing real firearms on the streets as they do persecuting legitimate shooters and misguided collectors of replicas.
I guess people should be careful buying <a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=fishing%20rods" onmouseover="window.status='fishing rods'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">fishing rods</a> and fireworks with their credit cards, because when labour bans them you can expect your door to be kicked in by the police in a couple of years time!
Another sad example of the innocent being criminalised by an increasingly lunatic government, examples that are becoming ever more frequent.
I'm am appalled.
It's a shame they don't put half as much effort into catching the criminals packing real firearms on the streets as they do persecuting legitimate shooters and misguided collectors of replicas.
I guess people should be careful buying <a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=fishing%20rods" onmouseover="window.status='fishing rods'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">fishing rods</a> and fireworks with their credit cards, because when labour bans them you can expect your door to be kicked in by the police in a couple of years time!
Another sad example of the innocent being criminalised by an increasingly lunatic government, examples that are becoming ever more frequent.
I'm am appalled.
Obviously there is a lot of emotion from the authors of the site, but it's all factual.
He's still sitting in a maximum security prison at the moment, 7 weeks since he got sent down. Normally you are processed and sent to a lower cat prison after ten days. He should make a category C prison, (A is maximum, D is open, I think) but currently he's into his seventh week with the murderers and whatnot.......
05 March 2005, 04:03 PM
#34
The law is clear and well publicised.
5 years is the min for firearms offences. He got the minimum sentence.
The replica can easily be converted into a functioning firearm, hence the arrest.
The fact that he worked for HMCE he should be more aware of this than the general public.
Had he got anything above the minimum sentence, then I would have been suprised and sympathitic.
rgs,
Bob
5 years is the min for firearms offences. He got the minimum sentence.
The replica can easily be converted into a functioning firearm, hence the arrest.
The fact that he worked for HMCE he should be more aware of this than the general public.
Had he got anything above the minimum sentence, then I would have been suprised and sympathitic.
rgs,
Bob
05 March 2005, 04:12 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
The law is clear and well publicised.
5 years is the min for firearms offences. He got the minimum sentence.
The replica can easily be converted into a functioning firearm, hence the arrest.
The fact that he worked for HMCE he should be more aware of this than the general public.
Had he got anything above the minimum sentence, then I would have been suprised and sympathitic.
rgs,
Bob
5 years is the min for firearms offences. He got the minimum sentence.
The replica can easily be converted into a functioning firearm, hence the arrest.
The fact that he worked for HMCE he should be more aware of this than the general public.
Had he got anything above the minimum sentence, then I would have been suprised and sympathitic.
rgs,
Bob
Do you not consider imposing a minimum term of 5 years for a law that could be so easily broken without malicious intent, without causing harm to anyone, and without significant risk to anyone ridiculous?
Do you not think that having two people banged up in prison for the same length of time, one for having a toy gun under his bed and one for attempted murder, totally disproportionate?
It's fine to say "oh well the law is the law, tough beans" but the fact is that the law should never have come to pass in that manner in the first place.
It's a disgrace.
05 March 2005, 05:06 PM
#36
Originally Posted by ajm
Do you not consider that the law is poorly written if it cannot distinguish between people who inadvertantly break it and cause no harm and those who break it on purpose with mallicious intent?
Do you not consider imposing a minimum term of 5 years for a law that could be so easily broken without malicious intent, without causing harm to anyone, and without significant risk to anyone ridiculous?
Do you not think that having two people banged up in prison for the same length of time, one for having a toy gun under his bed and one for attempted murder, totally disproportionate?
It's fine to say "oh well the law is the law, tough beans" but the fact is that the law should never have come to pass in that manner in the first place.
It's a disgrace.
Do you not consider imposing a minimum term of 5 years for a law that could be so easily broken without malicious intent, without causing harm to anyone, and without significant risk to anyone ridiculous?
Do you not think that having two people banged up in prison for the same length of time, one for having a toy gun under his bed and one for attempted murder, totally disproportionate?
It's fine to say "oh well the law is the law, tough beans" but the fact is that the law should never have come to pass in that manner in the first place.
It's a disgrace.
I went out of my way to find out details of changes in relation to airguns to ensure i was within the law.
His gun had the capability of easily being converted to fire live rounds.
I'm fairly sure that he was well aware of the offence he was causing (he was working in law enforcement).
Its a harsh that there is no reduction for good character and pleading guilty.
05 March 2005, 05:20 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law, as it stands, is poorly written. This isn't justice, it is the sort of tragedy that happens when a government bans things with no thought to the practicalities behind it. Pig headed arrogance and bully tactics to force through daft legislation that will see good people criminalised needlessly.
This lad has lost 5 years of his life, his career, not to mention the distress to him and his family. No one was hurt, there was no material loss, there was no intent. A reasonable punishment would have been a fine. But 5 years in prison for gods sake? Utterly outrageous.
Meanwhile where are the arrests for the people that are supposedly converting these guns to fire live amunition?
There aren't any.
Why?
Because proper villains don't buy goods innocently on their credit cards, that's why! In fact, any self respecting villain will go and buy one of the many thousands of real firearms available on the street that have no paper trail leading back to a toy gun shop!
Fine the lad, take the replica and spend the resources chasing people who are actually a danger to the rest of us.
I truly despair.
This lad has lost 5 years of his life, his career, not to mention the distress to him and his family. No one was hurt, there was no material loss, there was no intent. A reasonable punishment would have been a fine. But 5 years in prison for gods sake? Utterly outrageous.
Meanwhile where are the arrests for the people that are supposedly converting these guns to fire live amunition?
There aren't any.
Why?
Because proper villains don't buy goods innocently on their credit cards, that's why! In fact, any self respecting villain will go and buy one of the many thousands of real firearms available on the street that have no paper trail leading back to a toy gun shop!
Fine the lad, take the replica and spend the resources chasing people who are actually a danger to the rest of us.
I truly despair.
05 March 2005, 05:26 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not really a fair representation, it has to be said.
The judge needed to be more considerate of the circumstances. On the site the transcript said he passed sentance "Somewhat reluctantly". Not reluctantly enough to consider it exceptional circumtances and reduce the sentance though.
astraboy.
The judge needed to be more considerate of the circumstances. On the site the transcript said he passed sentance "Somewhat reluctantly". Not reluctantly enough to consider it exceptional circumtances and reduce the sentance though.
astraboy.
05 March 2005, 06:36 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
I'm not disagreeing with you.
But he should have known better
Bob
But he should have known better
Bob
06 March 2005, 12:01 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astra boy,
What exceptional circumstances?
This whole thing brings up a few niggles for me,
Why did he buy the weapon?
Why did he buy it from a foreign company (was it because he couldn't get it here? If so why didn't alarm bells start ringing?)
Why was it under his bed in the box if he wanted it for a trophy/ornament?
He was Customs. He would have been told about legislation. (He might not have been front line customs so don't quite know answer to this one!)
The weapon mentioned on the web site? Not been able to find any mention on any website i've loooked at. Forward venting? Never heard of that one. If it was a simple air weapon than i believe it would be pointless trying to convert it to fire real ammunition due to its make up. Air weapons and live firers are generally similar only in look and the actual bits to maker them go bang are different. The metal would not withstand a real round going off for one.
I understand the family are devastated but facts on the site will by definition be heavily biased.
As for those wondering why the laws were changed and seem quite draconian think about it this way.
A live firing Glock 17 and a BB firing Glock 17 are placed side by side. You then get 2 seconds to look at them from a distance of 10m. Which is which?
You wouldn't know and neither would a police officer! The more of these things we get off the streets the safer this country will be.
What exceptional circumstances?
This whole thing brings up a few niggles for me,
Why did he buy the weapon?
Why did he buy it from a foreign company (was it because he couldn't get it here? If so why didn't alarm bells start ringing?)
Why was it under his bed in the box if he wanted it for a trophy/ornament?
He was Customs. He would have been told about legislation. (He might not have been front line customs so don't quite know answer to this one!)
The weapon mentioned on the web site? Not been able to find any mention on any website i've loooked at. Forward venting? Never heard of that one. If it was a simple air weapon than i believe it would be pointless trying to convert it to fire real ammunition due to its make up. Air weapons and live firers are generally similar only in look and the actual bits to maker them go bang are different. The metal would not withstand a real round going off for one.
I understand the family are devastated but facts on the site will by definition be heavily biased.
As for those wondering why the laws were changed and seem quite draconian think about it this way.
A live firing Glock 17 and a BB firing Glock 17 are placed side by side. You then get 2 seconds to look at them from a distance of 10m. Which is which?
You wouldn't know and neither would a police officer! The more of these things we get off the streets the safer this country will be.
06 March 2005, 06:59 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris5-0
The weapon mentioned on the web site? Not been able to find any mention on any website i've loooked at. Forward venting?
By forward venting they mean the gasses from the blank round exit a port in the barrel instead of in the side of the breach. Most movies will use these because the smoke etc exits the barrel and looks more realistic. The "port" is a small hole that lets enough gas out so that the thing doesn't blow up in your face, but still creates enough pressure so there is "blow-back" to operate the slide and load the next round.
They are no easier to convert than a side venting replica in my opinion. The barrels are made oversize so they are wider than the breach. In order to convert them in both cases you would need to drill out the constriction in the barrel and sleeve it. The only difference is that the side venting weapon would need the hole in the breach welding up.
As an aside, I certainly wouldn't fire a converted blank firer! They are crude cast and not built to stand recoil. You are probably just as likely to maim yourself as you are your victim!
As for those wondering why the laws were changed and seem quite draconian think about it this way.
A live firing Glock 17 and a BB firing Glock 17 are placed side by side. You then get 2 seconds to look at them from a distance of 10m. Which is which?
You wouldn't know and neither would a police officer! The more of these things we get off the streets the safer this country will be.
A live firing Glock 17 and a BB firing Glock 17 are placed side by side. You then get 2 seconds to look at them from a distance of 10m. Which is which?
You wouldn't know and neither would a police officer! The more of these things we get off the streets the safer this country will be.
The thing is, we are supposedly a free country, you cannot assume someone has sinister motives for the simple act of buying an article because it's gun-shaped! It's hysteria and its taking the focus off the real threats.
06 March 2005, 09:59 AM
#43
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
This is a valid point and I agree with you totally. However, if someone buys a replica weapon and finds themselves wearing a balaclava in a stand-off with armed police in a bank then they deserve to be shot, and in that scenario their motives cannot be questioned.
The thing is, we are supposedly a free country, you cannot assume someone has sinister motives for the simple act of buying an article because it's gun-shaped! It's hysteria and its taking the focus off the real threats.
The thing is, we are supposedly a free country, you cannot assume someone has sinister motives for the simple act of buying an article because it's gun-shaped! It's hysteria and its taking the focus off the real threats.
.Pretty sure everyone knew about the five year minimum (it was pretty well advertised) - If I had a replica gun I would have found out more about it.
Agree about the methods used to track down this dangerous VAT man - I can just see Vinnie Jones in Lock_Stock 2 going into walmart to buy a shooter for his next job and asking for the 2-year warranty details to be sent to his home address.
Still - The Government will able to stand up and tell us all how they've cleaned up gun-crime and this will be one of the dangerous criminals taken off our streets to make us all safer
06 March 2005, 11:21 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AJM,
Thanks for clearing that up, I misread original thread and thought it said air weapon not blank firer?!?
Agree with your other points as well I was just merely putting forward my argument as tothe wholesale ban was brought in.
On the face of it (playing devils advocate) this seems a piece of rough justice IF he was a totally innocent buyer, IF there was noulterior motive and IF he really was that naive. Just can't help thinking i've heard it all before, 'He was a good man, never involved in anything, never in trouble etc.' coming from the parents of a convicted robber/killer/nutter!
At end of day we can discuss as much as we want, lawers and barristers will fight this one out i'm sure. Lets just hope justice prevails either way!
Thanks for clearing that up, I misread original thread and thought it said air weapon not blank firer?!?
Agree with your other points as well I was just merely putting forward my argument as tothe wholesale ban was brought in.
On the face of it (playing devils advocate) this seems a piece of rough justice IF he was a totally innocent buyer, IF there was noulterior motive and IF he really was that naive. Just can't help thinking i've heard it all before, 'He was a good man, never involved in anything, never in trouble etc.' coming from the parents of a convicted robber/killer/nutter!
At end of day we can discuss as much as we want, lawers and barristers will fight this one out i'm sure. Lets just hope justice prevails either way!
06 March 2005, 11:26 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
2000TLondon - just one niggling thing, I have trawled through his website and one point that his friend makes on a letter that he sent to his MP throws the whole thing against him, here is the part that stands out:
*******************************************
Dear Mr Hill
I am writing to you as my local MP and am also writing to the person concernd's MP - Malcolm Wicks. I don't know the protocol but maybe you will forward this to him.
I work for Customs & Excise as a Training Manager in VAT. A little under 2 years ago, we recruited Zakir Rehman as a VAT trainee. He was an intelligent, hard working and nice natured individual and I became friends with him. Can I make it clear that I am contacting you purely in my private capacity as his friend.
On 5th November 2004 he was arrested. He had ordered a replica gun over the Internet on 3 December 2003. Because it was capable of conversion to fire live ammunition, it falls within the Firearms Act 1968. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison on 14 January 2005.
Can I make the following points:
He did nothing to disguise his identity when he purchased it
He did not realise that it was capable of being converted to fire real ammunition until it arrived
He had a collection of and interest in model weapons
He had no previous convictions
The gun had not been converted by him and no ammunition was found
etc etc...
******************************************
Now if he actually did realise that it was capable of being converted once he received it in the post and then mentioned it to his friend, then perhaps he was slightly more aware of what he had done ??....
*******************************************
Dear Mr Hill
I am writing to you as my local MP and am also writing to the person concernd's MP - Malcolm Wicks. I don't know the protocol but maybe you will forward this to him.
I work for Customs & Excise as a Training Manager in VAT. A little under 2 years ago, we recruited Zakir Rehman as a VAT trainee. He was an intelligent, hard working and nice natured individual and I became friends with him. Can I make it clear that I am contacting you purely in my private capacity as his friend.
On 5th November 2004 he was arrested. He had ordered a replica gun over the Internet on 3 December 2003. Because it was capable of conversion to fire live ammunition, it falls within the Firearms Act 1968. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison on 14 January 2005.
Can I make the following points:
He did nothing to disguise his identity when he purchased it
He did not realise that it was capable of being converted to fire real ammunition until it arrived
He had a collection of and interest in model weapons
He had no previous convictions
The gun had not been converted by him and no ammunition was found
etc etc...
******************************************
Now if he actually did realise that it was capable of being converted once he received it in the post and then mentioned it to his friend, then perhaps he was slightly more aware of what he had done ??....
07 March 2005, 10:47 AM
#46
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,707
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
I walked into a shop here in Stuttgart and looked at the replica guns on sale, I then decided to buy a Baretta 92F 9mm, this gun is an exact replica in size and weight and also calibre, it fires 9mm blanks where as teh ones in the UK fire 8mm blanks. It also comes with an attachment that screws on the barrel to fire mini flares. When I bout it the guy in the shop asked me if I wanted any blanks or flares for it. My options where normal blanks or tear gas blanks. I settled for normal ones and they them selves are as load as the real thing! I asked if I was ok to carry this home an he said as long as you are over 18 then yes, so off I went through stuttgart carrying this thing.
At the same time I bought a broad sword from the same shop and carried that through stuttgart and on the train with me home.
New years eve everybody congregates in SchloßPlatz in the centre of stuttgart and at midnight pulls out a myriad of assorted weapons and fires them off in the air including miniflares and blanks etc. I was standing on my balcony at midnight and emptied a full mag in the air.
Now I like this other bloke bought this gun legally, the only difference is Germany does not have as draconian laws as the UK, I feel sorry for this guy lets hope his appeal get sorted and the whole matter resolved.
At the same time I bought a broad sword from the same shop and carried that through stuttgart and on the train with me home.
New years eve everybody congregates in SchloßPlatz in the centre of stuttgart and at midnight pulls out a myriad of assorted weapons and fires them off in the air including miniflares and blanks etc. I was standing on my balcony at midnight and emptied a full mag in the air.
Now I like this other bloke bought this gun legally, the only difference is Germany does not have as draconian laws as the UK, I feel sorry for this guy lets hope his appeal get sorted and the whole matter resolved.
07 March 2005, 10:53 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DanTheMan
2000TLondon - just one niggling thing, I have trawled through his website and one point that his friend makes on a letter that he sent to his MP throws the whole thing against him, here is the part that stands out:
Now if he actually did realise that it was capable of being converted once he received it in the post and then mentioned it to his friend, then perhaps he was slightly more aware of what he had done ??....
Now if he actually did realise that it was capable of being converted once he received it in the post and then mentioned it to his friend, then perhaps he was slightly more aware of what he had done ??....
07 March 2005, 12:26 PM
#49
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the difference is in the barrel - if the end is blocked off then it's legal, but if not as AJM says in the case of forward-venting then its a dangerous firearm and therefore glaringly obvious that you are going to convert it to fire live ammo, get some live ammo from somewhere and commit a heinous firearm crime.
As hedghog has already said, the figures for firearm crime look better and its a lot easier to arrest and convict people in this way rather than track down and arrest a drug dealer with a genuine live round firing MAC-10. Persecuting the innocent and the ignorant gets results quickly - meanwhile gun crime is at an all time high despite the banning of real licenced weapons and some replicas.
As hedghog has already said, the figures for firearm crime look better and its a lot easier to arrest and convict people in this way rather than track down and arrest a drug dealer with a genuine live round firing MAC-10. Persecuting the innocent and the ignorant gets results quickly - meanwhile gun crime is at an all time high despite the banning of real licenced weapons and some replicas.
07 March 2005, 12:35 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
Can someone clarify the law about standard blank firing pistols bought in England say 4 years ago. They were legal to buy then, are they now illegal to own?
In practise this meant banning forward venting blank firers and air pistols that used seperate air cartridges like the Brockock air revolvers, neither of which required any licence to own before and were in wide circulation.
07 March 2005, 12:43 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
OK so from that if it just fires blanks (and thats all it can fire) and has no seperate air cartridge etc its perfectly fine to own?
07 March 2005, 12:45 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
So if the barrell isn't blocked at the end its illegal? Or can the barrell appear to be open but its blocked further up?
What I want to know basically is how do you know if its an illegal one or a legal one without firing it?
I may be having to inform a mate this evening he needs to take a trip to his local river as he is totally unaware of this change in the law.
What I want to know basically is how do you know if its an illegal one or a legal one without firing it?
I may be having to inform a mate this evening he needs to take a trip to his local river as he is totally unaware of this change in the law.
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 07 March 2005 at 12:52 PM.
07 March 2005, 12:46 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ..
Posts: 3,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took the piston seal off my old bsa meteor, slap a .22 blank in the barrel, .177 pellet in front of it, fire, bang, pellet goes like stink 
Am I breaking the law?
Am I breaking the law?
07 March 2005, 03:18 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Bravo2zero - if you can see all the way down the barrel then its illegal, however if it's blocked somewhere and there are gas holes on top of the barrel then it's ok. If the barrel was hollow all the way through then it would be capable of "discharging a missile" which would make it a firearm - those imported pistols can fire rubber bullets and flares through the barrel which is legal in europe but not here, and they are apparently easier to convert to fire live ammo.
Chaos - you would be breaking the law if the muzzle energy exceeds 12ft/lbs which it probably would be.
Chaos - you would be breaking the law if the muzzle energy exceeds 12ft/lbs which it probably would be.
07 March 2005, 03:32 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cheers DTM, if he has got one thats now illegal does that mean he could be getting a knock on the door by being traced by credit card etc even though he got it years ago?
Edit to say:
It was checked and found to have a blocked barrell and gas vents on the top so legal
(until the next law change 
)
Edit to say:
It was checked and found to have a blocked barrell and gas vents on the top so legal
(until the next law change )
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 12 March 2005 at 03:37 PM.
07 March 2005, 03:38 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be the implication, going on the experiences of the poor bloke this thread is about!!
If it is illegal the responsible thing would be to hand it in.... but knowing how the police operate it would be wiser to make sure it is forensically clean and luz it off the nearest bridge!
If it is illegal the responsible thing would be to hand it in.... but knowing how the police operate it would be wiser to make sure it is forensically clean and luz it off the nearest bridge!
07 March 2005, 03:47 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ..
Posts: 3,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DanTheMan
Chaos - you would be breaking the law if the muzzle energy exceeds 12ft/lbs which it probably would be.
11 March 2005, 09:36 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add further ammo (no pun intended) in support against this case of an ill conceived law and its application have a read of the story at the end of this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/4340245.stm
Basically someone has fired a gun disguised as a mobilephone in a crowded public place near a police officer and they received the same sentence of five years! How on Earth is that compareable with having a blank firerer stuffed under your bed? its not is it? So how on earth can they justify giving someone a five year term for having a blank firerer under the bed, when someone who actually uses a gun disguised as a phone gets the same term inside!
To coin a phrase 'the law is an ***'
Basically someone has fired a gun disguised as a mobilephone in a crowded public place near a police officer and they received the same sentence of five years! How on Earth is that compareable with having a blank firerer stuffed under your bed? its not is it? So how on earth can they justify giving someone a five year term for having a blank firerer under the bed, when someone who actually uses a gun disguised as a phone gets the same term inside!
To coin a phrase 'the law is an ***'
Last edited by blueone; 11 March 2005 at 09:38 PM.
12 March 2005, 12:10 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just skimmed through this thread.
Point 1. Why would anyone want a hand-gun of any sort? They are inaccurate at anything but close range and only really good for kudos. Fair do's, if you want to murder someone close-up, go ahead and do it, but don't expect to have a good day in court. An air-pistol? Why?
Point 2. Air rifles. Currently there is a mega bone of contention running in Ecosse RE air weapons. Some nutter shot a two year old in the head with a slug gun and the poor wee fellow died; apparently the skull is more cartilidge than bone at that age. At least they got the "Bar-Steward", allegedly.
Cue multfarious other "AIRGUN HORROR STORIES" in the papers the next day and a proposed ban / licensing act.
"AIR GUNS ARE THE WORK OF SATAN"
The **** who shot the boy, had he not had access to the rifle, would probably have used some other weapon; there are many to choose from.
To my mind, there's nothing wrong with air RIFLES as most tend to be used responsibly.
If there was a closer watch kept on the untermensch who carry out deeds such as this then this debate wouldn't be necessary.
My twapenny worth.
K.
Point 1. Why would anyone want a hand-gun of any sort? They are inaccurate at anything but close range and only really good for kudos. Fair do's, if you want to murder someone close-up, go ahead and do it, but don't expect to have a good day in court. An air-pistol? Why?
Point 2. Air rifles. Currently there is a mega bone of contention running in Ecosse RE air weapons. Some nutter shot a two year old in the head with a slug gun and the poor wee fellow died; apparently the skull is more cartilidge than bone at that age. At least they got the "Bar-Steward", allegedly.
Cue multfarious other "AIRGUN HORROR STORIES" in the papers the next day and a proposed ban / licensing act.
"AIR GUNS ARE THE WORK OF SATAN"
The **** who shot the boy, had he not had access to the rifle, would probably have used some other weapon; there are many to choose from.
To my mind, there's nothing wrong with air RIFLES as most tend to be used responsibly.
If there was a closer watch kept on the untermensch who carry out deeds such as this then this debate wouldn't be necessary.
My twapenny worth.
K.