Electrical Air rifles ?

[Catweazle]

No I didn't. WHere can I find them? I was just going on the written words in this thread.

 

Look in post #17 on this thread. Sorry to snap

[HW682]

To save us having to register with another forum, can you give us a summary of what happened then? You say it wasn't a standard rifle. What is the story? Cheers.

[The Duncan]

Look in post #17 on this thread. Sorry to snap

Now worries mate

Looking at the notes, it does seem they stitched the guy up. It sucks

[Catweazle]

To save us having to register with another forum, can you give us a summary of what happened then? You say it wasn't a standard rifle. What is the story? Cheers.

 

Probably best if I quote CAM, a respected forum member who has been active in the anti-tamper debate. His summary below has been confirmed as correct by a witness at the trial.

 

The case was heard at Luton Crown Court. The case commenced on 4 October 2010 and was decided on 11 October. The full details of the case are as follows: - T20100279, COLLINS Ian Derek, 40JH0248709, heard by His Honour Judge Bevan QC.

 

Mr Collin’s gun was tested by the Warrington branch of Key Forensic Services Limited (KFS) and was found to be doing less than 12-foot pounds energy (fpe) at the muzzle. KFS then testified that they disassembled the weapon, removed a component, re assembled and tested it. The subsequent test revealed that the muzzle energy was now exceeding 12fpe. Mr Collins was found guilty of being in possession of a Section 1 firearm whilst not having authority to do so.

 

Furthermore, one of the employees of the above-mentioned, Mr Boyce, told the court that it was his job to maximise the power of air rifles whilst testing.

 

 

The component was the valve return spring. Mr Boyce was an employee of Key Forensic Services. I believe the rifle was a prototype, although there is another case on record of forensic services adjusting a Ripley PCP with similar outcome.

[The Duncan]

Talk about pointless jobs!

Indeed, talk about splitting hairs too! That means all pcp owners are in posession of illegal firearms. Likewise Springer owners - with the right spring and piston weights anyone can take a springer over the legal limit. For gods sake! This gets my goat!

They've had to modify the gun to take it over the limit. Period.

[Dekers]

Did I write that it was a totally original untampered rifle ? No, I didn't, you made that bit up yourself. What I wrote is that the police confiscated a rifle that was sub 12ft/lb and their forensic labs removed the valve return spring and filled it to 100 bar, in which case the rifle performed outside design parameters, the valve opened for longer than usual due to limited pressure and no return spring, and it produced more power than the legal limit.

 

That's not so difficult to understand is it ?

 

But don't take my word for it, read the documents from the forensic testing lab I linked to earlier, or better still read the thread I linked to on airgunforum.net .

 

Read back chap, I didn't, I qualified my responses, you are the one assuming! So now we are intimating it had been played with are we?

 

There is nothing I'm not telling you, because I'm only writing about what concerns air rifle shooters. I don't care what he had for lunch, whether he was a bad driver, or whether he was an international arms dealer. The fact is that the forensic labs altered his rifle to obtain an over-power reading.

 

I'm sure the defence will be thrilled to hear your pronouncements that the police and the forensic labs weren't allowed to do what they did, and doubtless the Judge and Jury who accepted the evidence will immediately demand a retrial once they know your views.

 

Be quick, don't miss the appeal.

 

 

B*******, NO STANDARD 12ft lb air rifle delivers 30+ft lb with 100bar fill! If that was the case why would anyone EVER fill to 180 or whatever, my pellet will hardly get out of the barrel at 100bar.

 

I can make ANY PCP go over 12ft lb with just one small alteration, the rifle was the rifle, the Police or any Lab cannot take any gun apart and play unless it is obvious someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

There is nothing in the law to say they can't take it apart and adjust it.

 

*******t, if that is the case EVERY PCP is illegal!

 

So WHAT did his Expert Legal team and the BASC say then, presumably SORRY, we know the guy played with it, tried to pull a fast one and got caught because the lab rumbled his trick?

 

Apparently (from the way it is portrayed) a precedent has been set which says everyone who owns an air rifle without a FAC, is GUILTY of a Firearms offense, that is blatantly stupid, so just when is the appeal?!

 

If I had a TOTALLY STANDARD 12ft lb Rifle and the lab took it apart and rebuilt it over 12ft lb they would lose.

 

I'll hold my hand up now and say I've not read ANYTHING of this case except what has been written directly on this thread. I am very confident in my assertions but if I have missed something obvious then I will apologise.

 

I will apologise right now for taking this thread way off topic..sorry!

Edited April 23, 2011 by Dekers

[Catweazle]

B*******, NO STANDARD 12ft lb air rifle delivers 30+ft lb with 100bar fill! If that was the case why would anyone EVER fill to 180 or whatever, my pellet will hardly get out of the barrel at 100bar.[/color]

I've already written that I think it was a prototype, it had the valve return spring removed and was then filled to 100bar. What bit of this don't you understand ?

 

 

I can make ANY PCP go over 12ft lb with just one small alteration, the rifle was the rifle, the Police or any Lab cannot take any gun apart and play unless it is obvious someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Please link to the law that supports your claim that they can't take any gun apart and play with it. The Judge said they could, maybe he doesn't know as much about the law as you, I've posted the Judges name so you can point out his error. Let me know how you get on.

 

 

*******t, if that is the case EVERY PCP is illegal!

 

So WHAT did his Expert Legal team and the BASC say then, presumably SORRY, we know the guy played with it, tried to pull a fast one and got caught because the lab rumbled his trick?

There is a possibility that every PCP could be ruled illegal if it is capable of exceeding 12ft/lb. Capable is the problem word, it's not properly defined ( as I wrote earlier in this thread ). The airgun industry has attempted to close this loophole by introducing Anti-Tamper devices on new PCPs, but not all rifles have it, and there is no legal basis to prevent the forensic labs removing it anyway. I have no idea why you think Ian "tried to pull a fast one".

 

 

If I had a TOTALLY STANDARD 12ft lb Rifle and the lab took it apart and rebuilt it over 12ft lb they would lose.

Really ? Are you qualified to state that ? I suspect that you aren't. A Judge has ruled that the lab could adjust a rifle to be over power, whether it was totally standard or not makes no difference that I can see.

 

I'll hold my hand up now and say I've not read ANYTHING of this case except what has been written directly on this thread. I am very confident in my assertions but if I have missed something obvious then I will apologise.

 

What you have missed is the point.

 

Blustering, capital letters and red ink don't make an argument. Go away and investigate the subject properly, I have already provided a link that will get you started.

[Dekers]

I've already written that I think it was a prototype, it had the valve return spring removed and was then filled to 100bar. What bit of this don't you understand ?

 

 

 

Please link to the law that supports your claim that they can't take any gun apart and play with it. The Judge said they could, maybe he doesn't know as much about the law as you, I've posted the Judges name so you can point out his error. Let me know how you get on.

 

 

 

There is a possibility that every PCP could be ruled illegal if it is capable of exceeding 12ft/lb. Capable is the problem word, it's not properly defined ( as I wrote earlier in this thread ). The airgun industry has attempted to close this loophole by introducing Anti-Tamper devices on new PCPs, but not all rifles have it, and there is no legal basis to prevent the forensic labs removing it anyway. I have no idea why you think Ian "tried to pull a fast one".

 

 

 

Really ? Are you qualified to state that ? I suspect that you aren't. A Judge has ruled that the lab could adjust a rifle to be over power, whether it was totally standard or not makes no difference that I can see.

 

 

 

What you have missed is the point.

 

Blustering, capital letters and red ink don't make an argument. Go away and investigate the subject properly, I have already provided a link that will get you started.

 

It was a prototype hey? AS I have said, they can do what they like to investigate it then? So why weren't the MANUFACTURERS in the Dock.

 

Says it all, this is NOT a standard Gun and every sub 12ft lb STANDARD gun on the market is NOT illegal. If they were the gaols would be full with a lot of Manufacturers and RFD, along with their customers!

 

I don't give two figs what you or the Judge says, most FEO don't have the first clue about the law and just what experience does this Judge have?

 

It is Bull, as I have said, you need to read my responses more carefully, and YES the odds are I know more than his legal team and the Judge.

 

I have already had one Chief Constable, the regions Solicitor, three Inspectors, two firearms Officers and the whole of the regions Firearms Departments on their knees, and they ALL thought they were right!

 

And NO, I have no interest in getting involved with this numbnuts.

[Catweazle]

It was a prototype hey? AS I have said, they can do what they like to investigate it then? So why weren't the MANUFACTURERS in the Dock.

 

It was a prototype, the guy who manufactured it was the guy arrested. Clear ?

 

Says it all, this is NOT a standard Gun and every sub 12ft lb STANDARD gun on the market is NOT illegal. If they were the gaols would be full with a lot of Manufacturers and RFD, along with their customers!

 

Please share your expertise with the airgun industry, they have spent tens of thousands on Anti-Tamper and legal advice, when all they needed to do was ask you.

 

I don't give two figs what you or the Judge says, most FEO don't have the first clue about the law and just what experience does this Judge have?

 

I suspect, although I might be wrong, that the Judge has some experience in law.

 

It is Bull, as I have said, you need to read my responses more carefully, and YES the odds are I know more than his legal team and the Judge.

 

You might know more about rifles than the Judge, I'd be surprised if you know more about law, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

I have already had one Chief Constable, the regions Solicitor, three Inspectors, two firearms Officers and the whole of the regions Firearms Departments on their knees, and they ALL thought they were right!

 

And NO, I have no interest in getting involved with this numbnuts.

 

[Dekers]

I'm getting bored, and the facts are now coming out.

 

This is getting clearer and I answered this in an earlier post.

 

It was a prototype, the guy who manufactured it was the guy arrested. Clear ?

 

The guy is an IDIOT!

 

Please share your expertise with the airgun industry, they have spent tens of thousands on Anti-Tamper and legal advice, when all they needed to do was ask you.

 

No chap, all they needed to do was ask a Lab/Police/Home Office..WHICH THEY DO, which is what this idiot failed to do!! Anti tamper arrived following official suggestions MANY years ago, I think it was Theoben who brought it to the for with their very early Rapids, and they were quickly put in their place by officialdom, BUT NOT IN COURT! Legal advice is seldom if ever related directly to the internal workings, it is overall marketing, patents, specific county law, etc,etc.

 

I suspect, although I might be wrong, that the Judge has some experience in law.

 

The Judge knows procedural law...at least he ought to, that's it generally!

 

You might know more about rifles than the Judge, I'd be surprised if you know more about law, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

I'll bet anything you like I know more about the Firearms Laws than this Judge

 

 

 

The question is answered, and that's why the whole airgun industry and 4,000,000 (ish) airgun owners in the UK are NOT quaking in their boots or in jail!

 

Cheers!

Edited April 24, 2011 by Dekers

[Catweazle]

I'm getting bored, and the facts are now coming out.

 

This is getting clearer and I answered this in an earlier post.

 

 

 

The question is answered, and that's why the whole airgun industry and 4,000,000 (ish) airgun owners in the UK are NOT quaking in their boots or in jail!

 

Cheers!

 

The forensic lab took a PCP air rifle that was producing less than 12ft/lb, dismantled it, removed a component that restricted the power, the police then used the resulting over-power figures to secure a conviction.

 

You are happy to state in previous posts that the police can't do this and can't do that and you would win in court, yet in this thread you also admit that you had never heard of this landmark case.

 

Not content with re-writing the laws of physics you now seem to re-write the laws of the land, how can I take you seriously ?

 

[UKPoacher]

The law clearly states that it is an offence if the air weapon is capable of exceeding the legal limit. If the parts can be assembled in such a way as to exceed 12 ft/lb then the offence is proven.

 

Now, in the real world any SMK QB78 is capable of exceeding 12 ft/lb just with an hour's valve polishing, a tuned Weihrauch pushing 11.8 ft/lb with AA Fields will go over just by changing the pellet. These cases never get to court so I wonder what is behind the case quoted?

 

Back to the original questions; You can summarise all the answers into "Why would you want to buy a Daystate when there are better rifles around for a lot less money?" Simple!

[Gnome of the Woods]

I am following two cases at the moment, both are as Catweazle has described.

Both have gone to appeal, and in at least one of them the original brief has been changed due to his lack of knowledge in the field !

 

I can think of no greater incentive for joining one of the shooting associations than they will fight your corner properly should it happen to you!

[Dekers]

The forensic lab took a PCP air rifle that was producing less than 12ft/lb, dismantled it, removed a component that restricted the power, the police then used the resulting over-power figures to secure a conviction.

 

You are happy to state in previous posts that the police can't do this READ BACK AND DON'T MISS QUOTE ME and can't do that and you would win in court, yet in this thread you also admit that you had never heard of this landmark case. SO WHAT IF I HAVE NOT HEARD ABOUT THE CASE

 

Not content with re-writing the laws of physics you now seem to re-write the laws of the land, how can I take you seriously ?

 

 

 

Chap

 

You are boring me and I suspect others beyond belief, time to move on!

 

I don't give a fig if you want to take me seriously or not.......

 

And don't miss quote me, seems you have also avoided much I have raised.

 

What I clearly said was.....

 

"the Police or any Lab cannot take any gun apart and play unless it is obvious someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes".

 

Frankly a numbnuts with a prototype who hasn't had the brains to get it officially tested prior is asking for grief!

 

Just which part of me not hearing about the case makes any of my comments incorrect?

 

think on this one.................

 

... the WHOLE airgun industry, ALL RFD's and 4,000,000 (ish) airgun owners in the UK!

 

There isn't enough jail space, so what do you think will happen?

 

Bye!

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dekers

[UKPoacher]

In nearly twenty five years of policing including a good deal spent as Wildlife & Countryside Officer and having seized dozens and dozens of weapons, I have only known of one case where an air rifle was sent for testing at the firearms laboratory. I only know of one case where a prosecution was brought for a FAC air rifle off ticket.

 

It is not likely to impact on the average shooter unless there were aggravating factors and I suspect that there were in these cases.

Edited April 25, 2011 by UKPoacher

[Catweazle]

Come on Catweazle, did you hear that down the pub? A bit more information please!

 

I've given you all the information I have, pictures of the forensic labs own report, court date and case number, and links to where to find out more.

 

Can you provide a single shred of evidence to support your statements about what the forensic labs can or can't do to PCP rifles to obtain power readings ?

[Catweazle]

It is not likely to impact on the average shooter unless there were aggravating factors and I suspect that there were in these cases.

 

It would be nice to think you're right, but the UKs record on gun legislation isn't good for shooters. Many Scots are openly looking for an excuse to ban air rifles, I'm sure they're not alone.

[danny12w]

dont know how true this is but read on some other website .........

 

bloke had been a expert witness in some other case and so was on the police 'radar' already (could do with more research!)

 

was found with .22LR ammo despite not holding a FAC

 

was known to modify air rifles (again could do with more research as to how he modified them)

 

these facts (if they are facts) seem to suggest that there was a little more to this case than what has been mentioned.

[Catweazle]

dont know how true this is but read on some other website .........

 

bloke had been a expert witness in some other case and so was on the police 'radar' already (could do with more research!)

 

was found with .22LR ammo despite not holding a FAC

 

was known to modify air rifles (again could do with more research as to how he modified them)

 

these facts (if they are facts) seem to suggest that there was a little more to this case than what has been mentioned.

 

If this is the case, and at least some of it is, is it really relevant ?

 

Is it OK if the forensic labs stitch you up as long as the police want to do you for something else too ? Imagine I have strayed from my permission with my air rifle and get nicked for armed trespass or something, is it OK for the labs to fix my rifle so that the police can do me for unlicenced firearm too ? Of course it isn't, you wouldn't be happy with it and neither was the guy mentioned in this thread, but the labs did the work and he was nicked for it.

 

In a different direction, perhaps you get into a fight with your neighbour, he tells the police he has seen you with a gun case, they decide to spice up your Theoben and add a nice firearms conviction to their monthly checklist.

 

My first post in this thread was that it might be more difficult for the police to do this to an electronic rifle. A simple enough concept. It wouldn't have gone on so long if some people hadn't started making incorrect statements about what the police can or cannot do and passing them off as sound advice.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Catweazle

[danny12w]

catweazle - i was not suggesting for one minute that it is ok for the police lab to spice up someones air rifle to secure a firearms conviction.

I was merely stating that there seems to be more to this case than has been reported.

[Catweazle]

catweazle - i was not suggesting for one minute that it is ok for the police lab to spice up someones air rifle to secure a firearms conviction.

I was merely stating that there seems to be more to this case than has been reported.

 

I know, it was a rhetorical question, I was merely pointing out that manufacturing evidence is not acceptable no matter what the other circumstances may be.

[dadioles]

As has been said, it seems that there is quite a lot going on in this case.

 

It is true that any pcp air rifle (and others) can be tweaked by the owner to increase the power to FAC levels. That would immediately make it an unlawful weapon and require it to be registered and the holder to have it entered on their firearms licence. That does not mean that we are all guilty. I own a couple of Chronometers and would suggest that all air rifles should be checked from time to time. You never know when your own test results might make useful evidence.

 

If the police sieze your air rifle they may chrono it with a range of pellets (some of which you probably never use) to ensure that it remains sub 12ftlb at all times. Clearly they are not allowed to modify the gun or alter it in any way that could not easily be done by the owner as it will no longer be the same gun which they siezed, but......

 

The issue here is how easily the gun can be tweaked and whether or not it has been designed, or modified, particularly by the owner, in such a way that it becomes a quick and simple task to switch between FAC and non-FAC levels of power.

 

It seems to hinge on the interpretation of the word "capable" and I would have thought that it would depend, in practical terms, on just how easily the rifle can be "switched" from lower power to higher power. If special tools are required or manufacturers seals need to be broken then, hopefully, it would be examined "as is" and taken as having that level of power. If, on the other hand, there is a simple screw adjustment or part that can be readily removed without great inconvenience, it could be argued that the rifle is easily "capable" of FAC power and consequently illegal.

 

If the owner has designed and built or otherwise modified an air weapon that is capable of FAC power levels, even though he may have set it to fire sub 12ftlb, he will be guilty of an offence.

 

If you ever have to appear in court, get the best defence lawyer you can. It will cost a fortune but in my experience justice is a myth, it is all about who has the best representation. Quite wrong, but that is life. Ask anyone who has half a brain and was awake while they did jury service.

 

**************************

Firearms Law - Guidance to the Police - Home Office 2002

 

Firearms and ammunition for which no certificate is required

 

2.26 Firearm and shot gun certificates are required in respect of the majority of firearms and ammunition. However, the following types are exempt:

 

i) Air weapons and ammunition for air and gas-operated weapons Air guns, air rifles and air pistols are exempt from the certification requirement if they are not of a type declared specially dangerous by the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 or the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Scotland) Rules 1969.

 

The Rules provide that any air weapon is “specially dangerous” if it is capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the

weapon, kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol, of 6 foot lbs or, in the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol, 12 foot lbs.

 

If there is doubt about a particular model, police forces should seek advice from the Forensic Science Service.

 

It should be noted that the firing capabilities have been found to differ between particular weapons of the same model. It should not be automatically assumed that all specimens of a particular model of air gun produce exactly the same muzzle energy, particularly if its published power level approaches the 6 foot lbs or 12 foot lbs levels, as appropriate to its type.

 

Testing of air weapons for the purposes of determining their status under the current legislation should only be carried out under strictly controlled circumstances.

 

The Forensic Science Service can offer help and advice.

*************************************

[Catweazle]

Clearly they are not allowed to modify the gun or alter it in any way that could not easily be done by the owner as it will no longer be the same gun which they siezed,

 

What would you call dismantling the gun, removing a component that restricts the power, then reassembling it and testing it ? It was the valve return spring, not an easily accessible power adjuster. I don't know how much power my rapid would make with the return spring missing, I hope I never find out.

 

The Judge in the case I quoted ruled that the forensic lab could do this, and the absolute offence of unlicenced firearm was proven.

[dadioles]

What would you call dismantling the gun, removing a component that restricts the power, then reassembling it and testing it ? It was the valve return spring, not an easily accessible power adjuster. I don't know how much power my rapid would make with the return spring missing, I hope I never find out.

 

The Judge in the case I quoted ruled that the forensic lab could do this, and the absolute offence of unlicenced firearm was proven.

 

I see your point entirely and look forward to hearing what the appeal judge has to say, particularly if the defendant has a better informed defence council.

 

If, reading back, it was a prototype manufactured by the defendent then logically he will be guilty as at certain stages of manufacture he will have created a firearm, until the point at which he had developed the mechanism required to reduce the power.

 

Again, I have no legal knowledge but assume that manufacturers or developers of rifles, whether intended, ultimately, to be sub 12ftlb or not, are required to be licenced for such activities and presumably this chap was not, so guilty as charged?

 

The role of the forensic science service would have been to demonstrate that at some stage of manufacture the gun was "specially dangerous" and required to be licenced. In this case, the fact that the gun was sub 12ftlb when siezed is imaterial. Clearly at some stage during its development and ownership by the defendent it was a firearm, case proven.

Edited April 26, 2011 by dadioles

[Catweazle]

I see your point entirely and look forward to hearing what the appeal judge has to say, particularly if the defendant has a better informed defence council.

 

If, reading back, it was a prototype manufactured by the defendent then logically he will be guilty as at certain stages of manufacture he will have created a firearm, until the point at which he had developed the mechanism required to reduce the power.

 

Again, I have no legal knowledge but assume that manufacturers or developers of rifles, whether intended, ultimately, to be sub 12ftlb or not, are required to be licenced for such activities and presumably this chap was not, so guilty as charged?

 

The role of the forensic science service would have been to demonstrate that at some stage of manufacture the gun was "specially dangerous" and required to be licenced. In this case, the fact that the gun was sub 12ftlb when siezed is imaterial. Clearly at some stage during its development and ownership by the defendent it was a firearm, case proven.

 

That's an interesting angle. Using the same logic would it not follow that if I dismantled my Rapid for servicing then it becomes "capable" of being assembled into a firearm ?

 

Also, the valve return spring isn't exactly a device for reducing power, it's an essential part of the rifle without which the rifle can dump more air than intended, especially at low fill pressure.