It would appear they were indeed 'firearms'.

[Scully]

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/police-destroy-buckland-gun-haul/

Well well, turned out to be quite a haul of firearms after all, despite the 'ammo' not being 'ammo'.

[rovercoupe]

They will be at scotarms next auction!

[Les*1066]

Quote: 'Even though police say they are destroying the guns, there is no guarantee that that is what will actually happen to all of them'.

 

No kidding! There's a surprise!

Edited May 10, 2016 by Les*1066

[fortune]

Hang on a minute. How can that be true? In that reply they state that they cannot give the information because there are too many to classify and the cost of sorting out the data to reply with would take too much time and cost more than the allowed amount. THEY EITHER KNOW OR THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY'VE GOT. If they have given out this list >>> Basicaly they have refused the information request on the grounds of time and money . SO how do they arrive at this amount and condition if they haven’t looked at them in detail. OK the bloke was guilty but how deep. I bet if they were to really be examined then most would be junk or deacts.
A Freedom of Information request made by a user of the ARRSE forum revealed that the total haul of firearms was broken down as follows:
177 Rifles (Mostly section 1)
88 shotguns (mostly section 2 however a number have large magazines or are shortened and therefore sectionl and section 5 applies)
136 Handguns (all section 5 1 (aba))
38 machine guns (all Section 5 1 (a))
24 Miscellaneous which were distress flare guns, line throwing guns and humane dispatch guns some of which had been tampered with but are Section 1

How does that square with this >>>

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

REQUEST NUMBER:

FOI Request 000816-16

REQUEST DETAILS:

"463 firearms are quoted as being found at Mr James ARNOLD's home and hidden about the house, mentioned here:

http://www.suffolk.police.uWnewsandevents/features/2016/operationcannington. aspx

Please can you advise me:

1. How many of the 463 were air weapons (whether Section 1 or below 12 Mb's muzzle energy)?

2. How many were deactivated and remain unaltered ie remain a deactivated firearm?

3. How many were reactivated deactivated firearms?

4. How many were converted Section 5 firearms to what may have been thought as Section 1 firearms such as the LIAI's sold by BUCKLAND? ( obviously I agree with the Courts findings)

5. How many of the remaining firearms were in each category eg how many Section 5 (1) (aba); Section 5 (1) (a) and all of the other Section 5 sub categories; Section 1 and Section 2.'

 

>>>

 

RESPONSE:

Suffolk Constabulary has considered your request for information and our response is below.

This response is correct as of 22 February 2016

In relation to your request for information and in accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), this response serves as a

formal notification of refusal for your request. Suffolk Constabulary does not hold, for the purposes of FOIA, the information you require in a retrievable format.

It is estimated that to attempt to retrieve all of the information you require would take a considerable amount of retrieval time, which would exceed 18 hours. This would exceed the appropriate limit for dealing with Freedom of Information requests, in terms of costs and therefore Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies.

The Constabulary is unable to provide the detail requested due to the time it would take to further examine the ammunition and weapons found at the scene.

Not all of the weapons and ammunition were examined for full classification purposes due to the more serious firearm offences identified. To conduct such

an exercise now would take many weeks to perform.

The specific reasons for each question, are provided below.

The test to establish the Muzzle energy of weapons seized was not completed as a result of the far more serious firearm offences. In order to complete the necessary testing, it would take in the region of 2 days (14 hours) to complete as each weapon would need to be tested to establish if they are an air weapon.

In respect questions 2 and 3 of the request, the Constabulary is able to state that a very small number have markings to indicate that they have at some point, been deactivated. However, these few firearms have evidence of tampering and reactivation attempts made on them Therefore none are considered as completely deactivated

The 463 firearms were examined for safety reasons as opposed to full deactivation and only those submitted to NaBlS were comprehensively examined.

To establish a precise figure of complete deactivation would require the unpacking and full examination of every exhibit, which would take well of a week's work (37 hours)

As above

Provided below

The weapons have not all been examined for full classification purposes and such an exercise being undertaken now would take many days to perform.

Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that a Public Authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit." The Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations, defines the 'appropriate limit' for the Suffolk Constabulary as €450 and specifies that this sum equates to 18 hours work at a standard rate of £25 per hour.

In accordance with Section 17(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter serves as a refusal notice for this part of your request.

By requesting all information your request is too broad to be complied with within the E450 limit imposed on Freedom of Information requests.

Although excess cost removes the Force's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, as a gesture of goodwill, I have supplied information, relative to your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I trust this is helpful, but it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

In respect of question 4, none of the weapons were converted Section 5 firearms; there were no straight pull conversions.

In respect of question 5, the figures provided below were given to the media as a guide.

The weapons have not all been examined for full classification purposes and such an exercise being undertaken now would take many days to perform

The figures provided are a true reflection of the items held

177 Rifles (Mostly section 1)

88 shotguns (mostly section 2 however a number have large magazines or are shortened and therefore sectionl and section 5 applies)

136 Handguns (all section 5 1 (aba))

38 machine guns (all Section 5 1 (a))

24 Miscellaneous which were distress flare guns, line throwing guns and humane dispatch guns some of which had been tampered with but are Section 1

Edited May 10, 2016 by fortune

[robbiep]

I think it's quite clear that they are basically saying they are not going to go through all the work involved in splitting up whether (for example) the rifles are rifles, FAC air rifles, or 'sub-12' air rifles, but they are instead going to group them all as one, whilst defining that most of them are rifles rather than airguns.

 

Such an approach seems perfectly reasonable to me. The work involved would not be productive, and (for the air weapons in particular) would require a large amount of manpower and time

[Graham M]

No sympathy at all. It's eejits like him who screw it up for the rest of us.

 

G