Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

[Heinz]

Received a tip-off from a friend with contacts at the Law Commission that they've finally got around to releasing the consultation paper on the rationalisation of Firearms Law in the UK. The Law Commission is an independent organisation whose remit is to review currents law and suggest changes to the Parliament after a public consultation period. To date, 2/3rds of recommendations made by the Law Commission have been enacted, so their words carry weight in Parliament.

The full consultation paper can be found here – http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/...4_firearms.pdf

Please read it, particularly Chapter 2, which is the part that directly affects us – lethality.

Comments on the recommendations can be sent either by email or post (details on page iii). It is vital that our voice, as Airsofters, is heard. I know I don't have to spell this out for the majority of you, but for the benefit of the retards hidden amongst us (and let's be honest, there's quite a few on here), read the whole paper and think before you write. If in doubt get someone to proof-read it and “sanity check” it before you respond – and remember Rule #1 – don't be a dickhead.

The closing date for responses is the 21st September. Anything received after this period will be disregarded.

[Proffrink]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Thankfully this appears to be discussing the 'lethality threshold' of firearms, rather than the RIF is-it-a-gun-if-it-looks-like-a-gun debate that we're so used to. I suppose it all depends on what they consider 'lethal' to be. We could end up like Japan and never be allowed to use or own anything over 1J, or maybe they'll go for a more reasonable limit like 1.88-2.00J (450-460fps with a .20); that would allow us to keep things basically how they are now.

[Heinz]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

It's a bit more to it than just that. The implications of enforcing a 1J limit are that you could kiss goodbye to sniper rifles (at a decent velocity) and most gas guns - given that the FSS *will* (as they have in previous cases) do everything possible to coax the maximum amount of power out of a gun in order to get it to fall the wrong side of a statutory limit - and it only has to fire a single shot over a set limit.

[Proffrink]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

That's exactly what I'm saying: On the one hand I'm relieved it's not going down the route of defining a gun based upon how it looks, but on the other a Joule limit does have significant implications for us all. That's why I said around the 2J mark would be reasonable as it'd leave things relatively intact for us. No one wants a Japan-esque dealio.

Edit
The reason I say nothing higher than 2J is because of the legal precedent set with Thorpe means there's a man who's gone to prison partially because 2.7J was deemed 'lethal'. If this threshold does get set, I feel it would be unreasonable to think it would be anything over 2.5J (hell, I think that would pretty damn lucky).

[Fenriz]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Japan seem to do ok with it...

I have to say it wouldnt bother me. And thats even with sniper rifles. How much do we hear that hop makes range? Time to put money on it.

Id just make sure my rifles are at 1J and crack on, its just a game.

[Proffrink]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Personally I agree. Too many people still think FPS = range, but hey lots of others aren't going to be so happy.

[Fenriz]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Theyll throw dolly from the pram a bit, and then get on with it like everyone else. Spend time in the safe zone grumbling about the good old days.

Or theyll leave the hobby. And if theyre that petulant, its no loss. Win-win.

[Heinz]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Frankly, Fenriz, that's a pathetic attitude to have. I heard similar arguments back in '97 when shotgun owners shrugged their shoulders when pistol shooters were looking for support (me amongst them). We really don't need HMG to screw us over when we have people in our own community willing to sell us out as long as they're not affected personally.

[Abbadon101]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

They do talk about muzzle velocity for both fully automatic and single shot in the paper and talk about 1.3J and 2.5J respectively.

[Proffrink]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

That would be far more reasonable.

For anyone wondering, go to 2.52.

Edit
Also this: http://www.airsoft-forums.co.uk/uplo...lity_UKARA.pdf

And this from it:

[Abbadon101]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

These are the old figures that have been floating around for years as far as I know. I didn't read it in complete detail but they also talk about removing the requisite of it being lethal for it to be a firearm so who knows. But this mostly talks about proposed ideas and several different ones, nothing is saying "this is what we will ban" at least not what I read.

[Heinz]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Page 15, question 1 then...

[Proffrink]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

These are the old figures that have been floating around for years as far as I know. I didn't read it in complete detail but they also talk about removing the requisite of it being lethal for it to be a firearm so who knows. But this mostly talks about proposed ideas and several different ones, nothing is saying "this is what we will ban" at least not what I read.

Aye, it's still just a consultation paper and frankly it's looking positive if they're giving merit to those figures. We'll see I suppose.

[Fenriz]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

Frankly, Fenriz, that's a pathetic attitude to have. I heard similar arguments back in '97 when shotgun owners shrugged their shoulders when pistol shooters were looking for support (me amongst them). We really don't need HMG to screw us over when we have people in our own community willing to sell us out as long as they're not affected personally.

Why? Thats a completely different arguement. I own guns over 1J, have owned many in the past. It would affect me. And i still disagree with the pistol ban. This would not be an outright ban on the hobby, just guidelines on the equipment used.

Im not going to cry about it if i still get to play the game, but at a lower limit. For a long while they were on about banning airsoft full stop, i count myself lucky to still have a hobby to engage in.

[Chewybacka]

Re: Law Commission – Firearms Law, A Scoping Consultation Paper

2.40 In its Eleventh Annual Report, the FCC reported that it had established a subcommittee
to investigate whether it would be possible to establish a ‘practical and
safe’ threshold for determining lethality and, if so, how best to express this
minimum level as unambiguously as possible for the purposes of the Firearms
Act.23
It seems to me this possible legislation is not only investigated as above, they have serious concerns that a "Terrorist threat" can be made from modifying a RIF and using 1J to fire a real bullet.
All that said, it will take years for anything to be properly checked as Governments hate spending money.
My humble advice, start a thread to provide in depth thoughts on the why's and what thoughts, for one individual to write to those concerned. One thing for sure is that the commission has or will speak to UKARA, the Manufactures and Retailers as they are deemed to know all on Airsoft between them.
Personally I believe all variations of projectile weapons should be classified individually and not basically under one umbrella, making the understanding clearer. But then again what do I know.