New laws for snipers?

[cannon_fodder]

Re: New laws for snipers?

The case I read, believe it was Moore v Goodman, might have that wrong but it's close, stated lethality at 1ftlb. so approx 380fps with a 0.2.



Apparently not, the frangible nature of the ammo seems to make a difference.

That is however not enshrined in any law I can find, more a the home office says leave them alone so cps do so. Can't see it making any difference if a level of 1joule is set in law without paintball specifically being mentioned. Hey ho, another can of worms.

Found it again:

The case was Moore vs Gooderham :
Of note is the test by which 'lethality' was determined in 1960. This would have to be addressed conclusively as being out of date with modern methods of determining 'lethality'. The test used in the 1960 case was:

"The power of the said airgun was such that when it was discharged at a range of a few inches at the surface of a piece of plywood five thirty-seconds of an inch in thickness, lying on a hard floor a metal pellet became embedded in the plywood to such an extent as to be visible from the remote side and the remote surface was penetrated by the point of a dart, the body of which failed to penetrate the nearer surface."

As you can see the original case law that determined lethality is badly dated....Involving a sharp metal projectile fired from an airrifle at point blank range NOT a plastic ball from an airsoft gun.

But as you say it would be a difficult ,expensive and potentially risky task to go through the court system to set a new president for airsoft weapons.

I did think that when AH started to sell sniper rifles as air guns last year we were on a slippery slope....

[No1_sonuk]

Re: New laws for snipers?

I wonder how many other sniper owners just shot a piece of plywood?

5/32 is about 3.9mm

The piece of plywood I have is 3.6mm thick.
My rifle fires a 0.2g BB at 420fps - 1.64J (according to my xcortech chrono) that's about 1.21 ft/lb according to google calculator.

The shot: BB fired straight down onto the plywood (laying on a hard door threshold) from 3 inches.
The effect: A 1mm deep dent in the firing surface of the plywood - NO other marks, no hint of penetration...

[caffin999]

Re: New laws for snipers?

I wonder how many other sniper owners just shot a piece of plywood?

5/32 is about 3.9mm

The piece of plywood I have is 3.6mm thick.
My rifle fires a 0.2g BB at 420fps - 1.64J (according to my xcortech chrono) that's about 1.21 ft/lb according to google calculator.

The shot: BB fired straight down onto the plywood (laying on a hard door threshold) from 3 inches.
The effect: A 1mm deep dent in the firing surface of the plywood - NO other marks, no hint of penetration...

yeah but will a court go to all that trouble. Unlikely. I would think they would go on the home office recommendations

[No1_sonuk]

Re: New laws for snipers?

I think you'll find that if it went to court, the prosecution would have to prove the lethality. A defence lawyer could rip apart a "recommendation" with no supporting evidence.

[Just an Airsofter]

Re: New laws for snipers?

I think you'll find that if it went to court, the prosecution would have to prove the lethality. A defence lawyer could rip apart a "recommendation" with no supporting evidence.

I think as there is already a recommended level of lethality (which according to what the home office has in the past said was a level reached following the firearms consultation committee attended by many firearms experts) and there is existing case law that would suffice on the evidence front.

A defence lawyer would have to submit evidence themselves to prove their point. So the man in the dock would have to commission testing at a HO approved forensics lab. I am not sure, but I imagine that will be hideously expensive.

Don't also think a jury would save you, this would most likely be handled at a magistrates level so you get to deal with an individual who is most likely to follow guidance as they would have no clue about firearms or airsoft.

[No1_sonuk]

Re: New laws for snipers?

The point is that the lethality tests they're relying on were conducted with metal projectiles, and the committee's decision is also based on that premise.

That quote above also doesn't define the shape of the projectile(s) beyond description of a "dart". An airsoft BB is not metal, and not dart-shaped.

The prosecution would have to prove how a test with a metal dart is relevant to a plastic sphere.

And WRT a jury: It'd probably be better without the jury for the very reasons you state - a magistrate is less likely to be swayed by anti-gun rhetoric a prosecutor would no doubt attempt if a jury was involved.

[private parts]

Re: New laws for snipers?

do pump action shotties come into this?

[Tiercel]

Re: New laws for snipers?

Don't also think a jury would save you, this would most likely be handled at a magistrates level so you get to deal with an individual who is most likely to follow guidance as they would have no clue about firearms or airsoft.

And WRT a jury: It'd probably be better without the jury for the very reasons you state - a magistrate is less likely to be swayed by anti-gun rhetoric a prosecutor would no doubt attempt if a jury was involved.

Now this depends on whether its a test case brought by X-site or airsofters or whatever, or a real case due to someone being prosecuted.

In both circumstances though it is most likely the case would be heard at a Crown Court rather than magistrates as it would be a firearms offence.

Also Magistrates dont have the power to set precendant, so if you wanted a test case to set a ruling for regards to the lethality of airsoft guns, it would have to be heard at a crown or higher court, probably without a Jury though, Im not 100% sure on the procedure for test cases like this, been a long time since I studied law!

Its also my understanding that the wording of the case Moore V Gooderham which set the precedant for lethality states "A projectile fired from a rifled barrel". Which technically means it has NO hold whatsoever over airsoft guns, as they dont have rifled barrels (unless youre using a TK twist barrel, in which case according to this ruling youve just made yourself a section 5 firearm ). However this brings us back to the original point that there is no legal definition of an airsoft gun, and without actually going to the courts and making a case for it (which will be both expensive, time consuming and theres the possibility of losing the case which would be catastrophic for the airsoft community) , I cant see it changing anytime soon.

Basically this law is hugely out dated (bit of plywood put on the floor, hardly a substitute for ballistic jelly and a forensic ballistics lab) and has no relevancy whatsoever to airsoft weapons, however the Thames Valley police have decided to enforce it, and without going to court over the matter theres bugger all that can be done.

[balaclava ben]

Re: New laws for snipers?

i see your point about the TK twist barrel, however i don't think this would nesseserily be true as they dont actually have rifling in the form that airguns do, but swirling indents instead. The rifling dosnt actually come into contact with the BB to impart spin so i suppose it could be argued that the nature of the twist barrel won't then make it a section 5, hopefully! haha