Originally Posted by Yorkshiretea
This rarely happens Ray and you know that. Plus the maker does everything within it's power to ensure it doesn't happen, that can be demonstrated in court of law. You can't reverse out of the problem that is a greater risk. Can you site one prosecuted case where this has happened or is it just pure supastition?
They have, which is why I said you've not got any experience of producing commercial products. As a Company Director I choose which tests and the amount of testing needed to ship the product world wide. I'm where the buck stops. If I can not demonstrate that I have done everything within my power to test the product and comply with the laws in the interest of the consumer.
And that's why it's there Ray. You're way = lot's of proven and demonstrable risk, which you fail to acknowledge.
Where have the responsibilities of the Directors of any airgun company altered? As a Company Director you can only choose which tests and the amount of testing required to ensure compliance. That is usually a closed ending requirement to meet a particular set of legislation (ie New Approach Directive).
As a Company Director would you endorse an action that would put your customer in breach of legislation without them being able to do anything about it ? If you would I suggest that you are certainly not demonstrating a duty of care to your customer. Neither would you deserve to retain that customer.
Without supposition or superstition I can relate directly a case where an airgunner lost his rifle, was fined and received Criminal Record. His HW100 fitted with AT was found to be at a power level of 12.45FPE.
I am also intrigued as to why I should care about a Company Director who has so little regard for me that he puts me in danger of prosecution without me being able to do anything about it.
If there is little danger of anyone being found with an overpower rifle then obviously there isn't a problem and AT is not required.