Thread: Anti-tamper
View Single Post
Old 11th January 2015, 07:54 PM
raygun's Avatar
raygun raygun is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Member of: Rivington Riflemen
Location: Bolton
Posts: 951

I don't think Bob is saying he was at the meeting when the Home office representative broached the subject of AT.
I do know that Bob attended AMTA meetings.
It would be interesting to find out just who was at this supposed meeting and just what was said. If anything.

The first time AT was discussed officially was at the Firearms Consultative Committee in 2003. The actual problem was that there was a feeling that "High power" air rifles were causing a problem. This was in fact raised by the Association of Scottish Chief Police officers around 1997 when they felt that FAC air rifles were being put on ticket "on the nod" without knowing just what the power was.

The FCC set up a working group to look into AT. The Home Office representative on the FCC was on every working group except the AT one, perhaps indicating it wasn't really given any prominence. When the FCC was disbanded in Jan 2004 all it's work ceased, except for AMTA continuing the AT work for themselves.

Given that the Home office FOI info is all we've got I'm quite happy to believe it. Certainly I believe it in the face of the stony silence from AMTA.

As said before the "Fire and Brimstone" threatened onto the heads of the manufacturers if they didn't fit AT does not appear to have landed on those who haven't fitted it over the last 7 years. Why not ?

The only winner with AT seems to be the manufacturers. We know they are not capable of producing tested rifles that comply to the law, even with AT fitted. What they do get though is an absolvement of any liability for Warranty work when the AT is removed by concerned owners.

Pretty good win really.

Reply With Quote