Sorry Brian but the airgun legislation has been operative for 46 years so will hold very few surprises. The offence is of Strict Liability (Absolute) as specified. That has been more than upheld in many courts.
I don't risk making any more convictions at all. It's just supposition. We have legislation that we have to comply with. Why should that legislation be "different" when it comes to airgunners. We are not asking for any special privileges just for a law that is not "moveable" and we can comply with.
I do not see how having a law that regulates us and having the means to comply with that law would increase convictions.
If there are good reasons for not having a standard test then let us all know. When the FSS ran testing their normal test procedure was with a light, medium and heavy pellet. That is now no longer applicable as FSS no longer test. No doubt Terry Doe will be able to tell us just what the legal advice was and from whom.
The FSS Regulator is only interested in private Forensic Labs following their own procedure and that's from the FSS Regulator himself. Why was the test the FSS used O.K. but now it's better not to have any defined test ?
Just how do we set up our airguns to ensure compliance ?
The airgunners position today.
Laws that do not mean what they say and can be interpreted as the powers that be see fit.
AT fitted to rifles to make them "nonadjustable" although we have the responsibility.
No standard test to make it impossible for airgunners to replicate anything to ensure they comply with the law.
An industry that fits AT to rifles but does not say why.
An industry that fits AT but does not tell us what safe from prosecution action we can take if we end up with an over power airgun.
Sounds pretty fair to me.