Thread: Anti-tamper
View Single Post
Old 12th January 2015, 08:38 PM
raygun's Avatar
raygun raygun is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Member of: Rivington Riflemen
Location: Bolton
Posts: 951

Originally Posted by Yorkshiretea View Post
Thing is Ray, you never compare like for like, they are not even comparable. Of the two case you don't quote you have no details, no numbers and what oddly looks like the fear of the legal bending of the word "capable" into an absolute, when the answer is binary anyway and I say that with respect.
The two cases I have quoted are perfectly true. I have extensive private e.mails from the airgunner that was prosecuted in Hull. I do not have his permission to publish them and have to respect that, even if you think me a liar.

The second case at Luton Crown Court was extensively discussed on the BBS. If you go on the BBS and contact user name "lional" who was a prosecution witness at the trial I'm sure he could inform you of what went on.

In the legislation "Capable" has it's meaning as is it possible. There is no ambiguity and that is that way the
law has been and does operate. The rifle in the Luton case according to it's owner was running at around 10 FPE. It was made to shoot between 3 and 30 FPE with no consistency whatsoever. The tester couldn't get it to shoot above 12FPE hence the removal of the firing valve spring.

The one pellet at 30 FPE was enough.

Why am I wrong when I say that being responsible in law for the power of your rifle but not being in a position to do anything about it isn't right. Which bit of this is acceptable ?

Reply With Quote