Originally Posted by Brian.Samson
You're not wrong.
The only thing I'm not convinced about is the reason it was introduced and the proposed solution (potentially pushing for a change in the law).
I believe it was introduced as the result of a thinly veiled threat to the manufacturers and I don't think they did enough to protect their customers when they introduced it.
A more responsible approach would have been to publish an AMTA sanctioned testing procedure, set all new guns to 10.5 FPE with that procedure and issue a conformity test certificate with each rifle. If the customer requests to have the AT removed, they should do that free of charge but warn them that the certificate of conformity is no longer valid, insist that the customer signs a waiver to that effect and from that point forwards are responsible for making sure their gun remains legal.
I'll answer in order.
1. If the reason it was introduced was stated then a lot of the problems could perhaps have been avoided. 7 years of silence is not good. Unfortunately to progress, a change in law is required because the law is not fit for purpose. It was, in the first instance, brought in as a protectionist measure for the airgun industry itself. At the time PCP's were not really available and were never considered.
2. Patently there has been no consideration for the customer. There has also been no attempt to protect them in any way.
3. AMTA does have a test procedure as it's used to check their sample rifles for AT conformity. It's not a very good procedure, neither is it a very practical one.
Daystate did say at one point that they would remove the AT on the signing of a waiver but as the holder of the rifle is the responsible person I'm not too sure what your actually waiving
Practically a certificate of conformity would have absolutely no standing in law, unless the law was changed. The customer remains responsible in law no matter what he signs. If a change in law is to be considered then lets have a proper change that is fair to all.