Thread: Anti-tamper
View Single Post
Old 12th January 2015, 09:50 PM
Yorkshiretea's Avatar
Yorkshiretea Yorkshiretea is offline
B Grade Bandit
Join Date: Aug 2013
Member of: Anston FTC
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 2,160

Originally Posted by raygun View Post
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.
I think nothing of the kind Ray, I'd buy you a pint any day of the week and I've enjoyed this thread a lot but I can't make a call without any details mate, that's all.
Reply With Quote