To me it's quite straightforward and reasonable.
Manufacturers fitted AT which affected my legal position.
I asked them why. I think that is perfectly reasonable. They wouldn't answer.
I asked them as they had made power adjustment "sealed" how could I, as the holder of the gun, get the power reduced in a manner that left me safe from prosecution. They have failed to answer.
Now I don't consider either of those questions untoward or unreasonable. They have had 7 years to come up with a reason and an instruction regarding being safe from prosecution.
Lets even say the "Government" leaned on them.
If they did it was in 2003 via the FCC. It then took them 4 years to come up with AT. That is really an unacceptable time scale if you were being threatened.
The FCC "Working group" that was set up in 2003 had as it's members, Kevin O'Callaghan (FSS), Robert Pitcher (Proof Master), Tony Hall (Webley), John Cooper (Falcon), Peter Martineau (BSA) and Tony Belas (Daystate).
No representative from any shooting organisation.
A member of the working group has said that they will remove AT on request. In that case just how important is it ?