View Single Post
Old 25th June 2015, 02:42 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 RobF View Post
What BS is that?
Hi Rob,
It could well be this.

Under section 5(1)(ab) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), all self-loading or pump-action rifled guns are classified as prohibited other than those which are chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. You will note that there is no exemption in this provision for air rifles/weapons.

The Home Office Circular 68/97 was intended as a guide to cover those persons then (in 1997) in possession of such weapons. In the event, no changes were made to the legislation to accommodate current sales and the situation remains as set out above.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Lassman
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Crime and Policing Group
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street

The HOC did indeed cover people in possession of weapons that were going to be banned but that referred to the .22 target pistols that had previously been allowed. The HOC did go on to say that this was because Parliament had to arrange for compensation. The HOC addressed different problems and the sub 12FPE semi-auto had it's own section. (were semi-auto air rifles available in 1997?). That section said they should have been allowed but were missed in the legislation and it was never Parliaments intention that they should be included.

Mr Lassman appears to totally ignore the fact that the Firearms Consultative Committee reiterated that the omission to exclude sub 12FPE air rifles in the legislation should be addressed at the first available opportunity.
The Firearms Consultative Committee repeated the request in 2003 (which surely discounts Lassman's reason).
Lassman is putting part of two different sections together to form some kind of logic.

Members of the Firearms Consultative Committee for both years included Graham Widdecombe (author of the HOC 68) and members of the GTA. Both therefore would have known what those reports contained and agreed with them.

The reply from Mr Lassman is in fact total BS in the context it's written in.