The whole problem revolves around the word 'capable'. And it opens more can's of worms than just AT.
If someone can find written Home Office interpretation or English Law or Court definition of the word capable, then post it. I have got my FEO in knots over this, why not try yours and see what you get.
Until then, this is a moot point in the precise definition of the word moot.
It serves little purpose to suggest that (depending on how you define capable) most airguns are illegal.... and that works for all sides of the debate, the pro airgunning, the pro AT, the anti AT and the anti airgunning. It serves little purpose because, just like everyone else, no-one apart from a court is qualified to do so (perhaps the HO, unless someone chooses to challenge them in court for whatever reason).
I would welcome and support any organisation to spend time clarifying the law so it is crystal, but my sad opinion is that probably none of them have the expertise and resources on board to do so.
By all means further the information as you can demonstrate it... but I am telling members not to turn this thread into a big long series of posts about which shade of grey fits the argument better. It is utterly pointless for either side to start saying who is in the right here. There are serious penalties in law for extreme cases that might prove either side wrong.
If you wish to state facts about AT, fine.
BFTA/NSRA County Coach
CSFTA Chairman/BFTA Rep