Originally Posted by Ste Hughes
capable is a standard legal word - ring any lawyer and they can give you a definition with in a minuet
most give people an hour free - if anyone could explain the rules in real words they can
It's 2.25pm now... where they engaged Steve?
Seriously, this subject won't get anywhere until people spend their time and go forth, find verifiable undesputable facts, report back
I got as far as I could within my county FEO unit... and to be honest they were struggling with the whole concept, and that wasn't even talking about AT. So I would suggest that a non firearms expert barrister probably would as well.
It really needs to be from the Home Office as by means of guidance (which could be overuled), the CPS, or a court. All else is really moot and really it stops with the Lords in the extreme.
It reminds me of the stuff with speed trap detectors and the 1949 WTA... which said it was illegal to 'intercept' radio messages without license. Every man and his dog had an opinion about how speed trap detectors were or weren't legal, even the police and CPS who prosecuted several people or confiscated several units, until one day, someone with a shed load of cash challenged the interpretation and definition of 'intercept' in law
and found that by that definition the device was legal as it didn't intercept, it merely detected the presence of. Later the gov threatened to change the law so they were outlawed... i don't think they ever did...
Really, despite what book, what barrister, what body, what internet poster says, this to me is no different.
If people are willing enough to stick their neck on the line, then go ahead and do so... but bear in mind the ramifications of the noise you make should you be 180 degrees wrong. (applies to both sides of the argument)