TAG rounds; safety and legality?

[Rogerborg]

13 hours ago, Adolf Hamster said:

 

i wonder what plod's reaction to an airgun that fires explosive ammunition is going to be.

 

Hmm.  Let's read it through together.

 

Section 5 prohibits: "any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus"

 

"if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode"

 

"any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use"

 

[Hmmmmmmm intensifies]

 

Air weapons are still considered as firearms for the purposes of FA 1968, just a special class of them that doesn't require a FAC and which have different rule regarding ammunition, possession and use.  This is distinct from airsoft guns, which are explicitly exempted from being defined as firearms for the purposes of the act iff their energy is low enough.

 

So on a strict reading by a prosecutor with some firearms targets to hit, the exploding rounds might be a no-no, even if the system itself is considered an air weapon.

[E21A]

13 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Hmm.  Let's read it through together.

 

Section 5 prohibits: "any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus"

 

"if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode"

 

"any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use"

 

[Hmmmmmmm intensifies]

 

Air weapons are still considered as firearms for the purposes of FA 1968, just a special class of them that doesn't require a FAC and which have different rule regarding ammunition, possession and use.  This is distinct from airsoft guns, which are explicitly exempted from being defined as firearms for the purposes of the act iff their energy is low enough.

 

So on a strict reading by a prosecutor with some firearms targets to hit, the exploding rounds might be a no-no, even if the system itself is considered an air weapon.

 

Sooooo, 🤔

 

 

 

 

[Adolf Hamster]

1 hour ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Hmm.  Let's read it through together.

 

Section 5 prohibits: "any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus"

 

"if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode"

 

"any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use"

 

[Hmmmmmmm intensifies]

 

Air weapons are still considered as firearms for the purposes of FA 1968, just a special class of them that doesn't require a FAC and which have different rule regarding ammunition, possession and use.  This is distinct from airsoft guns, which are explicitly exempted from being defined as firearms for the purposes of the act iff their energy is low enough.

 

So on a strict reading by a prosecutor with some firearms targets to hit, the exploding rounds might be a no-no, even if the system itself is considered an air weapon.

 

so the tl:dr is it's a bit of a grey area but possibly very bad if someone's got an axe to grind.

 

 

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Adolf Hamster said:

 

so the tl:dr is it's a bit of a grey area but possibly very bad if someone's got an axe to grind.

 

 

 

Bear in mind that a shooty enough spud gun could be considered a lethal barrelled firearm by a prosecutor with a hard on for Stopping The Scourge Of Etc Etc Etc.  You don't generally find common sense coming into the justice system until you reach Appeals.

[Adolf Hamster]

42 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Bear in mind that a shooty enough spud gun could be considered a lethal barrelled firearm by a prosecutor with a hard on for Stopping The Scourge Of Etc Etc Etc.  You don't generally find common sense coming into the justice system until you reach Appeals.

 

And that is a terrifying thought, I sure don't want to be the poor sod on the receiving end of a grumpy lawyers crusade

[Rogerborg]

20 hours ago, Adolf Hamster said:

 

And that is a terrifying thought, I sure don't want to be the poor sod on the receiving end of a grumpy lawyers crusade

 

It sounds crazy until you recall the case in Falkirk where ScotPlod and the Fiscal bagged, tagged and prosecuted an airsofter for posting pictures of his toys on an Facebook airsoft forum: armed response, helicopters, the lot.  Say "firearms" and the whole machinery of state grinds into action - it's got a lot of momentum once it gets going.