Moderators djben9 Posted April 24, 2020 Moderators Share Posted April 24, 2020 People have been told before on here, be careful where your 'ammo' falls if shooting in your garden.... here is an example... right pic, middle.....battery tied to grip...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macv276 Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 Probably going to see a lot more of this as shooters take to their back gardens instead of their usual sites/ ranges/ wherever you go to legally shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarrin Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 Obviously very important to be mindful of such a scenario. But... "Weapons signed over for destruction..." I take issue with this wording, especially as we can see at least one of them was an airsoft gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommikka Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, Zarrin said: Obviously very important to be mindful of such a scenario. But... "Weapons signed over for destruction..." I take issue with this wording, especially as at least one of them was an airsoft gun. That’s the law They are ‘low powered air weapons’ - even battery powered airsoft guns. The battery powers the system which generates a small amount of compressed air to fire the BB https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9508.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarrin Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tommikka said: That’s the law They are ‘low powered air weapons’ - even battery powered airsoft guns. The battery powers the system which generates a small amount of compressed air to fire the BB https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9508.htm Indeed, though I still dislike the wording. it's not so much about the classification itself which may or may not be perfect. It's about the ammunition (no pun intended) given to people who either are or maybe one day will be in the position of wanting to take our sport down. You sprinkle a few words here and there over a decade on twitter, blogs, youtube and on TV and someone might be able to manipulate that into some sort of illegitimate (though legitimised) case geared towards banning certain activities. It might even sound like a lot of sense to a majority of people who have no experience with something like airsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommikka Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 8 minutes ago, Zarrin said: Indeed, though I still dislike the wording. it's not so much about the classification itself which may or may not be perfect. It's about the ammunition (no pun intended) given to people who either are or maybe one day will be in the position of wanting to take our sport down. You sprinkle a few words here and there over a decade on twitter, blogs, youtube and on TV and someone might be able to manipulate that into some sort of illegitimate (though legitimised) case geared towards banning certain activities. It might even sound like a lot of sense to a majority of people who have no experience with something like airsoft. There’s potential there - but I often recommend the avoidance of initial reactions being defensive. The tweet is worded well: They are legal and the problem is crossing of the boundary. Direct risk to the neighbour is unnecessary to the situation. May be real risk as the shooter didn’t realise balls were going near to neighbours, or the general risk of exceeding boundaries. A cooperative air-weapon owner forfeited these legally owned air weapons today having fired them beyond his properties boundary causing risk to his neighbours & prompting a call to us. Offence committed under the Firearms act. Advice given & weapons signed over for destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarrin Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Tommikka said: There’s potential there - but I often recommend the avoidance of initial reactions being defensive. The tweet is worded well: They are legal and the problem is crossing of the boundary. Direct risk to the neighbour is unnecessary to the situation. May be real risk as the shooter didn’t realise balls were going near to neighbours, or the general risk of exceeding boundaries. A cooperative air-weapon owner forfeited these legally owned air weapons today having fired them beyond his properties boundary causing risk to his neighbours & prompting a call to us. Offence committed under the Firearms act. Advice given & weapons signed over for destruction. I don't think they did a poor job in their decision to penalize the guy and as you say the tweet is not overall badly worded, though sometimes a word on it's own or perhaps with or without an adjective here or there can be more impactful than it needs to be. Honestly this is me thinking out loud more than it is a call to arms to help change the way we or our sport is perceived by the public. I highly doubt that the rep who composed the message did it with any intention of stirring up consensus either way. As I said, one day it could be abused by someone with a particular agenda, it probably wont be, it hopefully wont be... but it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Tackle Posted April 24, 2020 Moderators Share Posted April 24, 2020 3 hours ago, Zarrin said: But... "Weapons signed over for destruction..." I take issue with this wording, especially as we can see at least one of them was an airsoft gun. Agree it's poorly worded, & somewhat heavy handed as I'm assuming nobody was injured. Probably an arsehole neighbour pushing the legal aspect, & the shooters options being "surrender the guns & take a stiff telling off, or we'll be forced to refer it to the CPS, who'll jump on it cos it's a piss easy prosecution, & you'll have a criminal record, big fine & guns confiscated anyway". There's probably another issue of getting a conviction under the firearms act will then prevent you from owning anything else "gun like", as well as restricting future access to certain job positions. I'm sure one of our more learned members will enlighten us to this aspect. Sucks but it's the reality of owning our "toys". ☹️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albiscuit Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 Thing is we don’t know the situation. Could have been owned by a scroat shooting his neighbours greenhouse out or shooting at someone’s cat. I think the wording is ok, made it clear he cooperated and they were legal. we only have to look at the tweet from the NYC police for a comparison. They acted like they took dangerous real steel weapons off the street from a terrorist. On 24/04/2020 at 17:56, Tackle said: Sucks but it's the reality of owning our "toys". ☹️ but we do have to treat these toys like they are the real deal. People over here are wary of guns and imitation firearms as we are not around them often enough to know any difference. And we know they could cause distress and harm very easily and although they are toys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkee Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 Just shooting a toy gun, even if over your property boundary, is AFAIK, not an offence under the Firearms Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDcase Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 2 hours ago, EvilMonkee said: Just shooting a toy gun, even if over your property boundary, is AFAIK, not an offence under the Firearms Act. People outside airsoft don't see it that way. To them we're far right gun totin radicals one step away from being terrorists. No matter if you're doing things legally, if anyone complains to the authorities about your activities its likely you'll have your 'dangerous weapons' confiscated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigeon_Haris Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 2 hours ago, EDcase said: People outside airsoft don't see it that way. To them we're far right gun totin radicals one step away from being terrorists. No matter if you're doing things legally, if anyone complains to the authorities about your activities its likely you'll have your 'dangerous weapons' confiscated. Exactly this. I have the most perfect back garden to shoot and do practice drills. But I know the second a bb might accidentally ricochet into another garden or the pop of a gas blowback is heard I will be rained down on by CTSFO themselves and have everything confiscated. there's just too much of a risk, with the world situation these days I guess people do have a right to be so cranky. Even if I went as far as to go round to each of my neighbors and politely tell them the situation, there would still be one that would massively disagree (even if not directly to my face) and report me to Mi6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators djben9 Posted May 4, 2020 Author Moderators Share Posted May 4, 2020 10 hours ago, EvilMonkee said: Just shooting a toy gun, even if over your property boundary, is AFAIK, not an offence under the Firearms Act. toy gun i hope not as my son has lost many Nerf darts over the fences ! but any thing else is, which is what had happened, and is understandable Section 21A & 34http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/21A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/34 its just down to how some will interpret it on the day i guess...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopRocket123 Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 Honestly I'm happy to see d someone acting irresponsibly with an airsoft get getting penalised for it. Obviously it's not great publicity for us but we have been allowed to buy and play with these toys under an unspoken agreement to act responsibly with them. If you break that agreement they should have every right to take them away from you because the alternative is a blanket ban and no one wants that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Tackle Posted May 4, 2020 Moderators Share Posted May 4, 2020 10 hours ago, EDcase said: People outside airsoft don't see it that way. To them we're far right gun totin radicals one step away from being terrorists. Lol, & that's just me wife. i think she'd like me kit to get taken away, just so she can find more jobs around the house for me to do.😭 On a side note, probably for another thread, as @Pigeon_Haris has rightly said, there's always someone that misinterprets or just doesn't get our hobby/sport. Some will see an underlying gun nut issue, others just think it's expensive "sillyness". Most of my immediate family don't get it, & have been critical of "wasting money & time", yet my brother-in-law spends thousands every year on new golf kit & regularly pisses off abroad for weeks at a time dragging his fat ass after a little ball, even when his business went under, yet that's ok, cos it's golf, a "proper" sport lol . Am I the only one to have experienced this naive dislike of Airsoft ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkee Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 12 hours ago, EDcase said: People outside airsoft don't see it that way. To them we're far right gun totin radicals one step away from being terrorists. No matter if you're doing things legally, if anyone complains to the authorities about your activities its likely you'll have your 'dangerous weapons' confiscated. 4 hours ago, djben9 said: toy gun i hope not as my son has lost many Nerf darts over the fences ! but any thing else is, which is what had happened, and is understandable Section 21A & 34http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/21A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/34 its just down to how some will interpret it on the day i guess...... But its not an air weapon. Its a realistic imitation firearm and its been stated before a RIF is not a Firearm. The definitions are very clear and have separate sections with the Act. That offence clearly references Air Weapons ie proper airguns. This guy clearly has grounds for an appeal (despite being a prick) and I hate to state the obvious but since when was it upto the Police to decide if someone has committed an offence? Thats the job of the Courts/Jury. They have in my opinion clearly overstepped their powers here by seizing his property. And I served for 5 years as a Constable in Nottinghamshire Police! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDcase Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 That may be true but they'll always confiscate the items first and then you'll have to go through the legal process to reclaim them. I imagine that would take quite a long time and possibly cost quite a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Adolf Hamster Posted May 4, 2020 Supporters Share Posted May 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, EDcase said: That may be true but they'll always confiscate the items first and then you'll have to go through the legal process to reclaim them. I imagine that would take quite a long time and possibly cost quite a bit... even worse is they could well have destroyed them first. it's a terrifying thought for those of us with significant investments in our gats, not worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Tackle Posted May 4, 2020 Moderators Share Posted May 4, 2020 1 hour ago, EvilMonkee said: But its not an air weapon. Its a realistic imitation firearm and its been stated before a RIF is not a Firearm. The definitions are very clear and have separate sections with the Act. That offence clearly references Air Weapons ie proper airguns. This guy clearly has grounds for an appeal (despite being a prick) and I hate to state the obvious but since when was it upto the Police to decide if someone has committed an offence? Thats the job of the Courts/Jury. They have in my opinion clearly overstepped their powers here by seizing his property. And I served for 5 years as a Constable in Nottinghamshire Police! They probably pounced on him with a heavy handed attitude, frightened the shit out of him with threats if possible prosecution & subsequent criminal record, & the future ramifications of that, & then "nicely" pointed out that there is a much easier alternative 😏 Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro police, but there will always be some that overstep their remit & powers, such as the west Yorkshire cop filmed recently saying he'll "make something up", or another force that today admitted fining someone during lockdown as "he couldn't possibly be excercising as he's wearing jeans" lol. Apparently you've got to dress up like Usain bolt to exercise ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkee Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Adolf Hamster said: even worse is they could well have destroyed them first. it's a terrifying thought for those of us with significant investments in our gats, not worth the risk. Speaking from experience, property very rarely gets destroyed, unless as in this case, signed over. 3 Ps that get you in trouble as a copper, Property, Pocketbook and P*ssy 1 hour ago, Tackle said: They probably pounced on him with a heavy handed attitude, frightened the shit out of him with threats if possible prosecution & subsequent criminal record, & the future ramifications of that, & then "nicely" pointed out that there is a much easier alternative 😏 Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro police, but there will always be some that overstep their remit & powers, such as the west Yorkshire cop filmed recently saying he'll "make something up", or another force that today admitted fining someone during lockdown as "he couldn't possibly be excercising as he's wearing jeans" lol. Apparently you've got to dress up like Usain bolt to exercise ? Oh I know EXACTLY what will have happened - when you go to an incident as a cop, you have to close the incident down with what is viewed as a satisfactory outcome, ie you have to show that you took action. The cops that attended this would just want to have the incident closed down so they could move onto the next one and get through their shift, therefore they would have taken any route to get him to sign away his guns in clear violation of his rights. But, of course, the fella wont have known the law or his rights unless a Firearms Lawyer......this is modern policing and one of the reasons I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Tackle Posted May 4, 2020 Moderators Share Posted May 4, 2020 On the plus lol, probably one of the few shouts these days that when called, somebody actually pays you a visit 😏, half the time they want to deal with it via a phone call days later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkee Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 Yeh I left in 2008 and morale was bad then god knows what its like after over a decade of Tory rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneTactix Posted May 6, 2020 Share Posted May 6, 2020 I once shot in my garden which was about 100ft long and a rebound shot managed to bounce all the way back and hit a neighbours bedroom window. Luckily they didn't hear it, but needless to say I didn't take to garden plinking again. As people say we should probably all only really be shooting at official sites, ranges, farms with permission or gardens that can completely ensure safe shooting probably with neighbours permission. The more joe public knows about the sport the less they will worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.