Air Weapons and the Law

The problem is really what is "legal" as this is up to a court to decide. Since no one wants to go to court to set a precedent it makes sense to 'play safe'. To a large degree site power limits are dictated by insurance companies, not the law necessarily.

Heh, there are hierarchies that dictate which act takes precedent over another so you have to look at them all, but the most relevant and up to date info was instigated by UKARA in conjunction with ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and FELWG (the committee they have that looks into Firearms related issues).
[url]
http://www.ukairsoftzone.co.uk/communit ... t-results/[/url]

http://www.fire-support.co.uk/~ftpzone/FELWG%20issued%20lethality%20letter%20UKARA%20for%20UKAZ.pdf

The document can be read here. All pretty common sense stuff and can be summarised "as everything as we are doing now is fine".

Heres a citation for the 1.35 joules rule

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5/9504.htm

26. The Home Office and the Forensic Science Service considers that the lowest level of muzzle energy capable of inflicting a penetrating wound is one foot pound (or about 1.35 joules): below these power levels, weapons are "incapable of penetrating even vulnerable parts of the body, such as the eye".[54] However, more recent analysis by the Forensic Science Agency for Northern Ireland has indicated that a more reasonable assessment of the minimum muzzle energy required to inflict a penetrating wound lies between 2.2 and 3.0 ft/lb (3-4 J).[55] We will deal more fully with this discrepancy at paragraphs 123 to 130 below.

My understanding, after a lot of on line research, that didn't lead to anything official, is that:

1. There isn't any legislation for airsoft replicas, anything below 1.35J is classed as a low powered air weapon.
2. The 1.35J limit isn't legislation, it was as a result of home office research using ballistic gel and air weapons firing lead pellets (as such it's flawed when related to airsoft replicas).
3. The legislation around section 5 firearms, specifically full auto, mentions barreled weapons and therefore there is an arguement that it doesn't related to airsoft replicas. I've seen a good arguement, by a then serving firearms officer, that airsoft weapons shouldn't be included in this law.

The subject has been debated at length on various forums, usually resulting in lots of bad feeling and threats! My view, is much has been made of nothing (the authorities have lots of more important things to worry about), and a few individuals, with their own agendas, have made matters much worse for the majority.

Consider this - other countries (US, Japan etc.) all play with muzzle velocities considerably higher than ours - we don't hear of mass murder during airsoft games there do we!

The fact remains, until someone is prepared to get caught breaking the accepted 'rules' and then go to court and fight it out, we're stuck where we are!

I appreciate, this isn't exactly what you asked for, just thought I'd add my 2 pence worth.

Thanks for the link David.

This means that a full auto AEG over this limit is deemed a Section 5 firearm

According to who? I can't see where this is stated or implied in the FSS report or the ACPO covering letter.

If it's just a case of lethality, then a single shot weapon firing above 2.5J is now a Section 1 firearm, no?

If it's just a case of lethality, then why does the 1968 Firearms Act, published eight years after Moore v Gooderham specify licence-free limits for air weapons that are WAY over the lethality limit?

Section 5 states that a FIREARM capable of full auto is a prohibited weapon - but an air weapon isn't a firearm - it's an air weapon. Section 5 goes into detail about various things that air weapons and other projectile weapons aren't allowed to do, but the auto thing clearly says "firearm" and not "firearm or air weapon". They are using the term as defined in the Act.

Confused dot com

It stems from the definition of "Firearm" as a "lethally-barreled weapon", and the definition of lethality being "causing more than a trivial injury".
That "lethality" threshold has been defined by the ACPO report, leading to the Section 5 comments.
Of course, no one has paid attention to the "fact" that such an interpretation would make over-power bolt actions into Section 1.

It also completely ignores the fact that legally, air weapons don't become section 1 firearms until 6ft/lb (pistol) or 12 ft/lb (rifle). Those are 900-odd fps and 1300-odd fps with 0.2g BBs respectively.

There was a great piece by a lawyer with an interest in legislation concerning firearms/airsoft over on the UKAZ forum (now lost) which picked it's way through the various parts of legislation and explained why this or that piece was relevant to us (airsofters) and showed why and how seemingly contradictory/muddled/conflicting bits (that you point out Martin) of various Acts could be made sense of. It's a great shame it has been lost as the 'lawyerly' way he made his way through the legislation made it really easy to understand.

One of the tricky bits at the moment revolved around what had to be sold face to face, what could be sold to under 18's and could be dealt with in the post. A bit of a problem to airsoft gun shops vs airgun/shotgun shops (and conflict of commercial interests).

It is clear there is a bit of a muddle (section 1/5 - airgun - airsoft and so on), but at least we know where we stand as airsofters. The 'rules' we have are not only practical, safe and sensible but also without question legal. Which is nice.

From what I gather, it's not a commercial thing, per se, it's the police trying to stop shops selling airsoft RIFs as air rifles, meaning no VCRA defence requirements.

From what I gather, it's not a commercial thing, per se, it's the police trying to stop shops selling airsoft RIFs as air rifles, meaning no VCRA defence requirements.

Yes, that has the ring of truth to it.

You don't remember any details of who this lawyer on UKAZ was, do you?

Hmmm, went by the forum name Lord something-or-other.

Oh dear, you don't need a lawyer do you?

LOL

No, but as johnsteele has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast legal info on this. Lots of chinese whispers that stem from the muddled 1968 Act, but no Airsoft Law for Dummies.

Maybe an editorial bit for WW2 Airsoft with interviews 'n' stuff might be in order?

2. The 1.35J limit isn't legislation, it was as a result of home office research using ballistic gel and air weapons firing lead pellets (as such it's flawed when related to airsoft replicas).

I seem to remember it was metal darts, not pellets.

At the time there was also a lot of talk about the muzzle velocity of paintball guns and the resulting energy rating, but because the ammo was 'frangible' the energy was absorbed it a different way to smaller, harder BBs.

The recent report and recommended (NOT "legal") limits came about as a result of testing airsoft weapons and ammunition supplied by Firesupport.

2. The 1.35J limit isn't legislation, it was as a result of home office research using ballistic gel and air weapons firing lead pellets (as such it's flawed when related to airsoft replicas).

I seem to remember it was metal darts, not pellets.

At the time there was also a lot of talk about the muzzle velocity of paintball guns and the resulting energy rating, but because the ammo was 'frangible' the energy was absorbed it a different way to smaller, harder BBs.

I thought frangible was the stuff on Mr Kipling cakes.

Turns out that UKARA is basically the two chaps that run Fire Support. I had visions of a big office in Soho Square with a bloke like Alan Sugar in a leather chair.

Heres a citation for the 1.35 joules rule

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5/9504.htm

This is an excellent link that's well worth reading. It rates firearms by their potential to kill, which is a bit different from the "lethality" threshold

If I read it right, this is how it applies to air weapons:
Anything under 1.35J cannot cause death and is hunky dory Anything over 16.1J is very likely to cause death and requires a license. The wide spread in-between is a grey area that is dependent on how close your power is to each extreme and whether it is being used as intended or misused. One of the few bits in bold says that "the maintenance of public safety is the vital benchmark for the consideration of all firearms issues"
This seems to indicate that it's not what you own that will get you in trouble, but how you use it. With this in mind, I would surmise that being found in posession of an auto AEG firing over 1.35J wouldn't result in any prosecution, but that firing it out of your car window would probably get you 5 years.

This seems to indicate that it's not what you own that will get you in trouble, but how you use it. With this in mind, I would surmise that being found in posession of an auto AEG firing over 1.35J wouldn't result in any prosecution, but that firing it out of your car window would probably get you 5 years.

Mmm, and that's the rub. There's never been a test case around that issue and no-one's been prepared to test a court of law that may decide to take a rather dim view on guns. don't forget, the sentencing is pretty tough on this and it could land someone in jail for 10 years.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes, but it'll take a court case to make the law more definite.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes, but it'll take a court case to make the law more definite.

At which point, the particular gun/ammo will be tested.