UK Airgun Law

Good information in the initial post, many thanks.

 

Having read the entirety of this thread, I would like to make a few points for the benefit of those users who may need help with legal points. Most of these points have been covered by others, but two items could do with clarification.

1. If you have any questions about the law, this thread is reasonably good; but do not regard a police officer as any sort of advice on firearms/airguns/shotguns with regard to legal matters. I have been using firearms, shotguns and airguns for over forty-six years, and would counsel you that very few police officers are either of balanced or fair views with regard to anything that looks like a weapon. I am prepared to believe that there are a few, probably shooters themselves, who know what they are talking about but unless you know the person extremely well you should only rely on the shooting organisations for assistance.

2. This nonsense about the "if an empty magazine is in the gun, then it is loaded" has come from someone who is ex-military (I was an officer in the Armed Forces for seven years). In the Army, a weapon is regarded as loaded even if it has an empty magazine fitted. This is, frankly, because most soldiers' weapon-handling skills can verge on pretty marginal. I suspect very highly that this is the source of this remark. However, much as I seriously dispute this terminology, it is a near-certainty that the first person who is found in possession of a gun in his carry-case which has an empty magazine fitted, will be prosecuted as a test case.

Don't let that person be you. It is sensible to avoid this issue by carrying the magazines separately and empty. There should be no problems with putting the empty magazines in the carry case. We simply must not allow this incremental totalitarian tip-toe to go to an Court, which in its' ignorance, may find against us an make things even more absurd than they already are.

 

You won’t ever be taken to court for having an empty magazine fitted to an air rifle. There is nothing to charge you with.

The offence is having a loaded or unloaded air weapon ( no need to distinguish ) in a public place without reasonable excuse.

Magazines are not mentioned in the law.

Just “ if a pellet can be loaded by mechanical manipulation of the gun alone” it’s classed as loaded.

These days it makes little difference anyway since the law was changed to treat air weapons the same be they loaded or unloaded in a public place.

The loaded or unloaded classification would only really come into play these days if you were actually using the gun to commit a crime like holding up a post office, threatening someone and so on.
Where it would be classed as loaded if a pellet could be fired just by manipulating the guns parts.

 

True - doubly so if it's some newly appointed jerk looking to make a name for themselves.

 

Thank you for your reply. I saw the remark in a thread on this forum, and was slightly concerned, as this is exactly the sort of thing that is often used against a law-abiding individual in the event that an officer is annoyed that there is nothing else with which the owner can be charged.

Incrementalism is the driver of most repression in the firearms laws, particularly now that so much legislation is implemented by ministerial diktat.

 

they cant charge you for a loaded gun if there is no ammo in it, i keep my mag in the gun when transporting (less chance of losing the mag) my pellets are kept in a separate bag and not in my gun case

 

I've not read the whole of this thread as it started 10 years ago and the legislation has changed dramatically since then.

I may have missed something having read posts from 2014 onwards but couldn't see any mention of the updated legislation.

There may be another sticky but I've started typing now

My point is should a new thread be started that is updated to prevent confusion and this one archived?

 

Funny how those arguing the toss about empty guns, magazines and been Queens Armed Forces have never... NEVER been on the other side of the law.
I have and frankly, with no malice nor beseeching wot you might think you know are all blowing dust from yer lower orifices.
Soldiers operate in 'states of readiness' ie:
Black ready gate stagging = weapon empty and safe, mag stowed.
Next state = empty safe empty mag affixed, loaded mag stowed.
Then loaded mag in gun without round in chamber and safe.
Loaded mag, one in the chamber.
As above with self determination of weather or not to point it at offending person and or pump said offender full of lead.

This was explained to me by my godfather, chief armerour of R.A.F. Lossimouth, also explained to me by chief armourer of R.A.F. Kinloss Regiment then the same again by the head of R.A.F. St. Mawgan Reg. / Shooting team captain as an R.A.F. dependant being taught how to shoot.

The law we wombats observe has ambiguity, an empty mag in an empty gun may or may not be empty.
How does plod know if your gun is empty?
They don't till they have taken it from you at gunpoint ( at worst) and figured out how to check its state.
In my case, not trying to dis-arm a person who fired an empty airgun in an intimidating manner (aka Armed Robbery) it cost me near £140,000 to prove my innocence.
And what remained of my mental health.

So your gun is empty when it's empty, has no magazine fitted (empty or not) stowed separately... Then and only then are You and your gun = safe.
Nearly forgot... Keep gun in bag even if randomly stopped by nosey womble, put it on ground and take a few steps away cos he/she might be a glory hound.
Always assume that Any womble is a glory hound and if you make it to interview, they Will make you out to be a terrorist because they are all glory hounds.

 

Given the increasingly poor standard of police recruits, this is good advice.

 

It's top to bottom mate, went to school with lads who became cops then left the service cos they didn't believe in the persecutor policy.

 

True - these days you won't get in unless you fit into a quota and mouth the appropriate right-on claptrap.

 

Much like party politic`s then

 

One assumes that the crossing points from Blighty to Scotland will all be manned by trained experts and sniffer dogs to collect the airguns from any Scottish residents who have just bought one in England.

I cannot see how the rules in Scotland will stop those who want them for illicit purposes, still popping into England and buying them?

 

Here’s an interesting question for you all.

A mate and I were having a conversation about current U.K. gun law etc etc (not opening that can of worms!) and my mate makes the comment, ‘I guess if you wanted a gun that badly (for nefarious reasons) you could just make one.’

Now most of us have seen various tabloid articles about guns being hidden in fake mobile phones etc, and when you think about it, a cannon is about as simple you can get, so yeah I guess it is fairly easy to make one. The conversation went on about brococks, converting blank firers, reactivating real deactivated guns etc. All highly stupid, irresponsible and illegal of course.

But it does bring about the question;

Is it illegal to build, either from scratch or using donor parts from an existing airgun, your own air pistol or rifle?

I’ve had a look through the laws which cover pretty much everything but the manufacture of air (and I hate the term as I don’t see them as such) weapons.

I said I’d ask here as I can’t find the answer anywhere.

 

I think the answer is "No" provided it's not capable of exceeding 12fpe, or 6fpe for a pistol, and you are not doing it as a business.
I wouldn't expect the legislation to list everything that's allowed.

 

Technically speaking, the new FX dreamline could be classed as built from donor parts.
Barrel from an impact, stock and grips from an airsoft gun, bottle from something else with an appropriate valve fitted, main block, well your going to have to start somewhere, so say FX dreamlite.
But you can make a rifle with a traditional stock, a tactical rifle, one with a folding stock, long barrel, short barrel, fat barrel (Shroud), thin barrel etc.

 

Some great comments on this post, relating to The Firearms Act and associated points..
.
I apologise if this consideration has been covered (although I didn’t find it in previous comments).
.
The Firearms act, while it relates specifically to shooting, Isn’t the only law we can fall foul of. It’s just an extra set of rules to which we must adhere in addition to those already there to protect the public.
.
I have no legal training, So would be happy to be corrected by anyone. I have however, been involved in local housing committees and neighbourhood watch schemes, in which police, local authorities and housing associations were active participants/advisors .
.
Surprisingly, the subject of airguns in general, shooting in gardens, and waste ground specifically, came up more often than I expected. And I was amazed by the number of differing complaints and the even larger number of ways the law can be interpreted, and the seemingly never ending ways by which different laws could be used to limit shooting.
.
The inclusion of the word “nuisance” in U.K. law seems to be a big problem, because it encompasses a whole range of possibilities.. Especially where the general public, highways, public and private land are concerned... In fact, the laws specifically relating to nuisance in general, I found quite confusing, subject to interpretation, and quite restrictive in their own right in some ways.
.
The way I understand it is... If anyone, is made to feel nervous, annoyed, endangered, uneasy by your actions, or feels that their ability to enjoy themselves, whether in public, in their own, or rented property (including garden) or is negatively affected by your actions, either emotionally, or physically, then a nuisance “may” have occurred .... Which means that a complaint from a neighbour, or other member of the public, who finds your shooting to be detrimental to their piece of mind, for any reason, could be seen as legitimate, depending on who deals with it. Not necessarily under the Firearms Act. but alternately, under common, or criminal law, both of which also cover activities where public endangerment, or distress are a possibility. Such things as shooting toward, or across a public footpath for instance, which The Firearms Act itself doesn’t prohibit. But if by doing so, you cause distress, or alarm to someone using, or wanting to use it, Public nuisance laws could come into effect.
.
Another important thing people often overlook is that tenants usually need permission from the owner, or housing administrator, before they shoot anywhere on a property. Which for those in houses rented by local authorities and housing associations, is almost unheard of in my experience. And for most private rentals, the owner’s insurance policy and tenant’s rental agreement will usually have clauses restricting activities which could invite claims from third parties, making it unlikely that they would give their consent... So unless you own your home, shooting in the garden could find you in trouble for breaching your rental agreement, should someone make a nuisance complaint to the police. Or notify the landlord.

 

Very informative. The one thing that tends to undo all of the afore mentioned rules is that rules only apply to those who follow them.
I could give an over powered air rifle and a tin of pellets to a 12 year old lad, knowing full well he will spend the afternoon shooting or trying to shoot the local cats, maybe a house or car window or three when he gets board. As long as he isn't seen heard or caught he will never be held accountable for his actions nor will he face any legal action. The same goes for me if no one knew it was me who gave him the rifle. The fines and or prison sentences mentioned above are there to make it clear what awaits you if you get caught. It is a very big if too.

 

To be fair, that's how it is with the myriad laws that are different in Scotland and England. And it works both ways too. There are no border guards anywhere in the EU, yet people have to abode by different laws and people will flaunt them. People may cross the Scottish border to buy air weapon, just like people can buy a firearm in Eastern Europe and bring it back to the UK (far easier to do than many would think), so why don't we just scrap real steel fire arms laws too, eh? It's ultimately about reducing risk, not eradicating it. It is less likely that neds will now get hold of an air rifle and fire at children from their open window, but it will still happen. No law can stop people breaking it if they really want to. I'm only just getting back into air guns after around 20 years break and, yes, I've had to get a AWC because I live in Scotland. I even had to wait longer as they needed to do a medical check, but perhaps contrary to many of my fellow Scots, I'm not bothered by it. It's not been a big deal in the grand scheme of things and I believe in reducing risk where you can. I have a friend who's son almost lost an eye due to an idiot with an air weapon, so I've seen the bad side of what they can do, and if me having to get an AWC reduces the risk for kids like him getting injured, I really don't mind. Yeah, it's a bit more of a hassle buying weapons (and suppressors), or spares for weapons, but I honestly am not that bothered. Most folk would want to get unto air weapons and can show that they have a legitimate reason (and it's not that hard to show that really) will get a licence. Might mean you can't run out and buy a gun immediately you get into the sport, or you may have to get things sent to your local RFD (and I get that's a hassle for some folk, depending where you stay etc.), but I sometimes feel that opposition to it seems a bit over the top. But, I do also appreciate that some fear it's just the thin end of the wedge and 'where does it stop'. That I do understand, and I certainly wouldn't want to see licencing be increased beyond where it is today in Scotland. I also think that suppressors should have been let out of the definition of what needs an AWC. I also think it's a shame that the licensing scheme couldn't have sorted out some of the anomalies, like non-two tone air soft weapons (which should be possible to own if you have an AWC bit not air soft membership) and I also think those with a shotgun or FAC should have been able to own air weapons on that. I'm not sure why some of those issues weren't addressed, although I wonder if some of it's about the limitations of what powers were or were not devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Perhaps they couldn't actually legislate for all those sorts of changes? Who knows? Anyhow, I'm perhaps a rarity in that I'm not all that bothered about AWC requirements in Scotland in principle, but life would be boring if we were all the same and all had the same opinions!

 

Very true indeed. As has been said many times, laws only apply to those who follow them. Owning an air rifle in this country with a power output over 12ft/lbs without a firearms certificate breaks the law, which no one with an ounce of common sense wants to do. But what happens when you find someone who doesn't care about the law or thinks the law doesn't apply to them? The only way in this situation that any criminal charges would be faced is if the person breaking the law is actually caught. In all seriousness, what are the chances of that happening?