Fishing with bow and arrow?

[dave6223]

chesters1:

hmmm its intesting the word "increase" in relation to an air rifle     :confused:    was the 1963?? act in relation to footpounds or velocity of an air rifle backwards compatible or does it relate to any airguns sold after that date ,i.e if you owned an airgun predating to 1963?? you would immediatly be a lawbreaker because it was more powerfull than the new limit    :confused:  

Not sure what your asking mate, but the law is fairly clear. ANY airgun irrespective of its age must be under 12 ft/lb. The original act came about I understand because the british airgun industry couldn't compete with more powerful foreign airguns and basically co erced the government into the regulations. Thanks very much (name deleted) and (name deleted).

 

Is that what you meant?

 

[ 01. October 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: dave6223 ]

[chesters1]

to nugg,i know that silly ,my point was that in the first section anything with a barrel is a firearm if it can cause significan injury or kill (no mention whether its rifled or smooth) but in the shotgun it stipulates smooth bore hence rubbishing the first bit because it then mentions the smooth bore bit and makes that the reason its different to a firearm :confused:

a brown bess has a smoothbore but it isnt a shotgun ,a bazooka as far as i know has an unrifled barrel and that isnt a shotgun :confused: so the smooth bore bit doesent excuse a shotgun :confused:

so all owners of pre 63 airguns need a firearms cert ,i cant remember any rush to get certs in 1963when the act came about nor owners being forced to restrict their weapons :confused:

i not sure if the law can be retrospective after all old cars dont need seatbelts because they predate the law that says they do ,confusing aint it

 

[ 02. October 2004, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[dave6223]

so all owners of pre 63 airguns need a firearms cert ,i cant remember any rush to get certs in 1963when the act came about nor owners being forced to restrict their weapons

Nope, not true chesters. They would only require fac if they produced over 12 ft/lb of energy at the muzzle.

[chesters1]

most of them did (except the very cheapest) thats why the law changed to bring them into line and regulate them , some very powerfull ones had ether tanks to ensure they were even more powerfull :confused:

i had once (before i sold it) a webly .38 airgun that was prototyped in ww2 as an sniper rifle ,but it was legal as it was just an airgun

 

[ 02. October 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[dave6223]

chesters1:

most of them did (except the very cheapest) thats why the law changed to bring them into line and regulate them , some very powerfull ones had ether tanks to ensure they were even more powerfull    :confused:  

i had once (before i sold it) a webly .38 airgun that was prototyped in ww2 as an sniper rifle ,but it was legal as it was just an airgun

Sorry Chesters, it just isn't true. Most British airguns were within 12 ft/lb, even in those days. The Wbley Mk3 and The BSA airsporter never developed more than 12 ft/lb. The regulations were introduced at the request of the British airgun manefacturers, because they couldn't compete with some of the foreign models. The "ether" injection model you refer to is the Weirauch, I think the HW 35 or its predecessor, but it was inconsistent,inaccurate and not well liked. But it still didn't generate in excess of 12 ft/lb. You're right, there were some large bore airguns developed to explore possible military uses, but none ever made it into service as far as i know. Most of the guns you might come across these days, that are pre 63 will almost certainly be legal today.

 

Dave

[Nugg]

I don't see the flint lock mentioned either, but it would be a hell of a long statute if it had to mention every conceivable configuration.

 

Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile. Thus, in order to be classed as a firearm, an object must be a weapon, it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired and the effect of the missile on the target must be lethal. Lethality is defined as "capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury.

[chesters1]

i think the ones i`m reffering to come under the antique weapons bit as were talking of old stuff not those modern airsporters etc and that ether wasnt restricted to german? airguns but many played with it ,pity i sold the webly being .38 it used obselete ammo and it looks exempt

where can we reveiw the complete acts the ones listed are only parts ,theres nothing relating to bows but it does include crossbows :confused:

another confusing bit is about reproduction weopons if i joined a re-enactment society would i need to have a firearms cert to own a new but old style muzzle loading pistol using black powder :confused:

if it was rifled but fired only blanks (i.e no ball) but was capable off is it a firearm?

 

[ 02. October 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[fenboy]

What's the problem? Carp are non-indigenous trash fish in the US and sportsmen with bows and arrows are`addressing the problem.

They're also alien to the UK, introduced in the Middle Ages by a bunch of religious fanatics (monks). They're ruining our native fisheries.

Shoot 'em, I say (the carp, not the monks).

Or why not get the great invasion of asylum seekers/immigrants to catch and eat them? Even better.

Bring back the burbot, I say.

[Nugg]

where can we reveiw the complete acts the ones listed are only parts

 

Not quite as easey as that Chesters. Happy reading, and don't fall asleep.

 

 

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/

 

Pop in firearms act 1968 in the search

[Newt]

fenboy - we got plenty of burbot so if you can figure out a legal way to get them over there, let me know.