Jump to content

Police interview.... and not the good kind


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Great to see that this turned out well from your point of view.

 

I was drawn to this thread on the basis that I potentially have a similar problem albeit relating to an Air Rifle that I wish to self convert to FAC and I do have permission to acquire one.

 

The AIr Rifle in question is one of those that is particularly easy to tune yet Police Scotland want me to pay an RFD to do this for me. They claim that they need evidence that it is producing the required energy!?

 

Bearing in mind that it is highly likely that all air rifles in Scotland are going to shortly be licensed anyhow, My preference is to do the work my self and then notify them. Am I wrong in thinking that this is acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you need to clarify with the police-poor communication seems often to much exacerbate these issues.

But both you and the police will have to work within current legislation.

 

Any changes-even if 'highly likely' (!!) cannot be the basis for what is legal now.While the Scottish air rifle registration process may be complex ,or not-it is not current law;indeed it isn't easy to see how a 'registration' process really bears on current 'right to possess"-but the important issue would seem to be that whatever changes may/not be made,they are not currently enforceable.....especially as they are not even explicit!.

You may well be able to 'do what you would prefer'-or you may not-but that is defined/interpreted by curent legislation. Don't get that mixed up with what might happen sometime in the future.

You imply that the police want to check the conversion is up to the FAC air rifle minimum,at least. Again,a plausible,but somewhat odd position-though that per se should not impose any problem with the conversion-as that is the point of it-but again you need clarification-there are at least two potential issues-one,who can legally do the conversion;and two,perhaps evidence that it has been done properly,and with a performance test check.

You need to speak more to your FLO and clarify-or risk a repeat something like the previous post's ambiguities and subsequent avoidable hassle for all. Enlightened self interest to do so. Then maybe there won't be 76 variously relevant/not posts on this. :-)

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great to see that this turned out well from your point of view.

 

I was drawn to this thread on the basis that I potentially have a similar problem albeit relating to an Air Rifle that I wish to self convert to FAC and I do have permission to acquire one.

 

The AIr Rifle in question is one of those that is particularly easy to tune yet Police Scotland want me to pay an RFD to do this for me. They claim that they need evidence that it is producing the required energy!?

 

Bearing in mind that it is highly likely that all air rifles in Scotland are going to shortly be licensed anyhow, My preference is to do the work my self and then notify them. Am I wrong in thinking that this is acceptable?

Dont tune it up but tell them you have , if you get arrested just say "Only joking" if not tune it and crack on, win win :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are planning that then they are overstepping their authority. It's not for them to do that, only an elected government can choose to do such a thing and they haven't otherwise it would have been made public by law.

 

Well there is always some scope for interpretation of the law. There is an atmosphere in some circles up here that guns and shooters are bad so should be discouraged. Firearms law is not devolved so they can't change that but they can seek to apply the laws rigorously. Superimpose that with the creation of Police Scotland which seems like Strathclyde Police taking over and you could see a change in approach.

 

Kenny McKaskill was horrified that the average number of 'guns' possessed by an individual was 3. Strathclyde Police seemed to set very very tight ammunition limits compared to other forces. So you could see a situation where there is a general tightening up on grants and conditions as uniform standards are rolled out.

 

Now that is all the future scare mongering. My personal experience on the recent renewal of my Shotgun Cert and a Firearms variation was more balanced. There are a new set of 'forms' There are better questions (from the perspective of assessing risk) so a bit clearer on who has unrestricted access to the house; are you in dispute with anyone; are you in possession of anything you should not have (cracker!) etc. My FAC came back (in a timely manner) with fewer, simpler and clearer conditions that changed nothing but made it easier to understand.

 

So there may be a view that there are Certs out there that should not be, but as they work through it on a case by case basis they may well find that actually there are not heaps of guns held unnecessarily or dangerously and therefore nothing much changes. Here's hoping.

 

As I say, my experience was that the new system will work better (it does not help us if some nutter does have a gun) and some of the old funnies get cleared out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok gentlemen, i have just come back from my interview with Police Scotland. After half an hour or so of deloberating their view was they weren't so worried about about the the singular moderator, but more concerned that i had made more than one and this therefore would mean a serious offence (Section 3 i believe). As i have only made the 1 there was no real issue (the shock :o ).

 

The next problem they had was that i am now a person on their records that has the capabilities to make controlled items - be it moderators or components. As a result they suggested - although not directly - that if i wish to make this kind of thing on a commercial level that i should become an RFD.

Reading between the lines this means anything i decide to do in the future is regulated and not just "Some guy a ken makin guns nd that in his shed' they also said it could open up more opportunities in regards to manufacturing and smithing. This would play in both our favours as i can carry on with what i am doing and also expand one of my current machining companies to accommodate and in return they have another capable person on their accountable list.

 

Im happy with this outcome as becoming an RFD has been on my radar for a while now. Since making this moderator i realised it's well within my capabilities as a machinist and designer to progress into a building full rifles.

 

Thank you to all that chimed in with advice and experience (Y)

 

Watch this space!!

 

Geordie

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good news and best of luck with your RFD future. Glad it was cleared up properly for you.

 

As a note it was probably not the fact you made or owned a moderator, proofed or not. It was probably because you did not notify them, so it wasnt logged on your ticket. They do have to keep track of these things. :) interview was due diligence to clear things up I suspect, we would all moan if it was not managed properly.

I know this was not a public danger issue etc. But what if was a firearm you made and not notified them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he did notify them, that's how the interview came about.....they sh!t a brick and thought the worst...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My moderators are on my ticket and state NVN NVSN (no visible name, no visible serial number).

 

As a pressure bearing component it is liable to be on your ticket, but if you have a space for one then the origin of that moderator is of no significance.

 

Ask for visibility of the legislation over which you're being questioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As a pressure bearing component it is liable to be on your ticket

Is there legislation that says that? My undertanding that it is not because it is a component, because a detachable moderator isn't: but a moderator is subject to S1 control when it is an accessory to a S1 firearm, because it is designed to diminish the noise caused by firing the weapon.

 

This isn't the case if the moderator is an accessory to a S2 gun or sub-12ftlb air weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


blackrifle.png

jr_firearms_200.gif

valkyrie 200.jpg

tab 200.jpg

Northallerton NSAC shooting.jpg

RifleMags_200x100.jpg

dolphin button4 (200x100).jpg

CASEPREP_FINAL_YELLOW_hi_res__200_.jpg

rovicom200.jpg

Lumensmini.png

CALTON MOOR RANGE (2) (200x135).jpg

bradley1 200.jpg

IMG-20230320-WA0011.jpg

NVstore200.jpg



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy