So these are legal then? just got a sarcastic comment back last time I asked........ but I think it's pretty important. Still stands that we discussed this weeks ago and I asked the HO..... they said there was no straight answer but any case would probably be tried as a firearms offence. So if you know different please reassure us. But from the looks of your earlier post "we'll be checking with the home office before selling in the UK" then I'd make sure sharpish.
If it's firing anything but paintballs and anything more than one shot per pull, then it's back into section 5 of the firearms act.
I hope everything is OK, if so we'll be ordering and moving to indoor practice.......... but if not this could save a lot of bother later.
I hope this helps
This is direct from the HO I can forward the letter if you'd like
IaanBurke@aol.com
Mr Iaan Burke
Reference: T7624/4
Dear Mr Burke,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 4 March about the legality or otherwise of using rubber rounds in a paint-ball gun.
By virtue of section 48 of the 1997 Act, firearms using compressed carbon dioxide as the power source are treated as air weapons and, if not regarded as “specially dangerous” are exempt from the firearm certificate procedure. The majority of guns powered by carbon dioxide which discharge paint pellets are unlikely to cause serious injury, were not designed as weapons and are not therefore considered to be firearms. The use of rubber rounds in a paint ball gun is another matter and raises the issue of lethality.
The definitive caselaw in this area is Moore v Gooderam (1960) in which it was held that the lowest muzzle energy at which an air weapon could inflict a penetrating (lethal) injury was about one foot pound. Thus, according to Moore v Gooderam, an air weapon becomes a firearm subject to the control of the Firearms Act 1968 if it is capable of discharging a missile at a muzzle energy of or greater than one foot pound. At muzzle energies less than that, an air weapon would probably be held not to be a firearm. To be on the safe side, the Forensic Science Service advice is that the limiting muzzle energy should be considered to be one joule.
Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide whether a paint ball gun using a rubber round is a firearm subject to the control of the Firearms Act 1968.
Yours sincerely
Sandra Stowe
Firearms Section
If it's firing anything but paintballs and anything more than one shot per pull, then it's back into section 5 of the firearms act.
I hope everything is OK, if so we'll be ordering and moving to indoor practice.......... but if not this could save a lot of bother later.
I hope this helps
This is direct from the HO I can forward the letter if you'd like
IaanBurke@aol.com
Mr Iaan Burke
Reference: T7624/4
Dear Mr Burke,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 4 March about the legality or otherwise of using rubber rounds in a paint-ball gun.
By virtue of section 48 of the 1997 Act, firearms using compressed carbon dioxide as the power source are treated as air weapons and, if not regarded as “specially dangerous” are exempt from the firearm certificate procedure. The majority of guns powered by carbon dioxide which discharge paint pellets are unlikely to cause serious injury, were not designed as weapons and are not therefore considered to be firearms. The use of rubber rounds in a paint ball gun is another matter and raises the issue of lethality.
The definitive caselaw in this area is Moore v Gooderam (1960) in which it was held that the lowest muzzle energy at which an air weapon could inflict a penetrating (lethal) injury was about one foot pound. Thus, according to Moore v Gooderam, an air weapon becomes a firearm subject to the control of the Firearms Act 1968 if it is capable of discharging a missile at a muzzle energy of or greater than one foot pound. At muzzle energies less than that, an air weapon would probably be held not to be a firearm. To be on the safe side, the Forensic Science Service advice is that the limiting muzzle energy should be considered to be one joule.
Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide whether a paint ball gun using a rubber round is a firearm subject to the control of the Firearms Act 1968.
Yours sincerely
Sandra Stowe
Firearms Section
", great, but it will be a lot harder to compete without a marker, which is what could happen if we push our luck. As it stands, if someone from the HO were to take a fast marker and load it with target re-balls for testing, rightly or wrongly they might decide to ban the marker rather than the ammo, as they've always done in the past. As long as we regulate ourselves, things are fine. As soon as people start trying to push the envelope of the law, we face potential problems.