You say you’ve not modified a firearm. Then you explain that the rifle in question was a firearm over the 12ftlbs limit classified as “especially dangerous” and therefore a section 1.
The alleged issue here is that a non RFD sold a section 1 firearm to a potentially unlicensed person. This was then modified by yourself to reduce the power however as know once a section 1 always a section 1. Therefore if the rifle in question was illegally sold to your friend as claimed regardless of your modifications had it ever been a section 1 your friend is now in possession of a section 1 firearm lacking the correct paperwork.
It’s worth remembering that this is a strict liability offence. Whilst IANAL I wouldn’t want to go admitting to modifying a potential section 1 personally and would refer the matter and the rifle at your earliest convenience to your FEO.
Not entirely true unless you can show otherwise . There was a case where a owners rifle was above the limit and the prosecutor and defence agreed it could be turned down . Some airguns can creep up in power . Not sure how it would work with one deliberately put up over the limit though.
An Example . If my HW80 crept over and was doing 13ftlbs and i went to court and used the information below , I dare say i could be left off unless it was proved it was deliberate.
Weapons with a muzzle energy that varies over time.
1.189 The problem is illustrated in R v Puttick.287 P pleaded guilty to possessing a .22 air rifle
(unloaded) without a firearm certificate contrary to section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968.
P told police that he had owned the air rifle for about 20 years. Upon testing, the
highest muzzle energy velocity was 13.7ft/lb, and therefore above the permitted level of
12ft/lb stated in the 1969 Rules (as an air rifle declared to be “specially dangerous”).
However, in mitigation, P adduced an expert’s report that at the time of purchase, the
rifle had been “within the limits” such that no certificate would have been needed for it.
The experts agreed (prosecution and defence) that with ordinary use over time, an air
rifle which was manufactured within the legal limits might creep over the limit without
further modification, “and that appeared to have happened in this case”.
1.190 The section 1 offence is one of strict liability, and thus, on the facts in Puttick, it seems
that a person in possession of an air weapon can creep in and out of the ‘legality zone’
depending on the condition of the gun.288
1.191 P’s counsel informed the Court of Appeal289 that, with expert assistance, the air rifle
could be brought back within the limits laid down by the 1969 Rules. The point is of
interest in that some regard would need to be had (it is submitted) to section 7 of the
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 that restricts the ‘back conversion’ of specified
firearms.
His case was in 2000 , he claimed the rifle was 20 years old so I would assume it was a leather sealed springer and it was possibly dieseling when tested.
For all we know the old owner of the PCP may have been maintaining and had no idea what they were doing and no Chrono and then sold it on not knowing it was over . Some will say that wont happen but most people know it can happen and some have even bought them brand new over the limit , so do they all go back to the RFD and then get put on the FAC register ? I don’t think so as people have taken them back and had them adjusted to sub12 .
