Readily Convertible Imitation Firearms

Following tests carried out by the National Crime Agency (NCA) many blank firing pistols and revolvers sold in the U.K. over a number of years were suddenly deemed to be ‘readily convertible into firearms’. Such converted firearms would be classified under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, possession of which would attract a minimum, mandatory five year custodial sentence.

In March 2024 the NCA contacted a registered expert and Chartered Forensic Practitioner with the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences specialising in the examination and classification of firearms, ammunition and associated items, and requested that he obtained a range of blank-firing imitation firearms ‘imported and present within the UK commercial and retail market place post 2023 to establish if these blank firing imitation firearms could be considered readily convertible into firearms as defined by section 1(6)(a) and 1(6)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968.’

This was no doubt initiated by the recovery of a large number of such blank firing imitation firearms which had been modified to allow the discharge of projectiles, and which had featured in criminal activity.

It was found that the blank firing guns could be converted into firearms, and as a result information was released by the Home Office which was posted on the National Police Chief’s Council website on 22nd January 2025 pointing out that:

‘Firearms legislation has not changed; the [blank firing] weapons are illegal to own under the Firearms Act 1968 as they can be readily converted using household tools and without specialist skill on the part of the person carrying out the conversion. Recent testing by the NCA has demonstrated this.’

An amnesty ran from 3rd to 28th February 2025 allowing those in possession of such blank firing pistols and revolvers to surrender them.

Since that time, a number of persons still in possession of revolvers and pistols of this type have been charged with possession of a prohibited weapon under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968.

When unmodified blank firing pistols and revolvers are seized there is a move now to submit them to a specialist to have them converted, often before the defence have been able to instruct their own expert. Some laboratories do not undertake this act of conversion, in my view quite rightly.

I was instructed in a recent case in Nottingham Crown Court which among other charges related to the recovery of a Turkish-made Ekol Viper 3” six-chambered blank firing revolver in 9mm Rimmed calibre. The revolver was brand new and unmodified.

It was sent for conversion by the same expert who carried out the tests for the NCA, and at the time I was able to examine the revolver the barrel had been sawn in two places, and barrel blockages had been removed. It was now capable of discharging projectiles.

Ultimately the defendant chose to plead guilty to the offence, and to my knowledge no case of this type has yet been tried before a jury.

The Act relied upon by the Crown is section 1(1) of the Firearms Act 1982 which states:

This Act applies to an imitation firearm if-

(a) it has the appearance of being a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act (firearms requiring a firearms certificate) applies; and

(b) is so constructed or adapted as to readily convertible into a firearm to which that section applies.

Section 1(5) of the Act provides a statutory defence stating:

‘In any proceedings brought by virtue of this section for an offence under the 1968 Act involving an imitation firearm to which this Act applies, it shall be a defence for the accused to show that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the imitation firearm was so constructed or adapted as to be readily convertible into a firearm to which section 1 of that Act applies.’

Another aspect relates to the skill required to cause an imitation firearm to be brought to firing condition. Section 1(6) of the 1982 Act establishes certain criteria stating:

‘For the purposes of this section an imitation firearm shall be regarded as readily convertible into a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies if-

(a) it can be so converted without any special skill on the part of the person converting it in the construction or adaptation of firearms of any description; and

(b) the work involved in converting it does not require equipment or tools other than such as are in common use by persons carrying out works of construction and maintenance in their own homes.’

Although the tools used in the conversion of the blank firing revolvers were readily available from sources such as B&Q, in my view a question must surely be raised regarding the skill of the person converting them.

The conversions have been undertaken by a registered expert specialising in the examination and classification of firearms, ammunition and associated items who holds a degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.) in ‘Firearms Examinations’ This seems to fly directly in the face of the statutory requirement that the imitation firearm must be convertible ‘without any special skill on the part of the person converting it in the construction or adaptation of firearms of any description’.

A further issue relates to the manner in which the evidence of the expert could be put before the jury. If the processes by which the imitation firearm was converted are explained to the jury, perhaps using the gun in its modified form to aid the explanation, they have then been provided with a step by step guide to the conversion of the gun. Many things appear simple when they have been explained by an expert, but it is suggested here that the correct test would be whether the jury felt they could convert the imitation firearm without first being told how to do it, and rather than showing them a converted gun, they should be provided with an unconverted imitation firearm of an identical type to that forming the basis of the trial, should the prosecution be able to obtain one.

There is no doubt that converted imitation firearms have featured frequently in criminal activity; I can fully understand why there is a desire to prohibit them, and I agree that they should be controlled. In my view however, this should have been achieved by changing the law, rather than having what I consider to be tests of dubious validity carried out, and deciding that the imitation firearms are readily convertible. Slightly amending the wording of section 1(6)(a) of the Firearms Act 1982 would achieve this, and although it is appreciated that this would be more involved than the route adopted by the Home Office and NCA, it would have been the correct approach.