If such a mythical squadron exist, then yes. As the required storage standards have effectively changed for us, all S1 firearms are being held elsewhere until upgrades can be made to storage facilities.
It does not affect the air rifles we use: those aren’t firearms.
Air rifles are not firearms so certainly wont be covered by this ruling
Air rifles are firearms but in England and Wales those developing a muzzle energy <12 ft\lbs do not currently require a certificate to possess. The law in Northern Ireland and Scotland is different.
exmpa
That’s just another way of saying not covered by firearms certification therefore not a firearm.
Btw
The legal muzzle-energy limit for air rifles is 12ft.lb and for pistols, 6ft.lb. You do not require any form of licence for sub legal-limit airguns. For rifles producing more than 12ft.lb,a Firearms Certificate (FAC) is required.
Therfore undet 12ft.lb equals not a firearm in the eyes of uk law.
And since in the corps we only shoot those under this its irrelvant to call them firearms.
That is the general understanding and the one I was using. It is not the legal definition. 
Hi all, just joined the site and I am reading this thread with interest. Just to clarify a few points from above,
I can confirm that there have been at least two break-ins at cadet units where items have been stolen, one last year (referenced in the article within the Daily Telegraph) in Fife and one more recently in Merseyside. In both occasions the properties where not at the required standard in JSP 440 Part 2 Chap 5 paras 102-104, therefore any units that do not meet those standards have been directed to remove them to a location that does.
Or those that rely on local squadrons holding 103s to get their cadets tested and trained, or those that had the ability to hold the weapons on unit and previously did on occasion…
Legally, perhaps. But not in engineering terms 
Did the Merseyside one involve anything related to DPs or actual firearms.
Cough Cough.
Thanks incubus
I only have grapevine rumours (and not from my most reliable source) that a squadron got done over and rifles bolts and ammo was taken.
The rest of the story is a bit too ludicrous to believe so i dont really want to put it out here. But if its even half true, the police wont take long to find the culprit, they will only need the keyholder list for a list of suspects.
it is disappointing to read that
1 - Armouries are/were not at the required standard
surely this should have been known, understood and mitigated against ie deemed “not for use”
2 - given this was found out last year (now I admit last year could be 30th Dec 2018, but equally could be 2nd Jan 2018) why there wasn’t an urgent review and audit of Armouries in use and to immediately block/ban the use of those armouries that don’t comply
3 - given the theft of the L103s and identification these were not suitable to be classed as “DP Rifles” why something wasn’t done sooner, at the very least a recall of all “DP” weapons.
Seems reading this thread and the Telegraph article that there has only been a reaction (to recall weapons) once it happened a second time to a armoury which shouldn’t have been holding weapons in the first place.
Combine this story (live weapons, stored in “unsecure” armouries, and DP weapons which are not “DP weapons”) with the saga surrounding the Gliding (lack of known servicing on the VGS airframes/lack of papertrail of what work has/n’t been completed) it makes me wonder what other shortcuts the MOD/RAF are taking with regards the hardware that is made available to the RAFAC.
At which point do we find out Spooner huts are “just one strong storm” away from falling over? Or that the electric heaters fitted in Cadet huts and building up and down the country have been slowly poisoning us due to the heating of the coating which contains something it shouldn’t?
Perhaps the RACAC’s insurance is actually only valid when conducting activities on MOD property and as soon as stepping out the compound the legal position of such insurance falls over…?
They were. “Required” is a moving goalpost and dependent upon the whim of senior officers and their assessment of risk.
As far as I can tell, the response was pretty much immediate. We have been good in responding swiftly to these two changes of circumstance, and with the .22 part of the saga I do feel that there was too much of a panic by the senior officers and that we could have had a calmer, orderly response.
It seems to me that the various lacks of clarity and understanding in the world of shooting and the seeming misalignment with what is otherwise expected lies very firmly at the door of the MOD, who persist in failing to understand what it is that the cadet forces do/want/need/use/are.
Removal of 103s originally began latest October 18. 144s is a newer situation.
Couldn’t agree more - I offer our armoury, rifles and facilities to my local wing in order to allow for local shoots.
In return my cadets get to tag along. Win/Win.
Perhaps a regional thing, but the email from SO3 A4 Armament that seemed to kick this off here is dated mid-Feb 2019
Which again goes to back to individual DDH taking different views when something is only a suggestion/guide. (No8 end of life a prime example, some Regions insisting they couldn’t be used after the paperwork ran out, some insisting on immediate return to parent armouries and at least 1 assessing the risk and saying “keep using them I’ll accept that level of risk”)
Intrigued by how many break ins there have been in cadet units and there are several incidents going back over the last 6 years at least and one where there was an attempt on an arms chest.
Which beggars belief that only now, something is happening.
Weren’t the others important enough?
I’ve got an email from Sept stating 103s are now section 5 and subject to the same storage requirements as 98s. Email in Oct from armourer about removal of them.
Removal of 144s began for us last month with the option to make alternative arrangements for LPWs.
No need to worry about theft of L144’s - the firing pins would break soon enough! 