A decade ago, Mark ‘Swinger' Fulton capped off a night out among the bon viveurs of Portadown by waving a pistol at an off-duty RIR man in the street, and firing four shots in the air. As you do.

When Fulton, a moustachioed associate of LVF leader Billy Wright with a majestic spider's web tattoo on his elbow, was arrested over the incident he had a novel defence: the decommissioning certificate he was carrying at the time.

Swinger tried to argue he was effectively licensed to carry the gun by the certificate, there being a chance he might have handed it over to General John de Chastelain if he'd run into him in Carleton Street.

It didn't work.

Decommissioning legislation is very specific about the amnesties on offer: they refer mainly to the transportation of arms — so a legitimate decommissioner doesn't get sent down for having a truckload of guns he's driving to the General — and to what's done to the arms afterwards. The weapons are supposed to be exempt from any forensic examination.

That was put in place to remove a potential incentive for holding on to the guns — that it might be safer to keep them than turn them over and risk a murder conviction because of a fingerprint on the trigger.

The impression is out there that the amnesty covers any weapons, even those currently in storage

Fulton was sentenced to four years for his escapade and later died in prison, apparently by his own hand.

Swinger’s defence is relevant these days because it has been exposed as remarkably unambitious. Now the impression is out there that the amnesty covers any weapons, even those currently in storage.

That impression has been fostered in part by the NIO’s attempts to put pressure on loyalists.

With decommissioning legislation due to expire in February, and renewal possibly subject to a parliamentary fight, Secretary of State Shaun Woodward and Justice Minister Paul Goggins have been warning that the UDA and UVF may only have months to cough up the guns.

But the suggestion they will get tough after that — Mr Woodward has been talking about clearing the prisons to make room for all the UDA men they’ll pick up — carries the implication that they’re not being tough now.

That notion was reinforced this week by an interview outgoing Assistant Chief Constable Peter Sheridan gave to the Irish News. Mr Sheridan was asked if police have intelligence in place to locate loyalist weapons.

“The short answer to that is yes,” he said. “And then if the opportunity to arrest and prosecute is there, we will.”

He didn’t say they know exactly where the guns are, but gave the impression the arms could be found with little effort.

Later that day Mr Goggins declined the chance to push for those weapons to be found, saying he wants loyalists to hand them in. Then, as questions were building about what Mr Sheridan meant, someone leaked news of a meeting between the UDA, Mr Goggins and Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde.

Would such an apparently relaxed impression be allowed to build about IRA arms, especially if they’d been used against police in the past year, as loyalist guns have?

Some people don’t think so.

“I think that if someone’s killed with one of these loyalist weapons, then the British government is culpable because of their inactivity,” said Mark Thompson of Relativesfor Justice, a group which works with many victims of loyalist violence.

“There’s another question: why aren’t they going after weapons now, when they might have evidence relevant to a murder case? I think the PSNI is left completely open to legal action on this.”