The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... #pb6-l1g28

This is the text of the proposed banning section.
How does under level fall within that? Does it store propellant gas energy somehow?

Rambles35 wrote:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... #pb6-l1g28

This is the text of the proposed banning section.
How does under level fall within that? Does it store propellant gas energy somehow?

Under lever actions, ala Marlin, Winchester, etc, not impacted.

Lever Release and MARS firearms which self unload using propellant gas are the focus of that section of the Bill.

Have your say!

Send your views to the Committee ASAP. It will meet for the first time on Tuesday 17th July.
It will stop receiving evidence on Thursday 18th September.

After that it will go to the report stage which is when MPs will suggest amendments, so it's important all the facts go before the Committee now so they can't claim they haven't received any evidence for this, that or the other.

Keep it objective and factual. Emotional outpourings and moaning isn't going to help.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news ... pons-bill/

JSC wrote:Have your say!

Send your views to the Committee ASAP. It will meet for the first time on Tuesday 17th July.
It will stop receiving evidence on Thursday 18th September.

After that it will go to the report stage which is when MPs will suggest amendments, so it's important all the facts go before the Committee now so they can't claim they haven't received any evidence for this, that or the other.

Keep it objective and factual. Emotional outpourings and moaning isn't going to help.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news ... pons-bill/

Thank you for posting that.

I shall be entering a written submission, to add to my response to the initial consultation, and two rounds of emails to my MP.

And FFS, please stop with the “a lever action can shoot just as quick as a semi” rubbish that seems to be vogue at the minute. That was exactly the argument that was presented with the semi full bore ban, that time citing pump action full bore. Without a second thought, they banned full bore pump as well!

Sim G wrote:And FFS, please stop with the “a lever action can shoot just as quick as a semi” rubbish that seems to be vogue at the minute. That was exactly the argument that was presented with the semi full bore ban, that time citing pump action full bore. Without a second thought, they banned full bore pump as well!

Though it is actually true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... OsQ9eDO3TE

Maybe talk of a ban on lever action rifles will wake up a lot more people to the threat we face.

The Event wrote: Though it is actually true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... OsQ9eDO3TE

Maybe talk of a ban on lever action rifles will wake up a lot more people to the threat we face.

You’ve missed the point.

And I have had guns taken from me in every ban for the last 30 years, so I am well aware. Reponses need to be considered fully, I for one am fed up with spouted rhetoric from both sides.

Sim G wrote:
You’ve missed the point.

And I have had guns taken from me in every ban for the last 30 years, so I am well aware. Reponses need to be considered fully, I for one am fed up with spouted rhetoric from both sides.

Actually I did get the point and I know how it went down with pump action rifles.
But Continuity ACPO/ The Home Office are already aware of how fast lever action rifles are and I've no doubt they will set their sights on them further down the line if they get their way with the lever release & MARS rifles. Just as they will with semi auto shotguns, LBRs & .22 semi auto rifles at some point. As they are all equally describable as having "a rate of fire much faster than a conventional bolt action rifle".
How many people are sitting this one out and not writing to their MPs because their lever action rifle isn't under threat? How many of them would if they realised it will be eventually?

The lever release rifle is only marginally faster to use than a lever action rifle. It is no more dangerous than such a rifle. There is no point in singling it out from the much more common lever action rifle and banning it. If there are claims of a special risk existing for lever release rifles then the risk also exists for lever action guns.
The comparability of these guns to other guns inevitably becomes a part of the argument against banning them just as comparison between .50 BMG and .408 Chey-Tac & .416 Barrett is part of the evidence against banning .50s.
If you don't bring up this part of the debate you are conceding that these guns are all in some way extra dangerous and are helping them justify the ban.

Again, why are we focusing on the firearms ?

It does not matter how powerful it is or how fast it can be fired IF the person possessing it is law abiding !!

Its beyond me why we dont focus on how we as a group are more regulated and more law abiding than pretty much any other group in the UK.

the bill as presented makes very specific references to what is proposed to be moved to section 5 (effectively a ban for recreational shooters), in summary firearms capable of firing a projectile with muzzle energy exceeding 13600 joules and firearms where the gases created are used in the reloading system of rifles excluding rimfire. ( my words but hopefully close enough for the sake of brevity). So these are the points that need arguing against no more no less.
The evidence presented by hmg is disingenuous at best and as we all know firearm offence statistics don’t record offences by legality of the firearm used (at least in stats i’ve seen) or in terms of the person using being legally in possession.
The 50 cal association seem to have worked hard on the muzzle energy limits aspect, but i ‘ve seen very little in regard of mars and lr, both designs were developed (again as i understand) to get as close to a semi auto style rifle as the law as written would allow.
I shoot none of the firearms concerned, but have written several times to my mp and will be doing so again in response to the points raised in the second reading (which he did not attend). The only arguments i have made are solely in relation to the original consultation, the proposed bill ,evidence put forward and that the bill proposes removing private property from people ( who having been through an fac application are about as honest and right minded as it is possible to determine) that has no relation to the gun crime of today.
I see no point in clouding issues with arguments that effectively try to draw comparison with other firearms. Why make an argument wider than it needs to be.
In the second reading there were several mp’s that pointed out that the legislation would be penalising some of the most law abiding in the country and is likely to be the argument that most mp’s would have to agree with.