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

bnz41 wrote:

snayperskaya wrote:Has anyone received a response from their MP that isn't a copy and paste reply?.

Yes got a letter through the post that she (my local lady MP is against anyone having firearms not even the police) has taken time in writing on a computer or someone did and she signed it. But still it's a reply a month to the day I sent her a email about our concerns banning something that has never been used in any form of crime.
She also states ref .50 cal (quote,,,, I understand that these rifles are more powerful than standard British Army rifles) ER don't the Army have .50cals then.....

But she goes through the reasons why it is the Goverments & MP's duty to keep the public safe.

I did not vote for her.

I had the same bit about "standard British Army rifles" in my response too, sounds like the same standard response letter, or a variation of.

Just about anything is more powerful than a "Standard British Army rifle." just shows how irrelevant the information these so idiots are being fed.

kevinww wrote:Just about anything is more powerful than a "Standard British Army rifle." just shows how irrelevant the information these so idiots are being fed.

Oh the irony of a MP pointing out such inadequate equipment being issued to our Armed Forces......

kevinww wrote:Just about anything is more powerful than a "Standard British Army rifle." just shows how irrelevant the information these so idiots are being fed.

The "standard British Army rifle" is not even deemed powerful enough to humanely kill most deer in England..........

On page 16.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... c_0906.pdf

my legalese isn't great. isn't the firearms acct 1988 an amendment to the 1968 firearms act? so is this amending an act that is amending an act?

also, what would this get tagged onto? is this just outright banning reloading, or is it banning reloading if you do not have an FAC?

I'm trying to figure that out, but there are that many new amendments being proposed I'm not sure what it will mean for us law abiding types.

They are basically taking something ( reloading kit ) and saying it will be illegal to possess IF you intend making ammunition you are not authorised to have.

Which is going to be very hard to police !

Once you are discovered with the ammo, you are in the poo regardless of how you got it.

A bit like focusing on the hacksaw when you catch someone with a sawn off shotgun !

Difficult to imagine any clause outside the scope of the original proposals being adopted at this stage , as being so far from the initial consultation they should be exempted on the grounds of not following due process ( my words not legalise).
Though such proposals will likely form the basis of future reviews of firearm legislation. It almost turns the current proposals into a fishing expedition for criticism and suggested revision of legislation as a whole.
Next time round, s58,sgc and cartridges, reloading supply purchase and security, air rifles and pistols, home security etc etc.

Try this response from an anti

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... OWB157.htm

At this point in the Bill’s progress only the Bill Committee members can vote on the inclusion (or not) of any amendments. The Offensive Weapons Bill Committe has a 10-9 Conservative majority.

There will still be an opportunity for MPs to debate further amendments at the Report stage though. Critical thing is to remember the Government will not want to adopt any amendment which conflicts with current policy, ie outright prohibition on handloading. The costs associated with this would be significant, and I’m not sure this is actually what the two MPs sponsoring this amendment actually want either. The drafting has presumably been undertaken by their staff members, who simply do not have sufficient understanding of the various Firearms Acts to avoid such unintended consequences.

Obviously I could be completely wrong, and they do want to prohibit all handloading on the basis it will make shooting as a sport cost prohibitive in a number of cases. I have a slight worry here, as the same MPs have placed an amendment to prevent under u18s from using air weapons outside recognised clubs.

Make your MPs aware of the impact, especially if they sit on the Bill Committee.

Ceri