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

Dellboy wrote:Dromia sums it up perfectly

Indeed.

Mikaveli wrote:
BASC had a meeting and clarified it was just .50 cal and MARS-based action rifles.

I personally know Mike E, BASC Senior Firearms Officer... so I plan on asking him about the situation when I get the chance.

As regards the SGC Lever Release rifles, they are far more common than the MARS rifles.... I make than assertion from the fact that I personally know five other owners of SGC LR's within just two of my clubs.... whereas I don't personally know a single MARS owner.

I know two guys with MARS rifles (and have shot one of them), neither of them pose any risk to public safety.

Someone else mentioned there's only 78 (iirc) .50 cal owners - so the government is very much targeting niche categories. That's why we need to stand up for them - they won't have a big enough voice by themselves.

I am of the opinion that the rapid firing firearms and knives part of this consultation is intended to address what they see as mechanisms which "cheat" and whilst complying with legislation, achieve the same thing that the legislation was meant to prohibit.

The prohibition of semi auto fullbores was introduced to stop civilians possessing firearms capable of high rates of fire. The MARS and Lever Release are designed to be as close to self loading as is possible while adhering to the letter of the law. 

The .50 cal - I think the fact that .50 ( as opposed to .338 or other HME ) is being looked at is because the application is primarily anti-materiel. The authorities see them as closer to the artillery end of the spectrum than the rifle end of the spectrum. My guess is they will want a wording which will deal with firearms designed to be used against vehicles etc - it wont just be .50 cal, it will be any anti-tank rifle or any anti-materiel rifle.

Assisted opening knives are also designed to achieve what flick knives do whilst staying within the letter of the law - ie - allow deployment of the blade rapidly with one hand. 

It is for this reason I believe .22 semi auto and straight pull will not be focused on. They are not an attempt to achieve something which legislation has prohibited.

breacher wrote:I am of the opinion that the rapid firing firearms and knives part of this consultation is intended to address what they see as mechanisms which "cheat" and whilst complying with legislation, achieve the same thing that the legislation was meant to prohibit.

The prohibition of semi auto fullbores was introduced to stop civilians possessing firearms capable of high rates of fire. The MARS and Lever Release are designed to be as close to self loading as is possible while adhering to the letter of the law. 

The .50 cal - I think the fact that .50 ( as opposed to .338 or other HME ) is being looked at is because the application is primarily anti-materiel. The authorities see them as closer to the artillery end of the spectrum than the rifle end of the spectrum. My guess is they will want a wording which will deal with firearms designed to be used against vehicles etc - it wont just be .50 cal, it will be any anti-tank rifle or any anti-materiel rifle.

Assisted opening knives are also designed to achieve what flick knives do whilst staying within the letter of the law - ie - allow deployment of the blade rapidly with one hand. 

It is for this reason I believe .22 semi auto and straight pull will not be focused on. They are not an attempt to achieve something which legislation has prohibited.

That's fairly negative (and naive ).

It's complying with the law - it's not like a Volkswagen test cheat, where they only self-eject during testing - then go semi-auto in normal use is it?

Besides, is straight pull so very different - it could easily be interpreted as a form of pump action - and that's before we even start to look at some of the parts bin specials...

Mikaveli wrote:

breacher wrote:I am of the opinion that the rapid firing firearms and knives part of this consultation is intended to address what they see as mechanisms which "cheat" and whilst complying with legislation, achieve the same thing that the legislation was meant to prohibit.

The prohibition of semi auto fullbores was introduced to stop civilians possessing firearms capable of high rates of fire. The MARS and Lever Release are designed to be as close to self loading as is possible while adhering to the letter of the law. 

The .50 cal - I think the fact that .50 ( as opposed to .338 or other HME ) is being looked at is because the application is primarily anti-materiel. The authorities see them as closer to the artillery end of the spectrum than the rifle end of the spectrum. My guess is they will want a wording which will deal with firearms designed to be used against vehicles etc - it wont just be .50 cal, it will be any anti-tank rifle or any anti-materiel rifle.

Assisted opening knives are also designed to achieve what flick knives do whilst staying within the letter of the law - ie - allow deployment of the blade rapidly with one hand. 

It is for this reason I believe .22 semi auto and straight pull will not be focused on. They are not an attempt to achieve something which legislation has prohibited.

That's fairly negative (and naive ).

It's complying with the law - it's not like a Volkswagen test cheat, where they only self-eject during testing - then go semi-auto in normal use is it?

Besides, is straight pull so very different - it could easily be interpreted as a form of pump action - and that's before we even start to look at some of the parts bin specials...

Naive ? Rubbish !! What IS naive is thinking that pushing boundaries is one-way only. Yes, we can push boundaries to create new mechanisms but they can also add legislation to address new technology not present orininally.

Negative ? No - realistic. If someone goes to the trouble to prohibit something, you can be sure they will add amendments to deal with attempts to circumvent it.

Yes its complying with the law but its achieving exactly what the law was originally put in place to prohibit !!

Like any law - it will get updated as and when mechanisims not invented at the time come into use.

Straight pull is a form of bolt action. Has been around for ages. Was not "invented" in response to any legislation. Look at Schmidt Rubin etc.

Ok - imagine if legislation laid down speed limits and defined a vehicle as having an internal combustion engine ? Then along come electric vehicles and drivers decide that the speed limit is not applied to them as by the letter of the law their car is not defined as a vehicle ? Dont you think they would amend the legislation to also deal with the new technology ?

"Rapid fire"?

Michael Ryan fire 84 rounds over a period TWO HOURS. You'd exceed that by some margin with a flintlock musket (or a side-by-side farmer's shotgun for that matter).

This isn't about gun control, it's about CONTROL.

Not helpful Brian.

breacher wrote:

Mikaveli wrote:

breacher wrote:I am of the opinion that the rapid firing firearms and knives part of this consultation is intended to address what they see as mechanisms which "cheat" and whilst complying with legislation, achieve the same thing that the legislation was meant to prohibit.

The prohibition of semi auto fullbores was introduced to stop civilians possessing firearms capable of high rates of fire. The MARS and Lever Release are designed to be as close to self loading as is possible while adhering to the letter of the law. 

The .50 cal - I think the fact that .50 ( as opposed to .338 or other HME ) is being looked at is because the application is primarily anti-materiel. The authorities see them as closer to the artillery end of the spectrum than the rifle end of the spectrum. My guess is they will want a wording which will deal with firearms designed to be used against vehicles etc - it wont just be .50 cal, it will be any anti-tank rifle or any anti-materiel rifle.

Assisted opening knives are also designed to achieve what flick knives do whilst staying within the letter of the law - ie - allow deployment of the blade rapidly with one hand. 

It is for this reason I believe .22 semi auto and straight pull will not be focused on. They are not an attempt to achieve something which legislation has prohibited.

That's fairly negative (and naive ).

It's complying with the law - it's not like a Volkswagen test cheat, where they only self-eject during testing - then go semi-auto in normal use is it?

Besides, is straight pull so very different - it could easily be interpreted as a form of pump action - and that's before we even start to look at some of the parts bin specials...

Naive ? Rubbish !! What IS naive is thinking that pushing boundaries is one-way only. Yes, we can push boundaries to create new mechanisms but they can also add legislation to address new technology not present orininally.

Negative ? No - realistic. If someone goes to the trouble to prohibit something, you can be sure they will add amendments to deal with attempts to circumvent it.

Yes its complying with the law but its achieving exactly what the law was originally put in place to prohibit !!

Like any law - it will get updated as and when mechanisims not invented at the time come into use.

Straight pull is a form of bolt action. Has been around for ages. Was not "invented" in response to any legislation. Look at Schmidt Rubin etc.

Ok - imagine if legislation laid down speed limits and defined a vehicle as having an internal combustion engine ? Then along come electric vehicles and drivers decide that the speed limit is not applied to them as by the letter of the law their car is not defined as a vehicle ? Dont you think they would amend the legislation to also deal with the new technology ?

As far as rationalising the motivation for this response from the government, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

We are pushing to the brink of existing legislation and making something on the fringes of legality by making new actions such as the MARS, and of course the government are paying attention as it certainly is a way to try and circumvent the legislation.

I don't think you're being negative, positive or indifferent, just observant of what is happening. I think that really that makes you the opposite of naive.

I didn't see you agree or disagree with the government, and I'd hazard a guess that you're more against any further restrictions on law abiding gun owners, regardless of the motivation for it, as that's my opinion.

What doesn't really comply with this reasoning is the fairly obvious grab at legal firearms from the .50cal perspective.

Also, since LBP are categorised under the same exemption of exemption certificates (I know, but it does make sense, honest), does that mean that if they get their way they'll be next, as they're a response to the knee jerk legislation that saw Pistols removed from Section 1, perhaps they'll be next on the poop list. :(

Airbrush wrote:Not helpful Brian.

Not meant to be !

I am merely pointing out what I believe they are trying to achieve. And their probable rational.

Now whether what they are doing is right or logical is another debate !

For the record I am against restrictions. I am law abiding and dont want to be punished when I do nothing wrong.

But I am a realist. And I know how police officers and prosecution lawyers think, having spent many years amongst them.