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

Mattnall wrote:

Sixshot6 wrote: Following the law, fancy that. Anyone think I as a MARs owner need to be worried at all?

Well, you will insist on owning a 'dangerous firearm'.

So apparently we're all criminals for following the law then ? Fancy that. I thought the opposite. I seem to recall they tried to screw over straight pull owners at the time. Hopefully things work out that way again. I'm half waiting for the day when they say lets abolish even the pretense of due process and actually having a parliamentary debate. It would be more honest at least.

Sixshot6 wrote:

Mattnall wrote:

7.34(2) Modernisation – ensure the law is fit for purpose in the 21st century and
takes account of technological advances. There is evidence to suggest
that dangerous firearms are now being manufactured with the purpose of
ensuring they do not fall within the definition of ‘prohibited weapon’. This
is because the Acts do not take into account recent developments and
opportunities for firearms manufacture. Codification would ensure the law
is adaptable and can be easily amended to take account of these recent
developments.

Looks like someone is rattled by the lever-release and MARS style of rifle.

Following the law, fancy that. Anyone think I as a MARs owner need to be worried at all?

I'm curious as to how they could change the definition of Manual opp so easily also. But then again nothing surprises me anymore.

Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law ! Edit to say I am not against working within the law to achieve progress but lets face it, when they banned semi autos it was ARs and AKs that they were thinking of.

If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.

breacher wrote:

Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !

If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.

I know that "spirit of the law" crap and they still have AR type rifles that don't have the "features". I guess we'll just have to wait and see and try and proactively try and avoid being screwed over.

breacher wrote:
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !

If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.

I had some rifles returned from Australia as, although they were legal as far as the customs were concerned and passed every test they did, the State Police deemed them to look especially dangerous and so were not allowed to be forwarded. Luckily customs said they could be returned.

Sixshot6 wrote:

breacher wrote:

Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !

If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.

I know that "spirit of the law" crap and they still have AR type rifles that don't have the "features". I guess we'll just have to wait and see and try and proactively try and avoid being screwed over.

Yes - and dont you think they can see HOW those states have gotten around it by fitting "sporting stocks" to ARs AKs etc - and would just ban firearms "resembling military firearms".

It looks like the police have treamed up to for once for all ban all guns from the public while at the same time have more guns for them selves !
Fac / SGC holders are in increasing and that's scarying them !
I want to see shooting organisation fight this hard ! We have a Tory government so that's in our favour

ACPO
Working against you for a safer government

Sixshot6 wrote:

breacher wrote:

Yes - and dont you think they can see HOW those states have gotten around it by fitting "sporting stocks" to ARs AKs etc - and would just ban firearms "resembling military firearms".

And how would they define that, you have to define what is banned for it to be so.

Mattnall wrote:

breacher wrote:
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !

If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.

I had some rifles returned from Australia as, although they were legal as far as the customs were concerned and passed every test they did, the State Police deemed them to look especially dangerous and so were not allowed to be forwarded. Luckily customs said they could be returned.

I seem to recall the only legal straight pull AR in Australia was made there, is not legal in two states and had to be built from the ground up with its own upper and lower.

Sixshot6 wrote:

Sixshot6 wrote:

breacher wrote:
Yes - and dont you think they can see HOW those states have gotten around it by fitting "sporting stocks" to ARs AKs etc - and would just ban firearms "resembling military firearms".

And how would they define that, you have to define what is banned for it to be so.

"They" tend to define things by certain specific attributes, pistol grip stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, removable magazines, etc., i.e. California, New Zealand.

Shooters in such states/countries can then make some attempt to NOT be caught up in the political frenzy by making the gun less "military" in appearance.

Total bollox of course as the bullet that comes out of the muzzle is the same in either case & what a gun does or doesn't look like (Assault Rifle/Star Wars Blaster/Uncle Fred's deer stalking rifle, etc.) has NO EFFECT on it's ballistic performance.

Smoke & mirrors, innit!!

saddler wrote:

Sixshot6 wrote:

And how would they define that, you have to define what is banned for it to be so.

"They" tend to define things by certain specific attributes, pistol grip stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, removable magazines, etc., i.e. California, New Zealand.

Shooters in such states/countries can then make some attempt to NOT be caught up in the political frenzy by making the gun less "military" in appearance.

Total bollox of course as the bullet that comes out of the muzzle is the same in either case & what a gun does or doesn't look like (Assault Rifle/Star Wars Blaster/Uncle Fred's deer stalking rifle, etc.) has NO EFFECT on it's ballistic performance.

Smoke & mirrors, innit!!

Just what I thought, but at the end, should I and anyone else with a MARS/Lever release/Whatever else comes soon, be worried at all?