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

JSC wrote:

HH1 wrote:
An RDF at our club seems to think that they will include the SGC lever Release along with the MARS and just put the whole lot on Sect 5 and not pay out any compensation :-(

Tell him to read the Consultation Impact Assessment:

Page 2: "The only other cost is to the government as there will be a need to compensate private gun owners who surrender their firearms. This is expected to cost between £1.0 million and £1.1 million in the first year of the policy."

I'm still framing my response to the consultation but I thought I would point out that £1 million would be better spent on recruiting extra police officers to tackle the knife wielding feral youths on scooters that are terrorising our cities instead of persecuting a law abiding minority who are simply pursuing a sport that presents no threat to public safety.

Get Diane Abbott to do the sums and you could get around 33,000 coppers for that!

pigsy wrote:I’ve received a response from my MP. Hopefully my letter was rational and well worded yet I feel the response hints that this is perhaps a foregone conclusion. My initial reaction was to respond and state that perhaps the tools of the current terrorists - rental vans, HGV’s and chefs knives should also face similar scrutiny using that logic but have refrained.

“Thank you for your recent email regarding the consultation on offensive and dangerous weapons.

It is my understanding that Ministers have said that in proposing to prohibit the ownership of .50 calibre 'materiel destruction' rifles of a type that the potential range and penetration of these weapons are such that they are a significant risk if they, or the ammunition, were to fall into the wrong hands, which is why it has proposed that they no longer be allowed for civilian use.

That being said, I do understand your concerns around the points you've raised on the way in which the wording of the consultation is handled, so I have forwarded your views onto the Home Secretary to view as part of the consultation, but I would also encourage you to respond to the consultation directly.

I hope that is helpful in the meantime.

Best wishes”

i'd like to see your whole response letter because that reads identical to part of my response which says they are using a standard template !

Apart from my name that was the entire e-mail.

I'm based in Wandsworth (if we share an MP) but it would not be surprising that a template is used and sent by the MP's aide.

my response from my MP , I have asked again when he is holding a surgery so I can meet him , so far no response and to be honest I had to make a nuisance of myself on his social media to get a response in the first place so I doubt he's going to respond this time without prompting!

Thank you for contacting me about the firearms consultation.

I appreciate the importance you place on protecting individual freedoms, but I also think we should be proud of the robust approach we take to firearms possession here in the UK. Ensuring our firearms laws and licensing system have ample safeguards is the best way to ensuring that lethal firearms do not find their way into the hands of those unfit to possess them.

Regarding this consultation specifically, as you may already know, the proposals laid out in the Government consultation on offensive and dangerous weapons propose moving two firearms (.50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles) from the general licensing arrangements to the stricter provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. This provision prohibits the ownership, other than as authorised by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers of more dangerous, non-civilian firearms such as handguns and automatic rifles. The consultation sets out legislative measures to reduce violent crime, responding to recent rises in police-recorded firearm offences.

The Government has said that in proposing to prohibit the ownership of .50 calibre 'materiel destruction' rifles of a type developed for use by the military, it considers that the potential range and penetration of these weapons are such that they are a significant risk if they were to fall into the wrong hands. For this reason, it has proposed that they no longer be allowed for civilian use.

Similarly it is also proposing to prohibit ownership of rapid firing rifles, as the rate of fire with these weapons is significantly greater than a conventional bolt-action rifle. As the intention of the Firearms Act is to prohibit civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms and the threat such weapons pose, the Government also believes it appropriate to subject such rifles to the controls of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. I understand that you may have an objection to such a move, which is why I would encourage you to contribute to the consultation to make your opinions heard.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to get in touch again if you have any further concerns.

Regards,

Matt

If they start sending cut and paste replies they want a snot-a-gram response from you as their website specifically says that cut and paste letters from us won't be looked at!

The wording isn't identical in those two responses, but that's really not a big deal. What is, is that they are considering banning .50 cal and MARS rifles and the justification is that they need to do something about the rise in police recorded firearms offences, when as far as we know, they have never been used in a firearms offence, although the Home Office claim they don't keep records of the type of firearm used (which is very misleading in itself).

There is a story here and what we need is someone in the mainstream press to pick it up and show that the Home Office are not acting in the public's best interests and hiding the true statistics regarding gun-related crime.

JSC wrote:The wording isn't identical in those two responses, but that's really not a big deal. What is, is that they are considering banning .50 cal and MARS rifles and the justification is that they need to do something about the rise in police recorded firearms offences, when as far as we know, they have never been used in a firearms offence, although the Home Office claim they don't keep records of the type of firearm used (which is very misleading in itself).

There is a story here and what we need is someone in the mainstream press to pick it up and show that the Home Office are not acting in the public's best interests and hiding the true statistics regarding gun-related crime.

That's what we need. But it doesn't follow the rhetoric of the mainstream media to project the truth, only to further an agenda :(

racalman:

I'm still framing my response to the consultation but I thought I would point out that £1 million would be better spent on recruiting extra police officers to tackle the knife wielding feral youths on scooters that are terrorising our cities instead of persecuting a law abiding minority who are simply pursuing a sport that presents no threat to public safety.

We all know that the way crime is "fought" now is to create a NEW crime e.g owning a .50 cal - and then removing the threat by stealing your guns. That way it's a100% clean up rate and gullible people will believe the lying politicans.

The fact that the community is the most law abiding in the country or that non eof those guns have een used in a crime doesn't matter. "Creating new crimeS" is the new crime fighting tool. It sucks but it's so much easier than what you suggested - tackling REAL issues!

I see mention of preventing semi autos: so when will .22 get hit because AFIK that's the only LEGAL semi auto we have. If MARS was a full bore semi it would never have hit the shelves would it?

Just fired a letter off to the Home Secretary, in my bestest handwriting!, will let you know if I get a response