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

This is a very important part from the FCSA release, 'We were advised that it’s VITAL that we have an MP, or MPs, on our side, because if they decide to press on with changes to legislation then we will need representation in parliament.'

Who has a pro shooting MP, I would say most see it as a 'toxic' subject.

I can think of one prominent MP who has history as a pro shooting history, Kate Hoey.

Dellboy wrote:As above

After telling some club members at two clubs about this (they had no idea) . The comments were very scary I don't shoot them or I don't want one .Intelligent people just didn't realise the immplication of this (although some Anglo Saxon vocabulary helped get the point across) .
Scary times .

What scares me is that I've spoke to club members that WANT them banned.

I have sent an email back to the Home Office asking for a meeting similar to that given to the FCSA. Does anyone know how the FCSA got there’s? It may be a nieve to think l will get a meeting but it is worth a shot. Whilst l am happy to go alone and if a meeting is achieved l am not suggesting to go mob handed but if anyone else would like to come especially MARS or LR owners to help to put the point across then let me know.

Admin would l be permitted to cite the Forum as the interested party?

Also, what are the gun shops and RFD’s able to do? Do they have an trade association that can make representation?

I ment pro as in a lawyer type person not a pro shooter.I think there idea is to chip away abit at a time.one or 2 calibres at a time.they seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist....!
Drivers using mobile phones is dangerous.

Evening peeps ,

Unfortunately we have enemies inside! ( albeit maybe unintentional) in regard to MARS and lever release...."
When you get t:"ta like Pete Moore posting on YouTube ( a video that includes comments such as " this is designed to get around the law" and " some comment regarding speed of action" )
This doesn't actually help our case !!!!!
There are others who have " twisted the tail"
There is no point in living in the past ( yes I would like a 1911 and an M1) we are where we are, and surely we should defend the current position ?
If the law ( yes I know it's flawed and passed by idiots ) says we can have x then hoW do you expect them to react when we have x+1 released and ADVERTISED as such?

I realise that .50bmg etc......is a different issue ( whilst I will do what I can to support 50 folk, I don't actually understand any of the technicalities)

Other opionions are avalailable, see radio times for details.

Best the Greek

Brian838 wrote:

Dellboy wrote:As above

After telling some club members at two clubs about this (they had no idea) . The comments were very scary I don't shoot them or I don't want one .Intelligent people just didn't realise the immplication of this (although some Anglo Saxon vocabulary helped get the point across) .
Scary times .

What scares me is that I've spoke to club members that WANT them banned.

Find different clubs...

simong wrote:Evening peeps ,

Unfortunately we have enemies inside! ( albeit maybe unintentional) in regard to MARS and lever release...."
When you get t:"ta like Pete Moore posting on YouTube ( a video that includes comments such as " this is designed to get around the law" and " some comment regarding speed of action" )
This doesn't actually help our case !!!!!
There are others who have " twisted the tail"
There is no point in living in the past ( yes I would like a 1911 and an M1) we are where we are, and surely we should defend the current position ?
If the law ( yes I know it's flawed and passed by idiots ) says we can have x then hoW do you expect them to react when we have x+1 released and ADVERTISED as such?

I realise that .50bmg etc......is a different issue ( whilst I will do what I can to support 50 folk, I don't actually understand any of the technicalities)

Other opionions are avalailable, see radio times for details.

Best the Greek

They way I see it, had lever release been available ( I understand its not a new invention but was not widely available ) at the time of the legislation drafting, they would have probably included it.

Imagine the road traffic act defined a motor vehicle as having an internal combustion engine ? Then years later, electric engines are available. Do you really think they would be exempt from the legislation ? Or from being looked at in a re-write ?

I have already ( a couple of years ago )looked at modern electric servos ( after realising a co2 bulb system would never be powerful enough ) and miniature powerful lithium batteries. The theory was to fit a servo to the side of the rifle just in front of the cocking lever. Upon firing, the shooter would flick a switch or press a button on the forend and the servo would push back on the cocking lever then release it to travel forward unimpeded ( basically the servo would do what the shooters hand does on a straight-pull )

Being honest - for a short while - I had dreams of a servo small enough to fit in a Kalashnikov gas tube and was imagining a revolutionary self contained, hidden unit etc......

This would be totally compliant with the letter of the law as it currently stands. As we know, nothing is mentioned re electric motors / servos etc. Not too long before all this consultation talk started, I had even approached a guy who specialises in this field and had just the sort of servo I needed. And a battery pack small enough too. I very nearly made up a prototype !!

But, the realist in me knew that although compliant, it would be viewed by certain people as a way to circumnavigate the law and achieve a semi auto rifle in all but name.

In short - they have prohibited semi automatic rifles - any alternative with an element of automation will be seen as us "pushing" and they will "push back".

I dont like it. I dont like to see the innocent punished. I dont like to see technichal innovation stifled. But I really do think thats how they are thinking.

There are people far more technically minded than me out there and could probably come up with many systems to operate a bolt at the pres of a button etc - and I bet they gave up for the same reason as me.

Sim G wrote:

Brian838 wrote:

Dellboy wrote:As above

After telling some club members at two clubs about this (they had no idea) . The comments were very scary I don't shoot them or I don't want one .Intelligent people just didn't realise the immplication of this (although some Anglo Saxon vocabulary helped get the point across) .
Scary times .

What scares me is that I've spoke to club members that WANT them banned.

Find different clubs...

I have done. Posted my letter on Wednesday stating I would not be renewing my membership in 2018.

breacher wrote:
I dont like it. I dont like to see the innocent punished. I dont like to see technichal innovation stifled. But I really do think thats how they are thinking.

There are people far more technically minded than me out there and could probably come up with many systems to operate a bolt at the pres of a button etc - and I bet they gave up for the same reason as me.

I'm really not sure they are capable of that level of thinking! If this is all driven by the Police being worried they will face a hypothetical threat they can't match, they will simply highlight a feature or collection of features they're not comfortable with and lobby Government until they get their way.

The features this time are 'rapid fire' and 'high energy' rifles. It doesn't matter to them how likely they are to come up against them, how they work, how many law-abiding citizens are affected by their confiscation, how many businesses are affected or anything else apart from them getting their own way and taking more control over what we are allowed to do.

If this goes through, they won't rest there because they'll just move down the list to the next feature.

JSC wrote:

breacher wrote:
I dont like it. I dont like to see the innocent punished. I dont like to see technichal innovation stifled. But I really do think thats how they are thinking.

There are people far more technically minded than me out there and could probably come up with many systems to operate a bolt at the pres of a button etc - and I bet they gave up for the same reason as me.

I'm really not sure they are capable of that level of thinking! If this is all driven by the Police being worried they will face a hypothetical threat they can't match, they will simply highlight a feature or collection of features they're not comfortable with and lobby Government until they get their way.

The features this time are 'rapid fire' and 'high energy' rifles. It doesn't matter to them how likely they are to come up against them, how they work, how many law-abiding citizens are affected by their confiscation, how many businesses are affected or anything else apart from them getting their own way and taking more control over what we are allowed to do.

If this goes through, they won't rest there because they'll just move down the list to the next feature.

Not sure I agree. Those behind this are the types behind the 1988 amendment. And its a form of push back.

They were not concerned with bolt action centrefire nor .22 semi auto then, are still not and it will likely stay that way.