Re: New laws coming?
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:28 am
That the consultation is so badly written / evidenced peversely adds weight to the "foregone conclusion" train of thought. Having chosen to go for such a small section of the shooting community resistance will be relatively insignificant, the mod having stopped use of field firing ranges adds to the idea of a perceived problem and efectively means there is nowhere to use a .50 in the manner intended.
Hopefully when the proposed legislation comes before parliament there will at least be some meaningful questionning from mp's who are right minded enough to be signposts and not flags, however there will no doubt be insufficiently few of them to overturn a vote in favour.
After that you would hope that the shooting organisations fund a judicial review, done properly I would like to think that there is a chance of success on the grounds of the lack of evidential justification. However if the MOD's review of the use of .50's on their land , by civilians,is such that use is severely restricted or ceased then good reason for ownership is much curtailed.
As an aside, in my letter to my mp, I asked why ,when faced with a supposed threat of terrorist aquisition and use of the firearms covered by the legislation , it was proposed to ban such firearms, surely for there to be such assessed risk other measures were more appropriate in a modern society,
In that curtailing the currently lawful activities of a countries citizens instead of dealing with the threat directly, was effectively giving in to terrorism. If the goverment is unable/unwilling to protect its citizens by either detaining or monitoring those considered to be a risk, then the next course of action should be to fund / implement measures that allow the law abiding to continue their way of life.
Society has some strange values, this weekend and a coiple of weeks back we've had plenty of news coverage of two horrendous road traffic accidents in whic a total of 11 people have died, in one the vehicle was stolen and hit a tree in the second a multiple vehicle collision resulted in carnage, which though still to be investigated, from the news coverage posted speed limits seemed to be 40mph, given the damage and death toll excess speed seems to likely to be an issue. However there was instead talk of time since the last gritting.
We hear endlessly from spokespeople of the sympathy and compassion felt for thosevthat lose loved ones, but never hear after an investigation of such events words to the effect that the senseless irresponsible actions of an individual has resulted in a loss of life and bought great distress to many. Or ofvthe criminal history ofvthe wrong doer. Whilst there is no need to speak ill of the dead, there is similarly no need to gloss over the poor character of those who cause such great suffering, otherwise we normalise those who act in such a manner.
Hopefully when the proposed legislation comes before parliament there will at least be some meaningful questionning from mp's who are right minded enough to be signposts and not flags, however there will no doubt be insufficiently few of them to overturn a vote in favour.
After that you would hope that the shooting organisations fund a judicial review, done properly I would like to think that there is a chance of success on the grounds of the lack of evidential justification. However if the MOD's review of the use of .50's on their land , by civilians,is such that use is severely restricted or ceased then good reason for ownership is much curtailed.
As an aside, in my letter to my mp, I asked why ,when faced with a supposed threat of terrorist aquisition and use of the firearms covered by the legislation , it was proposed to ban such firearms, surely for there to be such assessed risk other measures were more appropriate in a modern society,
In that curtailing the currently lawful activities of a countries citizens instead of dealing with the threat directly, was effectively giving in to terrorism. If the goverment is unable/unwilling to protect its citizens by either detaining or monitoring those considered to be a risk, then the next course of action should be to fund / implement measures that allow the law abiding to continue their way of life.
Society has some strange values, this weekend and a coiple of weeks back we've had plenty of news coverage of two horrendous road traffic accidents in whic a total of 11 people have died, in one the vehicle was stolen and hit a tree in the second a multiple vehicle collision resulted in carnage, which though still to be investigated, from the news coverage posted speed limits seemed to be 40mph, given the damage and death toll excess speed seems to likely to be an issue. However there was instead talk of time since the last gritting.
We hear endlessly from spokespeople of the sympathy and compassion felt for thosevthat lose loved ones, but never hear after an investigation of such events words to the effect that the senseless irresponsible actions of an individual has resulted in a loss of life and bought great distress to many. Or ofvthe criminal history ofvthe wrong doer. Whilst there is no need to speak ill of the dead, there is similarly no need to gloss over the poor character of those who cause such great suffering, otherwise we normalise those who act in such a manner.
clapclap