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

So what's so hard about redacting names, governments do it all the time. The "victims" excuse is a red herring, there's more to it than that methinks. they didn't have the same "victims" issues with that Hillsborough disaster did they?

Chuck wrote:So what's so hard about redacting names, governments do it all the time. The "victims" excuse is a red herring, there's more to it than that methinks. they didn't have the same "victims" issues with that Hillsborough disaster did they?

No idea about the red herring however the victims referred to are not the shooting victims, these victims are still alive hence no names. It relates to victims before the shooting as far as I know.

the reason the order was imposed was to protect the identities of children who were named as alleged victims of abuse in the report, which investigated incidents at a summer camp run by Hamilton.

http://www.full-bore.co.uk/viewtopic.ph ... 15#p175615

Sim G wrote:

Gaz wrote: et al.

Thing is though Gaz, this Ammendment to the Act was in itself repealed by the 1997 No2 Ammendment, brought by the new Labour government in Dec 97. So if already appealed, how can it be "reverted" to? I think you may be over complicating it a bit, which, given the whole gamut of our firearms legislation, is easy to do. Hence, a completely new Act is the way forward...

Missed this in the morass of anti-bashing...!

My thinking is this: Act A says certain things may be done.
Act B restricts those things.
Act C overwrites Act B and says they can't be done.
Thus, if you delete Act C, you revert to the situation under Act B.

But I much prefer Iain's solution of altering 3 or 4 lines in existing acts, thus avoiding the danger of an all-new Firearms Act which would inevitably create more restrictions.


As for identifying Hamilton's victims, that's straightforward to get around (as Chuck says, redact them) and there's no excuse for withheld evidence to remain so in this day and age.

Gaz wrote: My thinking is this: Act A says certain things may be done.
Act B restricts those things.
Act C overwrites Act B and says they can't be done.
Thus, if you delete Act C, you revert to the situation under Act B.

But I much prefer Iain's solution of altering 3 or 4 lines in existing acts, thus avoiding the danger of an all-new Firearms Act which would inevitably create more restrictions.

A very quick look at the concept of repealing law in the UK, particularly without replacement, is far, far more complicated than we suppose. Likewise, Act B cannot be reverted to if Act C is repealed, as Act B, in it's repeal by the enactment of Act C, leaves It effectively expunged from legislation as if it never happened!

Iain's may seem like the "safest" method of reinstatement, but, even then, the whole basis of firearms legislation is a 46 year old Act, with more "Amendments" than my old Vauxhall Chevete! My thinking is simply, old and over complicated legislation, should a government or Home Secretary decided that some sort of "action" due to any sort of incident, may be done so by using the power granted him/her in other legislation, to do so arbitrarily taking it nowhere near the house....

Fortune does favour the brave. The last thing any government would ever expect would be those that potentially could be disadvantaged from new legislation, actually be the one's who demand it!! We could, even using some of the work that the Home Office has recently done, formulate a "draft act" that gives us what we want. The fact is, previously legislation rapidly approaches half a century old and shooting and firearms ownership is so different to what it was then. We even have new "types" of guns that would probably never have been envisaged, such as LBR's.

And ultimately, even taking Iain's idea, possibly the safest and most low key, could be all that is needed for the government to realise and come after us whilst completely unprepared!

I don't wish to state in a public forum such glaring concepts in current legislation that could be turned on their heads without much effort or convincing of the electorate, just in case officialdom is blissfully unaware and hadn't considered certain things, but, if any of us give it some thought, we could be legislated out of existence whilst trying to fight a rear guard action...

Nah, I say we, that is no doubt a representation of the shooting bodies, employ the services of certain people and go for it. We may, with some small concessions, actually secure shooting and gun ownership in this country for the next 50 years. But, if we wait in the vain hope we won't be noticed, we're stuffed.....

nfrancis wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by that, I shoot handguns because I enjoy it , and use my own equipment.

You can shoot IPSC comps in this country with air pistols. Its the only way to do IPSC pistol unless you have a go at the odd one or two LBR/LBP events that get put one now and again.

The point being that if we are using IPSC as a reason for valid use of competition pistol shooting we probably need to make sure we know what the acronym stands for at least.

My reasons:

I have had a pistol for the last 4 years. I live on the mainland UK. My pistol is a proper semi-auto 45ACP Section 5 Firearm which is held under Section 7.3. No coat hangers, 7 shot with a 4 inch barrel.

I shoot the gun reasonably regularly - I have done for the time I have owned it. I have not gone tonto with it. Nor have I gone tonto with a knife, axe, transit van, car, can of petrol or any other damned thing that could be used as a weapon.

I am an average law abiding citizen of this country and I can demonstrate that not only I, but my fellow club members are all responsible gun owners and can all have pistols without going out and causing a major incident.

The fact of the matter is that there is no valid reason to have imposed laws that prevent me from pursuing pistol shooting lawfully as one one my chosen sports and hobbies. I want to be able to shoot pistols of many varieties in competitions of my choice and there is absolutely valid, credible or sensible reason why I, and people like me should not be allowed to do so…….. other than an irrational law imposed at huge expense to the taxpayer and which trampled on the rights of law abiding citizens in an effort to score political points among the ignorant.

People need to drop the old-school defeatist mentality. We need to start going out and educating the public about shooting sports and get them to see the fallacy of the knee-jerk reactions. Rather than trying to fight public opinion we need to be working to change it and point out that the Pistol ban was just the start of over a decade of nanny statism that saw almost every adult in this country criminalised in some way by an entire tranche of over 11,000 new laws which collectively criminalised and punished the majority because of the actions of the minority.

I disagree with those who say that laws can never change. If people give up and say that things can never change then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy borne of apathy. If people work to change public opinion and we use the worlds sporting events and our success as a shooting nation to boost our numbers then we will start to bring a greater level of understanding to the public.

I have introduced three people to shooting this month alone. They are new shooters who are joining clubs and they will become ambassadors for the sport. If they work to introduce three people a year to the sport then we will see those three become nine, who in turn will introduce people and spread their knowledge and understanding among their friends.

The worst thing we can do is say it is hopeless and take a defeatist stance. If we do that then we stand to loose more.

Man-up….go out and be proud of your sport.

Sim G wrote:
Fortune does favour the brave. The last thing any government would ever expect would be those that potentially could be disadvantaged from new legislation, actually be the one's who demand it!! We could, even using some of the work that the Home Office has recently done, formulate a "draft act" that gives us what we want. The fact is, previously legislation rapidly approaches half a century old and shooting and firearms ownership is so different to what it was then. We even have new "types" of guns that would probably never have been envisaged, such as LBR's.

And ultimately, even taking Iain's idea, possibly the safest and most low key, could be all that is needed for the government to realise and come after us whilst completely unprepared!

I don't wish to state in a public forum such glaring concepts in current legislation that could be turned on their heads without much effort or convincing of the electorate, just in case officialdom is blissfully unaware and hadn't considered certain things, but, if any of us give it some thought, we could be legislated out of existence whilst trying to fight a rear guard action...

Nah, I say we, that is no doubt a representation of the shooting bodies, employ the services of certain people and go for it. We may, with some small concessions, actually secure shooting and gun ownership in this country for the next 50 years. But, if we wait in the vain hope we won't be noticed, we're stuffed.....

Sim you do realise that the guy who coined the phrase 'Fortune Favours The Brave' died due to his actions

However, I totally agree with you, this is the forward thinking approach we need, BASC have a team of lawyers, why don't the BSSC put forward a piece of proposed legalisation, a draft bill, save the government the work, If all bodies, BASC, NRA, NSRA, CPSA, Shooter's Rights Association and the Sportsman Association put forward this proposal, with some favourable MPs, the other thread shows it, there are some there, and certainly many more out there, I doubt those in NI will oppose this.

One thing we have on our side is Apathy. The general public are too lazy to vote on, or argue, something they disagree with unless it specifically affects them, and even then the majority will just take it lying down. They'll take to Facebook and twitter and moan, but how many would actually make the effort to do something constructive that could actually affect a repeal or new legislation. From the discussions I've had recently on Facebook it's clear that almost none of my family/friends even realise that guns are legal in the UK already, just restricted.
If the shooters of this country could actually manage to unite (even you Dave and Neil or I'll thump you) we could have a clear majority of opinion.

Having read the first 3 pages of this and the usual suspects dragging this into the usual polarised camps, the only thing i would say is that any serious attempt at a handgun repeal must be timed correctly. i.e. not be done the year before, or the year of a general election, and it must not be done on a 'square' year with 1996 i.e. 20, 25,30 year anniversary of the shootings