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

All those consuktations never consult those that it effects, and when they do they ignore it - see Scotland / Scottish Nazi Party / Airgun bans / Licensing ./ Consultation / Results: Ban and Licensing NOT NEEDED.

Stop deluding yourslef that "consultations" are fair and will do what the results show, because they never do! Tame "pressure groups" and police impersonators funded or supported by the government will rule the roost, they always do.

Whatever your opinion will be, it will not matter.

Laws are deliberately vague to keep lawyers and judges in a job. aaarggh aaarggh Laws are WRITTEN BY LAWYERS.

The list of consultants include BASC, BSSC, HBSA, CA and GTA (and the GCN). No mention of the NRA or NSRA.

Compensation should be paid if firearms are removed by virtue of the FA, but if they are banned by another means (VCRA? Think 'effectively banned' like certain Brococks) then there may be no provision or requirement for compensation.

bradaz11 wrote:

Marmite5 wrote:No, I think that they (ACPO/NPCC) think the envelope has been pushed too far already and whilst the MARS and Lever Release rifles may comply with the law (not tested in Court yet) they do not comply with the intent of the law when it was introduced as amendments to the 68 Act.

The Police don't want two separate actions, they don't want any firearms at all.

Its a consultation on the scope of a review in any case so submit your thoughts.

how are we supposed to know what laws are intended to do? we can only know what they say. and then work to that.

everyone has different interpretations. the point is a law should be written robustly enough that it does what it is intended for, and is not open for interpretation.

I think its fairly obvious what the intention was.

Which is why black powder pistols were allowed when modern pistols were not.

And why a bolt action .223 is allowed but semi auto is not.

Rate of fire was the perceived issue. And the lever release / mars will be looked at with rate of rire in mind.

Like I said before ban ban ban f*** ban demand the sheeple, media, plod, homeoffice, snp, labour, Scotland, MOD, GCN, ACPO, mums net, rspca, criminal scum, animals rights, terrorists we ain't got chance but alteast go out fighting respond to the commission and later on the government purposesels for a future firearms, weapons and tools (codification admenment) act 2016

I wish I never took up shooting in this country now

Marmite5 wrote:You are all worrying far to much, its a CONSULTATION on the SCOPE of a review.

What 'e sed.

Let's take our time, we've got until September. I'm more worried that everyone's now going to spam the Law Commission and drown out the serious responses from the licensed firearms community.

Gaz wrote:

Marmite5 wrote:You are all worrying far to much, its a CONSULTATION on the SCOPE of a review.

What 'e sed.

Let's take our time, we've got until September. I'm more worried that everyone's now going to spam the Law Commission and drown out the serious responses from the licensed firearms community.

Spam them?
I thought we were supposed to be sending in photos of kittens!

I've chucked the questions alone online here: https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... s-in-full/

saddler wrote:Spam them?
I thought we were supposed to be sending in photos of kittens!

Cunning, crash their porn filters and derail the review...
https://galbaatar.files.wordpress.com/2 ... c06478.JPG

I doubt they will be introducing licensing for magazines as there are so many out there already but I for one would not be bothered if they introduced a requirement to present a FAC to a retailer in order to buy a magazine, same as they did for primers.

And there you go, let's just give it away for no reason. Apathy, the death of the sport

FAC for magazines and then the police will complain more work so more costs - and then you will "NEED" those extra magazines.....convenience will not be a need will it. And of course what happens when it's a licensing dept that hates practical rifle / shotgun etc...

Oh and what happens if you LOSE one????? Will you need a variation to replace a broken one??? At what cost??

Chuck wrote:And there you go, let's just give it away for no reason. Apathy, the death of the sport

FAC for magazines and then the police will complain more work so more costs - and then you will "NEED" those extra magazines.....convenience will not be a need will it. And of course what happens when it's a licensing dept that hates practical rifle / shotgun etc...

Oh and what happens if you LOSE one????? Will you need a variation to replace a broken one??? At what cost??

Although I wholeheartedly agree with you that any of the rights we currently exercise should be given away, I'm sure that John's comment on UK Shooting News wasn't intended to convey that a licensing requirement for magazines should be introduced. Rather, that it wouldn't be onerous to prove "good reason" for the purchase of magazines - similar to the current system regarding primers.

That being said, I would strongly disagree that any amendment regarding magazine is an appropriate addition to legislation.

Chuck wrote:

I doubt they will be introducing licensing for magazines as there are so many out there already but I for one would not be bothered if they introduced a requirement to present a FAC to a retailer in order to buy a magazine, same as they did for primers.

And there you go, let's just give it away for no reason. Apathy, the death of the sport

FAC for magazines and then the police will complain more work so more costs - and then you will "NEED" those extra magazines.....convenience will not be a need will it. And of course what happens when it's a licensing dept that hates practical rifle / shotgun etc...

Oh and what happens if you LOSE one????? Will you need a variation to replace a broken one??? At what cost??

WHere did you get that little gem from??