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

Bear with me, this is a bit protracted but I'll give you the thought process.....

Whilst BSing with an RFD mate of mine on the phone, the question of "Heard anything further on the Select Committee and what they are going to do" again cropped up. In short, we are both of the opinion that after these hearings and the Bird massacre, it is very unlikely that something will not come of it, for the worse, for shooters. Granted, the Government have a lot on their plate at the minute and hopefully too much to consider the shooting community, but, we always seem to be late to the party when fighting proposed legislation.

My mate reckons, the biggest problem we have is numbers. Not enough people shooting. He's scathing about the NRA, but accepts that BASC are probably the most efficient organisation at the minute and they certainly have an air of respectibility with government.

Now lets look at the banning aspect, bcause that's the ultimate as far as we are concerned. In the '88 ban, we were talking about 10000 people who had around 17000 semi and pump rifles confiscated. I don't know how much that cost as an awfl lot were paid the "flat fee" of £150. My mate took 10 years to get his sorted as he wouldn't take that. Anyway, the handgun ban saw 60000 people lose 200000 pistols.

I have a letter rom Anne Widdecombe that says she could not get an accurate figure on the cost of the handgun ban as "compensation" was paid out over three financial years. That said, I have heard of figures in exces of £1 Billion pounds to individuals and the trade and that the ban itself cost half a billion pounds a year to the economy......

So, when we talk about numbers, is that the amount of certificates in circulation, the amount of people in organisations, or what? Obviously, the number on orgnisations books gives a reflection and it allows them to employ the right people to advise and fight in court etc. However, what if the "numbers" everyone refers to is purely pounds, shillings and pence? What is the cost of any further ban because of the amount of guns in circulation?

The total amount of guns is easily found out. Could it be that these are actually the figures that need to be swelled? What if there was a concerted effort not to increase membership of the organisations, which is still a good idea, but to swell the number of guns owned by those with a ticket? Mmm, could make sense.

So I ask my mate how many cheap guns he has? A couple of dozen, either taken as part ex to sweeten a deal or because someone just wants rid of something. This gets me thinking. And if someone bought one of his cheap guns could the money ever be gotten back? Certainly, when part ex'd again! He reckoned dealers all over the country have thousands of "parts bin specials" just sitting there.

So the question is, how many vacant slots on your FAC do you have or does your SGC only have a clay buster on it? What if you filled these vacant slots and added a couple of shotguns for nothing more than swelling the number of guns in your possession and giving the government another factor to think about? I'd imagine they'd have a ball park figure to work with when totting up potential "value" of what's held and with a half decent shotgun costing a grand and a half decent .22 rimfire around 500 quid, a 100 pound gun added to your ticket for no other reason as far as you are concerned, than to represent a far bigger challenge to a ban than a stern letter to some schister of an MP!!!!

This could also have the added value of stimulating a struggling gun trade by just getting a little money running through the tills. And it really would have to be just a little money. A quick look on GT has loads of guns listed at under £100! That's not far off a years membership of a shooting organisation.....

So, I've put my money where my mouth is. Over the phone I've bought a SxS, 12ga hammer gun by ASM for 50 quid and a rough, but very serviceable 10/22 for £75! The hammer gun actually fits into my "western" theme and I'm going to use the Ruger to develop my "refurbishing" skills, or lack of them! And, my mate reckons that should I part ex the ASM, then any dealer would offer me a 50 quid trade in and I may even eventually turn a profit on the 10/22 if I don't fvck it up completely! I don't really lose the slot either. It was sitting on my FAC and the right one hadn't come along, but when it does, I just one-for-one it.

So, what do you reckon? One hundred pounds to save our sport and get a "free" gun into the bargain?

Great Idea Sim.....I've had a similar train of thought too since the handgun ban. On my budget I figured that I could buy a couple of upmarket guns or a large number of cheaper but still shootable guns like P14, T4, Greener 12G, 410 Enfield 12Ga Win Pump Baikals, BSA Martinis etc.

Currently I have 40 Long Guns, 20 on my own certificate and 20 on my Club certificate. Shotguns are the cheapest way to go, no variation fee, and no waiting, just walk in in and buy.
The only worry is FEO demanding a higher level of security but Police Guidlines seem reasonable up to 20 Guns.

Yes, I got mad after Dunblane and decided one way to fight back was to do as you suggest.

Gun Ownership In England and Wales...

Only problem for me is 9 slots to fill!!!

Don't forget...If you have a few bob, you can still have a sizeable real handgun collection on a sec7 authority.

Couple of shooting buddies have a collection held at Manchester, one has 12 handguns and the other has 25

Good idea, but for me I have no spare slots, apart from the SGC.

To help this idea along, I think it is time for the wife to get her own FAC, that way I can have my slots back and everytime she sees a L/A she likes, she can organise it. :lol:

Great idea Sim, the sport does itself no favours so by acquiring as many guns as possible the statistics become more favourable when someone does something daft. Ideally we need more FAC holders but a slong as people still cling to "their" discipline as the be and end all that will take time. Likewise decrying ANY young licenced or lawful shooter is foolhardy to say the least.

Like it or not we are getting older and we need the new blood, shooting anything and everything...

Great idea , and although it will be a difficult thing for me to do somehow I will force myself to indulge in many more of my favourite toys .
bob1

Hi guys,

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere some years ago that if the government decided to ban a particular firearm(s) and the firearms were voluntarily surrendered then they are under no obligation to pay compensation? For example, when the health and safety regulations are changed, there are costs involved to a business, etc, and the Government isn't obliged to compensate, because it is about public safety. We've been compensated in the past but I don't know if the "precedent" card can still apply? Did the Home Office write some kind of clause that applies for all future changes in legislation?

I'm sure someone must know the answer to this question? Maybe a representative from the BASC or from the NRA could answer this one?

Looking forward to a definitive answer.

"Did the Home Office write some kind of clause that applies for all future changes in legislation?"

I doubt that that can be done.

Where I wrote Home Office I meant government.

You don't think they'd be stupid enough not to cover their a*s for any future changes to legislation?

Is there anything in law that states they've to compensate? Is there any guarantee that compensation will be paid in respect of any firearm that may, in the future, be reclassified as prohibited?

It's an interesting question.