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

The National Ballistics Intelligence Service, a police organisation which specialises in gun crime, handed deliberately misleading evidence to the Law Commission about the alleged misuse of antique firearms, compromising the integrity of the commission’s ongoing consultation and review into current firearm laws.

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... rm-misuse/

Caveat - I know the Law Commission wrote its review based on information handed to it by the police. They're lawyers, so they'll understand the law perfectly, but stuff like this which is based on events in reality (as opposed to statute) could have come from NABIS, Continuity ACPO or possibly even the Home Office. Though given NABIS' track record of political lobbying on antiques I'm 90% certain it's from them.

I know there's a lot of wise people on here, some with more time on their hands than others. If there's any other inaccuracies hidden in the report, now is the time for the shooting community to flag them up with the Law Commission.

The point here is that when presenting "evidence" to support an intended outcome the lack of substantive evidence leads to invention.

Any organisation, or indeed individual, will do this....our politicians have been doing this for years.....hence the invasion of Iraq.

The fact that a pressure group within the police should do this comes as no surprise. That this "evidence" might be believed will come as no surprise either.....recent arrests on so called "historic sexual abuse" have been made on much flimsier evidence....

Sadly our national shooting organisations lack the backbone to anything about it......

Did anyone expect any different.!

T/Man

Sadly our national shooting organisations lack the backbone to anything about it......

You got that right.

Ok,ok-so,complete ban on firearms,no more criminals....no more police too...looks like shot in the foot to me ?

polemass wrote:Ok,ok-so,complete ban on firearms,no more criminals....no more police too...looks like shot in the foot to me ?

The purpose of the police is to impose the will of parliament upon the population. Hunting criminals is not important, it just gives them something do to look respectable.

If hunting criminals was important they would not be proposing another 22,000 cut in staff.

Egg on Leggs1 wrote:

polemass wrote:Ok,ok-so,complete ban on firearms,no more criminals....no more police too...looks like shot in the foot to me ?

The purpose of the police is to impose the will of parliament upon the population. Hunting criminals is not important, it just gives them something do to look respectable.

If hunting criminals was important they would not be proposing another 22,000 cut in staff.

Is that a typo? You seem to have missed out a letter "n" somewhere

saddler wrote:

Egg on Leggs1 wrote:

polemass wrote:Ok,ok-so,complete ban on firearms,no more criminals....no more police too...looks like shot in the foot to me ?

The purpose of the police is to impose the will of parliament upon the population. Hunting criminals is not important, it just gives them something do to look respectable.

If hunting criminals was important they would not be proposing another 22,000 cut in staff.

Is that a typo? You seem to have missed out a letter "n" somewhere

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... 22000-jobs

Gaz,

In your usual Anti police rant - I think you are actually missing a very simple point! - the gun is/was an antique (Sec58) but the defence was never used in court/interview etc- no dispute there.

BUT and it is a big BUT - you can quite simply buy and sell antique firearms without a licence or any traceability - how they then get used is the issue being put over.

You cannot argue the fact, it is an antique, it was bought/sold without licence legally (doesn't need) one - ammo was illegally sourced and the firearm used.

MiLisCer wrote:Gaz,

In your usual Anti police rant - I think you are actually missing a very simple point! - the gun is/was an antique (Sec58) but the defence was never used in court/interview etc- no dispute there.

BUT and it is a big BUT - you can quite simply buy and sell antique firearms without a licence or any traceability - how they then get used is the issue being put over.

You cannot argue the fact, it is an antique, it was bought/sold without licence legally (doesn't need) one - ammo was illegally sourced and the firearm used.

You're right, I got it wrong for that exact reason, as the Law Commission very politely pointed out.....

However, I don't think it's right to assume the crim did buy it legally under section 58, in the absence of positive evidence that he did (and all I could find out by nagging the court was that he didn't raise s58 at or after arrest). The last thing we want is to encourage MPs to engage in whataboutery and start banning more things just because someone can think of a way he might have got his hands on it. Let's see evidence of an actual problem before supporting bans and restrictions "just in case".

Put it this way. If he actually bought the revolver off a fellow crim, would you support repeal of section 58?

You're famous Gaz

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nsultation