Ban semi-autos. Ban 50 cals. Ban free 1-4-1 variations. Ban magazines…

Internal police documents seen by UK Shooting News have revealed that police firearms licensing employees want to ban: .22 semi-autos; magazine-fed shotguns; all 50-cals; section 2 certificates; free 1-for-1 variations; old spec deactivated firearms; antique firearms; and appeals to courts against police decisions.

UK Shooting News’ author assures readers that this is all real, and not some feverish nightmare.

The gun ban shopping list came to light thanks to a Freedom of Information request made by campaign group Firearms UK.

In what is best summed up as a 26-point rant against virtually every aspect of private firearms ownership in the UK, an unidentified police employee – who UKSN suspects is a very senior figure from the National Police Chiefs’ Council Continuity ACPO’s firearms licensing group – listed all the shooting-related objects that senior police figures want to see banned from private enjoyment in the UK.

Included in the list were:

Section 2 certificates. The police want to abolish the section 2 shotgun licensing system and move everything into a section 1 style system. They justify this by saying it would make the system “cheaper to administer”, which seems to UKSN to be a perverse statement that does not take into account the huge amount of bureaucracy generated by the section 1 system, vis a vis the section 2 system.

Semi-auto firearms and shotguns. The police rhetoric from a year ago, demonising the licensed firearms community and repeatedly stating that we as a whole were ignoring the law by not keeping our firearms securely stored, has continued. “Domestic extremism” is a good enough reason for police figures to demand all semi-autos, firearms and shotguns alike be banned. Realising this may not get through, the police employee writes: “Consideration should be given to amending S5(21)(ab) to read “other than one which is chambered for rimfire cartridges not exceeding .22”.

Magazine capacity restrictions. Hitherto, Britain has not fallen for the American virus of arbitrarily restricting magazine capacities or targeting firearms for bans based on their form rather than function. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. “Consider further limits on the magazine capacity of multi shot shotguns”, writes the police author, “and the introduction of a magazine capacity on semi-automatic rifles.”

“Classification” of LBRs and LBPs. Long-barrelled pistol shooting is a growing sport in the UK, following the kneejerk ban of real pistols in 1997, an election year. The police author writes repeatedly about “classifying” these firearms, which in the context of the rest of the document’s proposals probably means taking the first step to banning them. The actual meaning is not made clear.

Miniature rifle ranges. Section 11(4) of the Firearms Act should be repealed as it allows .22 firearms to be bought without an FAC, say the police.

Free 1-for-1 variations. In one breath, the police suggest it should be considered “if a variation is required where one firearm is being exchanged for another of the same calibre and action” – before stating that if this proposal to remove the variation requirement for a 1-for-1 transaction altogether fails, they should be allowed to charge for 1-for-1s instead.

In a recurring theme, the police author goes on to suggest that virtually everything done by firearms licensing departments, including reprinting certificates with new addresses, should become a chargeable activity. Once again we see that the licensed firearms community are little more than cash cows to the police.

Banning .50 calibre rifles. In a worrying development the police appear to have started a new campaign to ban .50 calibre rifles for no readily apparent reason. Under the heading “material destruction rifles”, the police employee writes: “If someone were to use such a firearm in a firearm related major incident scenario, the results could be devastating. Consideration should be given to making these firearms prohibited weapons.”

Airguns. Despite the police officially rejecting the Scottish Nationalist proposal to make airguns licensable – which since passed – the author of this document appears to have lost touch with his comrades, blandly stating that “further restrictions should be placed on such weapons.”

Old-spec de-acts. The police want to make all pre-1995 de-activated firearms illegal by making the 1995 standard mandatory. This would be hugely costly and criminalise tens of thousands of people across the country for absolutely no good reason – although it would produce a rich seam of arrestable people, who otherwise did no wrong, that could be mined for years to come.

Antiques. As previously discussed on UKSN, the police want to bring in licensing of antiques through the back door by forcing antiques dealers to keep records of customers and making them sign declarations.

Shotgun cartridges, currently not licensed, should be licensed, say the police.

Mandatory training and testing should be made a legal requirement prior to granting a certificate. This raises the spectre of the NRA competency card scheme becoming law, with the police doubtless finding a way of raising revenue through the card scheme while making it harder and harder to take up the peaceful sport of shooting.

New powers of entry without warrant. Chief constables, says the police author, should be able to suspend a certificate pending investigation. This, if you knew nothing about how the licensing system operates, appears reasonable. “Such a suspension should carry a power of entry without warrant in order to seize the certificates and any firearms held by virtue of them,” writes the police employee, who brazenly goes on to state that the suspension should be for a fixed term of six months renewable for another six months through an internal police self-authorisation process. In effect this would be a revocation by another name, evading the statutory controls placed on police to ensure they only exercise the power of revocation in a lawful and accountable manner.

Abolishing court appeals is one of the more offensive suggestions on the list. While both police and public know that the cost of a court appeal starts from five figures and increases exponentially, it looks as if they are not only fishing for hugely intrusive and disruptive powers to target the licensed firearms community but they also want to pull the ladder up to ensure that courts which make binding decisions on the law which the police are forced to obey no longer play a part in firearms licensing.

In effect, a move to a non-binding tribunal-based dispute resolution system, whether or not headed up by a judge, would allow the police carte blanche to make it up as they go along, secure in the knowledge that the worst punishment for ignoring a previous tribunal decision would be a slap on the wrist. When police firearms licensing employees are doing egregiously unlawful things, such as insisting on good reason being provided for a shotgun certificate grant or deciding to simply ignore a club’s application to transfer an FAC from one member to another – both cases that have come to UKSN’s attention recently – the importance of having a binding power to check police ambitions cannot be overstated.

The Home Office Guidance should become an Approved Code of Practice “in order to give police decisions greater weight with the courts,” writes the ACPO employee. While making the HO guidance binding is initially a tempting prospect, one must bear in mind that the guidance has been rewritten half a dozen times in the last 12 months. Each rewrite introduced new restrictions on behalf of the police (removal of rifle bolts for storage is now a “requirement”, for example).

The police have recently convinced the Home Office to “legislate” for them at will: prior to the last 12 months, the guidance had been left intact for about a decade. Putting the guidance on a statutory footing within the current system, whereby no consultation or cooling-off period is needed before the “law” is rewritten, would be akin to telling the police they and they alone would have the power to rewrite firearms law precisely as they want it. This would result in innumerable new restrictions, hurdles and pitfalls designed explicitly to reduce the number of firearms in circulation and people taking part in the sport of shooting, judging by the number of new restrictions that FELWG want to introduce to the Law Commission.

Family members should be consulted if a person applies for a certificate to determine their “suitability”, according to the police. UKSN believes this idea is drawn directly from Canada, where the idea has met with mixed success at best. Continuity ACPO’s employee does not elaborate on why this idea would be a good one, clearly inferring he doesn’t take it seriously.

A list of disclosed documents can be found here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_information_under_th_5?nocache=incoming-702432#incoming-702432

The gun ban shopping list is here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/284961/response/702432/attach/html/32/Law%20Commission%20paper.pdf.html


UKSN’s author finds that writing about the police’s insatiable desire to ban everything about the possession and enjoyment of firearms and shooting is getting depressing, not to mention imbuing him with a sense that no police employee can, or should, ever be trusted with formulating public policy on firearms. Yet, reading documents like these, even the weariest cynic must sit up and take direct action to stop these people from winning. Truly, the price of freedom is constant vigilance against those who would destroy it.

It is worth reiterating that none of this has made it into the Law Commission’s current review. It appears that Continuity ACPO were, mercifully, too slow responding to the LC for this to be included. For the moment, we are safe within the sensible confines of the current licensing system.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Ban semi-autos. Ban 50 cals. Ban free 1-4-1 variations. Ban magazines…

  1. Steven Wolf

    I think the thankful instance that most of these recommendations didn’t make the report on the Law Commission is good but at the same time, it shows that ACPO and senior police figures clearly want our guns. I think anybody who shoots and is apathetic on this on the political front is shooting themselves in the foot. I think everybody who shoots should be supporting things such as Firearms UK, this blog and other pro-gun British websites and organisations, the time to do nothing has to come to an end.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. DNACowboy

    Their hysteria needs reigning in, I’m sick to death of their criminalising law-abiding citizens and the police’s constant attempts to roll-back our liberties.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Ian

      I am an American, so forgive my post. But it sounds to me like the police in the UK do not accept a citizen’s right to defend him or herself in the same mannner in which a police officer would.
      Consider the following situation:
      A dangerous intruder threatens you in your home, and you call the police. The cops will show up with guns because they realize the person they are coming to confront and arrest may be armed himself. Yet, for some reason, the cops think that a homeowner should just tweedle his or her thumbs and wait for them to show up and that the assailant will play along?
      Meanwhile, shit media personalities like Purse Gorgan banter on abut the barbarity of owning a gun, even though he surrounds himself with five armed gurads.
      Cei La Vie, I guess

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Nick

        The police in the UK are not routinely armed – by that I mean it’s a smaller proportion of each force authorised to carry firearms, the vast majority of “Bobbies” in this country are not armed (except with a truncheons).

        Visitors to the UK may see armed police in the airports etc – but that’s a specific role, indeed the vast majority of police are not armed and further – they don’t want to be.

        Like

      2. Evan

        I am also American, and when I read nonsense like this, I am reminded of how lucky I am. I can’t say I understand all the ins and outs of these proposed new laws, as I know very little about UK firearms laws at all, but I find it absurd that you can’t just walk into your local gun shop, fill out a bit of (intrusive and unnecessary) paperwork, and then exchange money for basically any firearm you like and walk out with the gun in hand.

        Is there a movement in Britain to reform your gun laws to something more reasonable and American style? Especially with the UK’s growing Muslim problem, it seems like you desperately need one.

        Like

      3. Iain

        Ian,

        Firstly, in the UK guns are NOT for protection, they’re for sporting use (game, pheasant, etc), else for work (gamekeepers, pest controllers, etc), else for competition (rifles, shotguns, pistols for Olympics and the likes).

        Secondly, if you call the POLICE because of an intruder, it’s highly UNLIKELY that the POLICE will be carrying guns, as only specialist officers do so. Additionally, very few criminals carry guns, outside of TV, gangs, etc!

        As for “a citizen’s rights”, we don’t have any of that “Nth amendment right to bear arms” BS that the US loves so much. However, nor do we have regular mass-shootings like the US does! I’d prefer it stays that way!!!

        However, if you do possess a shotgun/firearm, and an intruder is on your property, and you feel your life (or that of your family etc) is threatened, you can shoot… but be prepared to face years of trials etc, especially if you shoot them in the BACK running away, as you’re likely to be done for MURDER!!!

        Even a Police officer can’t just unload a ‘clip’ of 14 and so he was threatened, a UK police officer (ditto SAS etc) have to justify each and every single shot, one by one, not just the general principle. As a result, UK gangsters only tend to be shot 1 or 2 times by police, not 147 times as in one recent US joyriding incident!

        Iain

        Like

  3. Dave Bickenson

    The ACPO has held the view for a very long time that private citizens should not have ANY guns. They have never had a justifiable reason for this except perhaps as a step towards a police state in which THEY would be in charge. I despair!
    All shooters must react, at the very least by writing to your MP.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  4. A.J.P.

    Do you have an exact date for when the “Issues for consideration of the Law Commission” document was created Gaz? I’ve been unable to find one myself.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Gaz Corfield Post author

      The whole review was set up after the police realised the Law Commission was looking for input on its programme of reviews for this year and they co-ordinated submissions to get it on the commission’s agenda. The consultation scoping paper which that lobbying effort produced was published in mid-July (exact date is on my post summarising it). I believe the scoping paper has had plenty of input from the police and much less so from the licensed firearms community.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Steve

        Who actually wrote this document you’re referring to, because it refers to the police, “we understand from the police” so it clearly wasn’t written by the police. Who is the source?

        Like

      2. Gaz Corfield Post author

        Steve – the document I refer to in the blog post was the attachment to email JC24 in the disclosed bundle: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/284961/response/702432/attach/html/22/JC24.pdf.html

        You can see from JC24 that Jo Chilton, the head of NABIS, writes to the Law Commission: “I received the attached report from the Firearms Licensing side of Police business.”

        The “firearms licensing side of police business” is FELWG, the Firearms and Explosive Licensing Working Group – as opposed to the Criminal Use of Firearms (CUF) ACPO business area.

        As to the precise identity of the author, I have my suspicions but in the absence of positive proof (lesson learned!) I wouldn’t care to attribute it to a specific individual. I agree that it is strange how the document refers to the police in the third person, but you now know as much as I do.

        Like

  5. David Brian Smedley

    All new members of my club are trained in safety and gun handling before being allowed on the range and I suspect this is standard throughout the UK. They are also subjected to a 6 month probationary period in which the club can eject them if not proving satifactory.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  6. Katja Triebel

    You can look to your neighbours. In Ireland police and The Department of Justice and Equality published in November 2014 their firearms report.

    They want to ban every centerfired handgun.
    They want to ban every rimfire handgun which does not look olympic.
    They want to ban every centre-fire, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which are capable of holding more than three rounds,
    They want to revoke all licences renewed or issued after the date of an announcement by the Minister, in relation to the proposed prohibition

    Their argument: 2,198 recorded incidents involving a firearm between 2009 and February 2014 including 96 murders and one case of manslaughter . In many such cases it
    is impossible to say whether the firearms used were firearms that had been licensed and
    subsequently stolen from their owners or whether the firearms were never in
    fact licensed.

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/2014.WG.Report.pdf/Files/2014.WG.Report.pdf

    But they only have only ONE incident where a former legal pistol, then stolen, has been misused for a double murder.

    Irish police hates guns as you can see at this paper. And they use all the biased manipulation of Fabio Marini of the EU commission DG Home Affairs. It

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  7. Geoff

    Didn’t us Yanks have a war with you Brits around 1776 over taking away guns? How did that work out? Oh. Yeah. We still have our guns.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Iain

      “We still have our guns” – indeed you do!!! …and I have acquaintances in the US of A who go duck shooting with a 1+7 mag semi-auto shotgun, and others who go hog or deer shooting with AR15s…

      I think I’ll stick to my trusty old SxS hammer gun to shoot the odd clay… in safety!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  8. Lionel Piper

    If people let the government take our gun we have had it ! You can have my gun when you pry them out of my cold dead hands !!

    Like

    Reply
  9. MagicMan

    As I see it the only people who would be affected by these proposed changes, would be the law abiding gun owner. Good honest people being penalised again all in the name of “security” #theywantyourguns

    Like

    Reply
  10. Kevin Reilly

    I’m relatively new to shooting although I’ve wanted to take it up for most of my life. At long last I’m only now getting the chance and I’m absolutely loving it. I am and always have been a law abiding citizen and was always respectful of the law and authorities but during the two or so years I’ve been involved in the shooting world I have had my eyes widely opened as to just how badly abused we are. It absolutely beggars belief and is extremely alarming that the forces who are charged with safeguarding the rights and well being of these decent people appear to be hell bent on destroying them instead. These proposals even being considered are surely a significant step toward the United Kingdom turning into a police state and simply cannot be tolerated.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Chris Kinealy

    Some years ago the Chief Constable of Liverpool commented that 96% of the guns recovered from crimes on Merseyside had nver been licenced ever. The only people who obey laws are law abing people. If banning things worke then we would not have crime. Crime is banned. So obviously banning things does not work. Why not ban drugs! Or even prostitution. That would solve these problems!!!

    Like

    Reply
  12. Iain

    I only have a SGC, not a FAC, so maybe much of this doesn’t apply to me anyways, and much of it I don’t even understand the references/terminology.

    However, from the point of view of a SGC weekender…

    My first shotgun was a Winchester SX3 semi-auto, bought cos I loved the non-recoil aspect (ie all the power is used to cycle the next cartridge!). However, 1+2 is plenty, and indeed I only ever shoot 2 anyways, as NO-ONE wants be shooting 3 when they’re only expecting 2… from a one-rule-for-all safety aspect! Looking on the interweb, I can see that I could extend the magazine from 2 to up to 7 (and even more!), but that would invalidate my SGC, and would only really be needed by an American duck shooter who couldn’t hit a barn door at 10 paces!!!

    Banning more than 3 shots in a semi-auto??? No probs for me!!! I would only need the +7 extension for shooting ZOMBIES, so I’m not too worried just yet… maybe once TRUMP is in?!

    Banning semi-autos altogether? Seems a tad arbitrary, and whilst I now tend to use my o/u shotguns more than the s/a, I know lots of others who prefer their s/a (else ONLY have a s/a), so banning them altogether would be a bit extreme!!!

    Banning .50 cal rifles??? Forgive my ignorance, but what the hell do you need a .50 cal for, shooting elephants or rhinos??? Not seen many of those in the UK hills recently… I guess someone, somewhere obvious has one, and has a use for it, but I can’t imagine what… so banning them? No probs…

    Air Guns… personally, I have been shot in the head and ankle by Wayne Kerrs with them, so I have no issue with them being licenced on a scaled-down version of a SGC, just as SGC is scaled-down from FAC. A Wayne Kerr with an air gun/rifle can easily maim or kill, so why SHOULDN’T they be licenced?!?!

    Mandatory training and testing??? Sounds entirely sensible to me. Wouldn’t have any objection to that!

    Entry without warrant??? If the POLICE have reason to believe I have done something stupid, or have threatened someone with the use of my shotgun, then I would entirely expect them to break the door down and take my guns. As a general inspection, I would expect them to just knock, and ask to see my guns, storage, locks, etc – I would NOT expect them to need to make an appointment. As such, my guns are ALWAYS locked away, except when being cleaned, or en route to/from a shoot. If YOU play by the rules, why ould YOU be afraid of PLOD turning up unannounced???

    Licensing shotgun cartridges… I always have my SGC with me when I go to a gun shop, so having to show it to purchase them wouldn’t be an issue. WHO has a problem with that???

    Abolishing Court Appeals – okay, that’s where they’re overstepping the mark… THAT I do not agree with!!!

    But that’s the only thing here that sticks out to me. The rest is just noise. Tidying up some of the licensing? No big deal.

    Why all the fuss?!?!?!?!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Bjorn

      you are the reason why our sport gets smaller and smaller. the “doesn’t effect me” BS is a narrow minded way to think. what about guys who do practical shotgun with 10 + 1 FAC shotguns? what about the guys who spend upwards of £10,000 on a .50 to do long range shooting? what about the farmers who use .22 semi autos to control large volumes of pests? just because it does not effect you does not mean you should not support their sports. this is where the UK as a society and the UK as a community falls short. The US NRA has this down to a T unlike some spineless “weekenders” who never think about anyone else.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Iain

        If you were able to READ as well as you can evidently SPOUT, you’d have noticed that I started by pointing out that I’m a SGC weekender, and thus some of the references in the text meant nothing to more, thus I only commented on those that do affect or relate to me.

        I didn’t say that I don’t support anyone else’s RIGHTS, merely that I know nothing of those other aspects.

        Instead, if as YOU suggest, I blindly support stuff I know NOTHING about, how does that help anyone?!

        Perhaps you ought to align all THREE brain cells before bashing other people’s comments?!

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Iain

        If you were able to READ as well as you can evidently SPOUT, you’d have noticed that I started by pointing out that I’m a SGC weekender, and thus some of the references in the text meant nothing to more, thus I only commented on those that do affect or relate to me.

        I didn’t say that I don’t support anyone else’s RIGHTS, merely that I know nothing of those other aspects.

        Instead, if as YOU suggest, I blindly support stuff I know NOTHING about, how does that help anyone?!

        Perhaps you ought to align all THREE brain cells before bashing other people’s comments?!

        Like

      2. Chris Kinealy

        Could ALL gun owners and shooters STICK TOGETHER; air gunners, shot gunners, rifle shooters, gamekeepers, military and police shooters! EVERYONE.
        UNITED WE STAND!!

        Like

    2. Nick B

      Hi Iain, I’ll try to respond to your points / issues and hopefully you’ll see what we’re getting at.

      With regards to shotguns holding more than 3 cartridges (you’ll find that plenty of Section 2 semi autos will actually hold 4 – one in the chamber, one on the lifter and two in the mag – just an FYI really) – there are a number of reasons one may possess a S1 shotty holding many cartridges – a farmer may wish one for dealing with rabbits for eg (other firearms are also suitable), for sporting purposes they are used extensively in competitions such as practical shotgun – I myself have 2 such that I can compete in different classes. One is a tube fed magazine semi auto – the other a box fed semi which puts that gun into “Open” class where pretty much anything goes.

      Banning semi autos altogether – we agree in this one, 22RF rifles and long barrelled pistols and long barrelled revolvers are currently permitted (as well as the S1 shotties) they’re very useful for vermin / pest control (more so in the case of rifles) but can also be shot in practical competitions.

      Banning .50 cal rifles – well we could include all the other full bore calibres into this argument as regards deer stalking, foxing, target shooting (all of which goes on aplenty quite happily) with regards to .50 cal specifically, there are opportunities to shoot this calibre in the UK – yes we’re a little limited but the MOD permits civilian shooters to shoot .50BMG on it’s larger ranges such as Warcop up north or Senneybridge in Wales (there are others – this is just off the top of my head). To ban something because of an arbitary calibre is a bit silly, what specifically is it about .50 cal we don’t like? Are we going to ban .50cal muzzle loading rifles and pistols too or is it 50BMG specifically? What about .416 barret or 408 cheyenne – what about .338 lapua mag for that matter? these are all heavy hitting calibres for longer range shooting. If we’re saying it’s the energy / distance that worries us – where’s the evidence to say it’s a problem? There’s no evidence that civilian ownership and use of .50 cal rifles is unsafe or linked to criminal activity – ergo – there’s no need for the legislation.

      With regard to mandatory training and testing – civilian shooters shoot these higher caliber higher energy limit rounds all throughout the year without incident on MOD ranges due to the stringent procedures required to be permitted. This consists of mandatory NRA (the uk version) training and accreditation in the form of both shooters AND range conducting officers (not enshrined in law but these are the processes the MOD mandates) – this applies to MOD ranges, but equally civilian clubs with their own ranges operate them under safe practices also (insurance requirement and also it’s just common sense) so where’s the need for mandatory training and testing? There are already ways and means to ensure for eg those shooters with permission to shoot over land are safe – it’s perfectly acceptable to condition one’s FAC with a mentoring condition to ensure the new shooter doesn’t shoot on his own – and that after a period of agreed time the condition can be removed. So again – why do we need a law to mandate training and testing when there aren’t issues that need fixing? Where’s the evidence?

      Entry without warrant – well this is already permitted if reason to beleive etc – however, snap inspections aren’t particularly acceptable – it implies that one is not fit to possess. How about more evidence to show this is required – fac’s aren’t being revoked a plenty because of infractions so where’s the need for this?

      Licensing shotgun cartridges – at face value I wouldn’t have a problem with this if it was merely to purchase cartridges – however – possess for instance isn’t a cut and dry term in law “it depends”. If I shoot with a none cert holding mate at a clay ground (that has the requisite exemption for non cert holders), and he has cartridges in his pocket – does he possess the carts? but again – where’s the evidence that the law needs changing around this?

      I hope this helps in your understanding of the issues we face – namely poorly thought out legislation with no basis in evidence. We do all need to stand together even if the particular area of shooting at threat is not up your street – as there will come a time…..when it is.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Tony B

      I think this is so funny and really shows just how one sighted people are in the UK. Sure, fair enough the proposed EU ban could be perceived to be a ban on “specific” firearms but its my believe this can no longer be argued for the UK. In my eyes what the UK Govt is now attempting to do is ban shooting sports all together. While you may allow yourselves to get caught up on the specifics of banning 50 cals, .22 semi autos and military looking firearms its my believe that what their actually doing is banning the individual sports and not specific firearms. This isnt the first step in their plan and I’m sure it wont be their last. Its taken them 20 years since Dunblane to get where they are now and now their using the terrorists attacks and the proposed EU ban to further their cause. Sure it may take another 10 years before they start getting close to banning SGC holders, or then again maybe sooner. I think your very niave if you think the Govt will stop at 50cals etc and really this is just another step to pretty much banning any form of shooting sports in the UK. Certainly banning section 1 shotguns will just about kill the sport of practical shooting. Military looking rifles will seriously damage the sport of gallery shooting. And with the demise of .22 semi auto’s you could certainly wave good bye to mini rifle competitions. As for the 50cal, well this is just the starting point to ban long range shooting. It may well be 50cal this year but you can bet your bottom dollar they will use the same arguments to ban .338 next year and 300wm the year after. And where will it end?! Well quite simply when Iain gets his notification that weekend shotgun shoots are no longer a justifiable reason to have a SGC. Maybe you think I’m being a bit over reactive and that’s fine we’re all entitled to our own opinion. But I for one do not really understand why SGC owners feel themselves immune from future regulations and bans. I mean surely a shotgun is one of the most lethal weapons available and one which is most commonly adopted by villains. I mean just look at the ammunition. What other ammunition can be so easily converted? Sure you can buy birdshot for your clay shooting and all but if YouTube is to believed you can turn that birdshot into just about anything with minimal tools and little effort. Shotguns after all are basically smooth bore cannons so I for one can see a justifiable reason to ban them and to put Iain’s own spin on it

      “Banning shotguns ??? Forgive my ignorance, but what the hell do you need a shotgun for, shooting bright orange pieces of clay? Dont see the point in that… so banning them? No probs… ,”

      Fact is, in UK shooting sports there’s a great deal of snobbery and looking down on other shooters and their chosen disciplines. Personally I don’t get Bench rest….what’s the point of that?! You get a rifle and strap it down to the bench… Do me favour where’s the skill in that so back to Iain’s reckoning “….so banning them? No probs… ,” But whilst I might not get it I accept it as a shooting sport and I can appreciate why people do it and what they get out of it. Its like the difference between football and rugby. At the moment its my believe the Govt is trying to ban football and I’m fairly sure their next step will be to ban rugby and then who knows, maybe tennis! And where will end?! well as the sign states in my local park playground….“no ball games allowed”

      Like

      Reply
      1. Iain

        Tony,

        I did start my comment with “from the point of view of a SGC weekender”!

        So much of the original piece included specific law references / notes that I wouldn’t have a clue about, so I merely commented on those that had relevance to myself.

        To that end, it might be useful in the future if the author actually provided some notes/glossary/references to some of his comments, as unless you are an expert on every aspect of shooting sport and shooting law, I doubt whether anyone will know and understand every single detail of what was written?! I merely stuck with those I DID understand.

        Yes, I do get the “stick together” aspect… and the general principle of EU/UK law gradually eroding gun ownership, bit by bit… however, much of what was in the original article was drumming up support blindly for ALL, rather than targeted and rational defence of specifics. As per my own reply, some of what they’re talking of doing doesn’t seem such a big deal… so why not just target and argue/defend those that matter!?!?

        Like

Leave a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s