The latest missive from HM Govt

This should strike home, especially with re-enactors, people with tanks, carriers, portees, LAATs with a Bofors, and F15 Polstens.

Gets interesting from page 30 and especially so from page 36.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...10/2006010.pdf


R.

[Stewart Loy]

Richard,

What brought this latest trampling of rights on? Did somebody try to rob the beer store with a PIAT? Was a Polsten used in a smash and grab?

Just as in Canada there seem to be no end of wankers to dream up new laws, but nobody wants to enforce the old ones.

Perhaps the Americans on the forum can answer how well a prohibition works.


Stewart

[sapper740]

Perhaps the Americans on the forum can answer how well a prohibition works.


Stewart [/B][/QUOTE]

It made a lot of Canadians rich!

Seriously, anyone the least bit interested in collecting or reenacting WW II needs to join either the N.R.A. in the U.S. or the N.F.A. in Canada or we will all die the death of one thousand cuts. Don't buy into the argument that there is " no legitimate sporting purpose" for military style rifles. Not too long ago while still living in Canada I (legally) purchased an H & R M-14 that had been converted to semi-auto. This is before the government prohibited Converted Autos. My M-14 was an EXCELLENT shooter! I used to shoot I.P.S.C. 3 Gun matches with it, Large Bore competitions, and, loaded with softpoints, I took the darn thing hunting too! It was a great rifle! Well, imagine my confusion when that B...(female dog)...h Kim Campbell told me there was no legitimate sporting purpose for it! How could I have been so ignorant! Kim Campbell, would probably have gotten the vapours if she ever had to hold a firearm, was telling me that there was no legitimate sporting purpose for a firearm I had legitimately been sporting with for years! And people wonder why I moved to Texas! Probably 'cause I can use my concealed handgun to shoot any one trying to "jack" my Full Auto 1919 while I'm on my way to the range! God bless America!

I'll step down from my soap box now. My apologies Geoff, the Canadian Government is probably going to shut you down for being a forum for free thought!

[rob love]

Seriously, anyone the least bit interested in collecting or reenacting WW II needs to join either the N.R.A. in the U.S. or the N.F.A. in Canada or we will all die the death of one thousand cuts.[/B]

Actually the Canadian NFA is a poor choice these days. They seem to have been plagued with accusations of corruption and ineptitude. Significant amounts of funds seem to have been consumed by the few guys in National office and they don't seem to want to answer to the members with a full financial accounting. They apparently didn't bother to provide Canada Revenue required financial data either, and had portions of club accounts siezed. They make very few public appearances these days, other than to attend the US shot show at the members expense, or their own court appearances with the NFA footing their legal bills.

I'd suggest any of the other firearms organisations in Canada. There are several, and they have tried to all band together to form more of a national NRA type organisation, only to have their attempts thwarted by the NFA executive.

Originally posted by Stewart Loy
Richard,

What brought this latest trampling of rights on? Did somebody try to rob the beer store with a PIAT? Was a Polsten used in a smash and grab?

Paranoia.
We have a gun ban, not control. The govt sees even more draconian laws as a way of stopping gun crime, a crime that shot (sorry) up when the last disarming by removal of legal hand guns from the certificated few happened.

In fact the disarming of the UK started in 1922 and is unlawful, subsequent actions are just as unlawful and the Home Sec was summoned under Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights; however, although these documents are unalterable, the Govt proclaimed that they are so old as to be ignorable; this after a careful lobbying of parliament to have the speaker at the time, Betty Boothroyd, state from the chair that Magna Carta et al was indeed valid and applicable. This of course is recorded in Hansard.

Just as in Canada there seem to be no end of wankers to dream up new laws, but nobody wants to enforce the old ones.

The reason, or excuse, is given as the occasion of the so-called "Hungerford Massacre" and then the Dunblane incident. Both would have been avoided if the existing procedures had been properly carried out.

In the latter incident, the then chief of police resigned the day after placing himself out of inquiry reach with a nice pension and the media has a "D Notice" (gagging order) placed on it about any issue concerning the removal and recompence of private individuals owning legal handguns together with the compensation given to traders whose livelihood has been destroyed. The official investigation findings are under a 100yr rule.

Why?

The professional, but disconnected lady who ran the successful campaign to have all handguns banned has disappeared; even gun-sympathetic senior police officers cannot trace this person through their special connections and we have to deduce the Ministry of Intelligence has replaced the identity and life of this person in total.

Why?

Personally I'm getting the distinct odour of a rat.

Perhaps the Americans on the forum can answer how well a prohibition works.

Quite so. As has been eloquently stated elsewhere:
"Gun control: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm."


R.

[sapper740]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rob love
[B]Actually the Canadian NFA is a poor choice these days. They seem to have been plagued with accusations of corruption and ineptitude.

Rob, it saddens me to hear this about the NFA. I had great hopes that they might be able to get Ottawa to listen to reason. Is Dave Tomlinson still active in the NFA? I've met him once and talked to him a couple of times on the phone when we were trying to get the Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition going in Langley, B.C. He seemed to be a man of integrity and grit.
Although Canada and the U.S. are alike in many ways, firearm ownership is where the two countries different philosophies are most apparent. Case in point: A Texas Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R), a female, has submitted a bill to overthrow Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns. Apparently she feels naked when she ain't packin'. Compare her to Kim Campbell, or ANY Canadian politician for that matter! I remember hearing Kim Campbell say during a debate on gun control that "Canadians don't need to defend themselves, they have the police to defend them." What a load of Liberal, downtown Toronto, what's good for Ontario is good for Canada, we know whats best for Canada tripe!
Thank God I don't have to put up with that nonsense any more!

[Tony Smith]

Now some of you may have read in the press of the trouble that the actor Russel Crowe has got himself into. In a fit of frustration at not being able to phone home from a New York hotel, he hurled a telephone handset towards a concierge, injuring him. According to the logic of these things, if an injury was caused by an object, then that object must have been a weapon! Russel Crowe is therefore charged with "4th degree Felony Possesion of a Weapon" (ie the hotel's telephone!). He is afraid that a conviction on a weapons offence will prevent him from entering and working again in "The land of the free and home of the brave". I think Americans would be much safer if they banned telephones altogether.

(In an interesting turnaround for the fickle media, Russel Crowe has always been referred to as an Australian Actor (particularly when picking up Oscar Awards), but is now being described as New Zealand-Born, while the Kiwi press are describing him as an "Angry Australian". Sucess has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.)

[Lynn Eades]

Tony, You can have him for now.

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Lynn Eades
You can have him for now.

But he will will probably want to go back to New Zealand, which has much less restrictive telephone laws, just send him back in time for the next Academy Awards. Sam Neill could chaperone him.

[Neil Ashley]

Are we saying that this new proposed legislation will affect de-act firearms in the UK.

It does not specificaly mention de-acts, but does a gun which is no longer legaly a firearm become an imitation weapon? It does talk about prohibiting modifying existing guns.

I have a number of de-acts plus a blank firing reproduction sten gun which presumably will definately be affected.

Originally posted by Neil Ashley
Are we saying that this new proposed legislation will affect de-act firearms in the UK.

I don't believe "we" are saying anything; the current govt, apparently elected by a sort-of majority vote, seems to think there is a problem and it will probably need a trial to set the interpretation and a precedent.

It is my personal view though that the "official" paranoia with anything remotely gun-like is alive and well; therefore I think its a yes.

It does not specificaly mention de-acts, but does a gun which is no longer legaly a firearm become an imitation weapon? It does talk about prohibiting modifying existing guns.

Good question again, and from the foregoing I see another yes.

I have a number of de-acts plus a blank firing reproduction sten gun which presumably will definately be affected.

Another yes I'm afraid, in my opinion.

Please bear with me, I didn't write this proposed law; I am only a qualified electronic and radio comms engineer who works as a blast-cleaning operative and have no legal training whatsoever.

It does occur to me though that the people who want a replica or de-activated weapon are somewhat less than an insignificant number of the voting population here and so can be less than totally ignored by HMG, indeed the man in the street would likely say:
"Whatever do you want a thing like that for?"
With regret, I think too the same comment would just as likely arise on the desired ownership of an old army truck too.



R.

[Neil Ashley]

I have now received a copy of any open letter sent to a number of Living History Groups by Howard Giles of Eventplan Limited.

His interpretation of this new act is as follows.

Section 30 would make it illegal to manufacture, modify, sell,or import "realistic" replica firearms.

Deactivated weapons are "realistic" and by their nature have been modified to become deactivated. They will therefore all most certainly be covered by the new act and it would be an offence to do anything listed under Section 30.

It wont be illegal to own deactivated firearms under this act, but it will be illegal to trade, buy or modify a weapon. This in theroy will precude the manufacure of any new deacts and make existing ones worthless except on the black market between collectors.

This will in theory also affect replica and deact weapons fited on vehicles, and towed guns.

This act is very badly written and much will depend on interpretation at local Police level.

Apparently this bill has already had its first reading and Howard requests that all interested parties write to their MP's without delay.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Richard, Pete et al over there... what is the general feeling amongst those of our ilk as to the future of what we do? It's been a year since I've been there, of course, but even then I was appalled by even the prices alone, although I love the general atmosphere as compared to urban Canada. I was also subject to a great many lectures and comments from the head of the table in Mr. Notton's dining room, and frankly, after reading all this, I am even more concerned (but at least the EU seems a moot point now).

Two things come to mind from all this - one, I don't know how you fellows manage to eek out a living over there; and two (a bit more eccentric), this is what we DO, and at our age I can't see shedding that for birdwatching or whatever the know-it-alls consider "appropriate".

Somebody put me on the ground here, please. 'Enlightened academia' isn't everything is this one life we have, in contrast to what your government seems to be saying.