Serious threat to hobby

[Chris Suslowicz]

Originally Posted by rnixartillery

That may be your excuse !

The EU's open border policy along with an open invitation and the lack of policing who enters it has done no more than destabilise security for all EU citizen states which has allowed and encouraged the free movement of extremists and unlicensed weapons .
This is ALL thanks to a very corrupt and quite naïve European commission and their mindless policy making.
Attacking our hobby and bulldozing these laws is just another way of supressing the working law abiding citizen and will make not one Iota to the illegal arms situation or terrorism .
As Richard put it ,THAT is why we want to leave.

Rob......................rnixartillery.

Britain still has its border controls (and there is nothing in the Schengen treaty prohibiting border controls for internal security).

The whole purpose of the referendum was to decide which member of the Bullingdon Club would be the next leader of the Conservative party - and they did not expect the Leave campaign to win (which is why they didn't have a clue as to what to do next).

The economic effects are going to be an utter [DELETED] disaster for this country, not that the self-serving idiots in power care about that.

Suppression of the law abiding citizen has been a feature of government for a very long time anyway, and in recent times law-making has been driven by newspaper headlines in a number of cases.

To drag things vaguely back in the general direction of the topic, the original laws (Firearms Act 1968) were perfectly adequate and would have prevented the two mass murders if only the required checks had been made.

1) Michael Ryan had been refused membership of the rifle club that he'd declared on his application. If (as was supposed to have been done) the checks had been made that would have been picked up and should have led to his certificate being withdrawn: making a false statement on an FAC is a criminal offence.

2) Thomas Hamilton was not considered to be a 'fit person' by the officer handling his FAC renewals, and who recommended his rejection - he was overruled by senior officer(s).

The resulting two massacres (1987 Hungerford, 14 killed) (1996 Dunblane, 17 killed) and resultant panic by the government (banning semi-automatic rifles in the 1988 act, and all pistols after the 1996 incident) only affected the law-abiding population - the Olympic pistol team has to train abroad as a result - and shut down a lot of businesses. It's done nothing to reduce the number of illegal weapons in circulation (quite possibly the reverse is true - a lot of shotguns were thought to have just "disappeared" rather than being registered) and, encouraged by their success, the "ban everything" campaigners have continued to push for ever tighter controls and bans on replicas, de-acts, et bloody cetera.

OK, rant over, I shall go and look at the stuff I won with a .22 revolver back in the 1980s and cry into my beer (except that it's too early for a beer).

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

To drag things vaguely back in the general direction of the topic,

Thanks Chris.

To all: let's try to keep politics off limits for this forum, please.

Regards,
Hanno
MLU Administrator

[rob love]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

........and in recent times law-making has been driven by newspaper headlines in a number of cases.

Don't exclude television and movies as influencing policy makers. During the 70s, with the TV series Kung-Fu being very popular here in North America, the Canadian Government banned throwing stars, Nunchuk sticks, and blow dart guns. Switch blade knives were already banned back in the 60s I believe, and at some point firecrackers joined the club of non-grata.

So natural progression means that with movies like James Bond, where he uses things like a battle tank to make good his escape, they too must be banned next.

We already had our military vehicle ownership threatened here when the provinces started regulating bullet proof vests and (up)armoured vehicles. This was due to the possibility of gangs using them with Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator effectiveness. Fortunately in our province, a certain MLU member had the foresight to talk to the policy makers and get an exemption written in for possession by the owner of historic military vehicles. It still means that technically you cannot borrow an armoured vehicle from another member unless you were to obtain the $100 permit. Fines range up to $10,000 as well as making the owner incur all costs for the towing and destruction of the vehicle.

Hanno: If the above is politics, then perhaps we need a politics section, as it is threatening our hobby.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

...
OK, rant over, I shall go and look at the stuff I won with a .22 revolver back in the 1980s and cry into my beer (except that it's too early for a beer).

It's never too early for a beer!

[Lynn Eades]

Was there a bottle in that?