JonathanL

In order to shoot an any MOD owned range (including Bisley) you must hold a Shooter Certification card. These can only be issued by clubs affiliated to the NRA for full-bore or the NSRA for small-bore. J.

I have answered. I wrote answers to his questions in the last post of the previous page. The questions he asked are irrelevant to the discussion. The point I was making (which some people seem to have misunderstood) is that there is no specific requirement for a particular type of security, such as a cabinet. It is the *level* of security which is important. That being the case the police cannot *insist* on one particular form of security and they do not. There is absolutely no relevance to what particular type of security that I personally employ to all of this so what was his point in asking? There is no relevance to how the police went about assessing my particular security so, again, why did he bother asking? J.

I have answered his questions. As I pointed out in my answer though, I still fail to see their relevance. Why are they relevant, in your opinion? J.

Yes, as long as you have 'good reason' to acquire that particular firearm then you will have no problems. J.

You can't haul your house up with a Hiab though! J.

You are quite correct on this. There has never been a prosecution and there never will be. I cannot see any way in which you can read the Proof Act in such a way as to conclude that there is a requirement to re-prove upon chopping or threading the muzzle. The expception being if you started with an already very small diameter barrel and reduced it a lot. Given that any prosecution is highly likely to fail I think there is virtually no chance of one ever coming to court. The Proof Houses will never pursue one because when the guy was acquitted it would totally destroy their little money making scheme of intimidating people into getting chopped or threaded barrels re-proved. In fact, a successful prosecution would actually result in them making a great deal of money so why don't they do it? Because they know they won't win. If it were indeed an offence then it would be an extremely easy prosecution to win because RFD's and importers are openly advertising chopped and threaded barrels without new proof marks. Contrary to what people are saying here it isn't difficult to prove that a particular rifle left the factory unthreaded and certainly not with a longer barrel. Very few rifles were sold in the UK with threaded muzzles (apart from .22's) until quite recently. It would be easy to prove that say, a particular Remington 700, left Remington with a 26" unthreaded barrel. That would be an especially easy one to prove because Remington don't do this (or at least apart from a tiny number) because moderators are highly restricted in their home market so there's no call for it. It would be even easier to bring a prosection regarding an unproved moderator because nearly all the importers and a lot of RFD's advertise them either proved or unproved. That alone would be an offence before it was even sold! J. See my post above. You contact the manufacturer and ask what length of barrel it left them with and whether it was threaded. J.

This simply isn't true. There are more FAC's and SGC's on issue now than there have been for very many years. I think the number of RFD's is rather high as well. The prospect of greater regulation on airguns may not be a bad thing in the long run (not that I necessarily agree with it) as it will bring more airgunners into contact with oter shooters and RFD's. The latter has already happened and airgunners are crossing over into other aspects of the sport because they are often dealing with RFD's when collecting airguns. I genuinely don't see much more regulation on the cards as there is little political will to do it. There more shooters there are the less likelihood of any further restrictions. J..

I didn't cast doubt on his word - I simply asked some questions and said that I thought it unlikely that the police would say this. As it turns out it wasn't even said to him but a farmer he knows. A lot can get lost in translation. J.

The right answer, as far as I'm concerned. Screw the parties and vote for what the particular candidate is about. If the main parties aren't giving the electorate what it wants then the smaller parties and independents will. The large parties will soon get the message. And, far more importantly, RECRUIT MORE SHOOTERS! If a party or candidate realises that their job is easier (or impossible) because of the number of shooters in his constituency then they will start doing what shooters when them to do. If they won't then there are always others who will. J.

Believe very little of what you hear. It is very difficult to wear out the barrel of a modern rifle as long as you take reasonable care of it. As to re-barreling costs. Well, it att depends on what you are re-barreling it with. Most people who choose to do this will be using a good quality barrel which won't be cheap. Then you have to pay someone to do it. Where can you get a new Remington 700 for that money? J.

There is no benefit in the police asking RFD's to keep copies of certificates. All of the information they might want is kept in the dealers register anyway. Keeping a copy of the certificate provides no more - it can't as the details of the cert are entered on the register. It also provides no greater security threat the the holder as if the photocopies can be stolen from the shop then so can the register which also contains your name and address. I suppose the sole argument which could be made is that the certificate has a photo on it but that is hardly of much significance to a criminal really. J. A very relevant question! J.

Negative attitude! The furture of the shooting sports is remarkably simple. Every shooter should introduce two new people to the sport each year. If everyone did this, even less than this, we would have enough support get anything we wanted - or at the least not lose any more. J.

I didn't reply because I didn't happen to notice it. In any event, it isn't relevant to the points which I, or anyone else, have made here nor to the subject of the thread. Unless there is some relevant reason that I've missed. Is there? The point about practical experiences of those who have dealt with different forces is relevant and is the whole point I have been on about. That being; people on here have stated that it is a legal requirement to have a gun cabinet (or at least there is a legal minimum requirement for a particular and specific type of security) which is not true. No force would, or is, saying that as far as I'm aware so people's experiences may be distorted somewhat. There are no forces that are saying that only a steel cabinet is acceptable. J.

What's this post relating to? Who's word have a I cast doubt upon? Over what have I 'cried foul'? J.

Why is that abusive? J.

And here we go again; resorting to personal abuse. This is yet another thread where you are posting nothing of relevance. Rather than simply posting abuse, how about actually writing something relevant to what is being discussed? To re-ask you; how is what you posted relevant to the post you replied to? I'm genuinely interested as I can't see it. J.

I think you really need to do some serious reading up on the British constitution before you post much more on this subject mate. J.

More bitter, twisted and envious bile. This is not much more than a bunch of random offensive words. It's also untrue and clearly so - unless, of course, you think that the British armed forces allow people who are 'thick as a brick' to fly rather expensive attack helicopters. Takes a reasonable IQ to be able to do that sort of stuf, you know. J.

Very, very few people go anywhere to see one thing specifically. How many people go to Paris specifically to see the Eiffel Tower? Very few, I suspect, but it doesn't mean it's an argument for Paris not to have it. J.

Is LACS a charity? If so could this be seen as being beyond their remit? J.

What on earth has that got to do with the post you are replying to? J.

I genuinely don't believe that there would be a battle over something like this. The police are usually quite reasonable about these sorts of things. If they were being unreasonable then there are sensible reasons for challenging it. There are situations where a cabinet is not appropriate. Someone with a lot of firearms may quite reasaonable wish to have a gun room rather than several cabinets. I nearly went down that route when we last moved but dicided against it for various reasons. I never thought that it would not be acceptable but would have certainly challenged it unless there were good reasons for refusing it. J.

Have the police said this to you in person? I mean, they've actually said that only a cabinet and nothing else is acceptable as secure storage? I find it difficult to belive, to be honest. If you wanted to build a gun room or similar that was as secure as a cabinet they would not insist on a cabinet simply on the grounds of policy. J.

Once again, that wasn't the point I was making. I was commenting on the incorrect statement that a cabinet was a legal requirement. It isn't. It may seem pedantic to some but this stuff is important, I believe. Shooters should correctly know the law and how it works. If someone makes an untrue statement of law then it should be corrected or it will become accepted as being true. J.