BASC helping you, maybe not.

[markbivvy]

For some reason the BASC, which claims for itself to be "the voice of shooting" on its website has made no objection at all to clause 28 of the Bill, which introduces a ban on mail order sales of airguns.

 

 

any one know why.

 

ps nicked the first bit from another forum.

Edited March 27, 2006 by markbivvy

[Lord Geordie]

Yeah because they have grown Fat and content on the money fools like Me and You throw at em every year and do very little to earn it.

 

They have become Deaf and Lazy :<

 

Pee's me off to think they claim to be the voice of shooters and they are letting the dealers down when THEY are part of the great circle of shooting. Infact if you THINK about it they are the stone that starts the ripple as without a dealer we wouldn't be able to buy new guns

 

LG

[SNAKEBITE]

I never thought about it like Lord Geordie

Just signed up for another year as well!!!

 

Might be worth having a chat with DAVE FROM BASC a member on this forum

[lurcherboy]

Maybe to stop young ones buying air rifles illegally?

 

 

 

 

 

LB

[deadeye ive]

Maybe to stop young ones buying air rifles illegally?

 

 

 

 

 

LB

As usual LB ............Hitting the nail on the head

 

 

BASC were there for me when I needed them

 

Ive

[rarms]

>Maybe to stop young ones buying air rifles illegally?

 

If you think that this legislation will stop kids getting airguns then I think you are being as naive as BASC.

 

In order for a kid to order one under current situations as you suggest they would need to use Mummy or Daddy's credit card, in which case Mummy or Daddy is already breaking existing legislation for supplying an airgun to a minor and mummy or daddy should be prosicuted.

 

All the new laws will do is mean there will be no cheap gun shops online, so airgunners will be forced to pay silly prices in local dealers, driving many people away from the sport.

 

It is complete rubbish and I for one as a paying member will be a bit pee'd off if BASC don't do something about it.

 

Where is Simon Clarke when you need him he is quick enough to inform us of BASC action when they actually do something, maybe he could offer some input to this thread?

 

Perhaps BASC don't want to get involved because not many air-gun clubs are insured/affiliated to them so they feel they dont have to?

[SNAKEBITE]

There will be a BASC stall at the Kent Game fair this weekend so I will put this question to whoever is there.

 

There is no point taking a guess on what they are planning and you can't expect them to change their view if you don't let them know about yours! If they choose to ignore the feelings of members then perhaps then it is time to get annoyed.

[Axe]

In my opinion, making it harder for anyone is a good thing. Yes it might inflate prices a little, yes it may put some people off. But to be honest I dont want just anybody as a representative of our sport. Someone who is prepared to pay the extra is surely going to be more deserved and respectful to the sport.

 

Nobody likes having something taken away and I do sympathise, but in todays society, surely something has to change. If removing mail order is a quick and effective way of stopping rifles getting in the hands of at least 5% of people that shouldnt have them in the first place, then i'm all for it.

 

Of course i'm not naive enough to think it is the be all and end all. But why should something good be frowned upon. Nothing will stop the most determined getting thier hands on a weapon. But by making it harder it might just deter some of them. Even before my FAC I have always been a supporter of licensing legal limit air weapons.

 

BASC may be more proactive in some areas than others, but they get my money every year. They have been more than helpful on many an occasion.

 

Now, where did I put my tin hat....

[Nildes]

The problem is Axe, that's letting the country be ruled by the actions of the few and not the many, its totally undemocratic.

 

The 5% that cause problems are never going to just take it, they're going to find a way around the legislation and do what they want anyway.

 

The 95% of law abiders will, yet again be stuffed by the actions of the few.

That's not democracy and it doesn't work.

 

Instead, they should leave well alone and when they catch the 5%, they should give them penalties that they can make stick.

 

There's no point in making more and more laws that simply disadvantage the law-abiding. They should concentrate on making the ones they've got work. And punishing the wrongdooers with something more effective than an asbo or community service.

 

AIMO

[Axe]

But thats why we need laws, to help prevent wrong doings in the first place. I cant see how not having a law is going to help. Look at america and the problems they have from having very little firearm restrictions.

 

That said though, I will agree with you on one thing. A Law, any Law, is only as good as it is enforced. This has been the crux of the situation for a long time. If they were to use even the existing laws to their fullest, i'm sure it would be alot more effective than clamping on further restrictive laws.

 

Getting back on thread though, since we have established that the problem is the lack of enforcement, is BASC at fault here or the government.

[markbivvy]

simon clarke has as reply on the bbs.

[Hunter]

Here you go chaps

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Simon Clarke

 

The link above is pointing to an old and out of date version of the Bill.

 

It is the Bill as amended after Standing Committee. Further amendments were made after the Bill was brought from the Commons on November 15th.

 

The current, and accurate, version of the Bill can be read here

 

our briefing on it is here

 

The briefing is designed for the House of Lords where the Bill will next appear for its second reading tomorrow. The briefing and our lobbying has been based on the political reality of what could effectively be challenged in the Lords.

 

Over the last two years we have frequently spoken to and briefed the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears and her civil servants on airguns and related issues. We did the same with her predecessors before her. While there is some sympathy for our position in Parliament, the issues involved (gun crime and airgun misuse) will not attract enough support to win a vote against these measures on a Bill of this magnitude, which covers a huge number of other areas.

 

I would have thought as responsible airgunners, you would know not to pull the trigger until you were sure of your shot. The original post was a complete flyer. Perhaps those who jumped onto the back of the bandwagon to slate BASC should check things out for themselves first. I also know better than to hold my breath for an apology from any instant BASC critic.

 

BASC does more for airgunning than any other organisation and will continue to do so.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Hunter

[the lizard]

Well said Hunter.

 

Personally, I cannot understand why anyone would WANT to order an air rifle online.

 

I use the on-line gun shops to check out the specs, pictures and of course the prices.

 

Then I go to my local gun shop, (a small one-man rural business) and I tell him what price I can get this or that rifle for online. I ask him if he can match or beat those prices.Allowing for (no) postage costs, he can usually come pretty close. So I order the rifle from my local dealer and it will usually arrive the next day, if not in stock.

 

Plus - I get far better (and quicker) after-sales service than I would from any online retailer. On top of that I also get free advice and good tips about which farms in the area to visit for Permissions. If I take the rifle in for maintenance or service, I know a good job will be done. I live in a rural area and I believe in supporting small local businesses if I can.

 

I may have to pay about £20 or so more than if I bought the rifle online. Is it worth it ?

I reckon it is.

 

the Lizard

[Lord Geordie]

Lizard

 

Some people unfortunatley live too far away from a gun dealer to be ABLE to call in and order so HAVE to either order online or by phone.

 

The Main problem with the law as it stands is it ISN'T enforced enough. Little billy no nuts get a gun off his daddy and goes shooting his neighbours etc thinking it's cool. The gun is confiscated little billy goes to the police station and is given a mere caution.

 

Billy's dad or mum needs charged with negligence for allowing little billy to play out with a gun in the first place.

 

But the CPS let the whole system down when a case gets to court and dish out a sentence (if a sentence at all) that is TOO LENIENT and this sends out the wrong signals to other little billys.

 

They will be thinking it's no problem if they are caught at worst they lose their gun but what the hell mummy will buy little billy another to keep him out the house while mummy and daddy deal their crack

 

I think a bit of legislation thet SHOULD be brought in is Cabinet required for Air rifles also and it should be the parents responsibility to make sure when little billy isn't at the shooting club then the gun is securely locked away.

 

If these guns were securely locked up then surely little billy can't go playing with his no nuts pals with his gun and hopefully this will bring a sharp decrease in cases of Airgun related incidents.

 

The Law needs to be enforced to it's FULLEST extent as it is today if they are to expect Kids to sit up and listen.

 

Perhaps even go as far as to send a police officer to schools and give a talk on the law relating to Airguns and guns in general and then when cases come to court they can surely have NO excuse for not knowing the law relating to guns.

 

BUT the Crown Prosecution Service needs to make a PROPPER effort when cases like this come to court and dish out a Sentence people will start to take note of and think twice before walking the streets and being a ***** with their airguns

 

LG

[SNAKEBITE]

Nobody likes having something taken away and I do sympathise, but in todays society, surely something has to change. If removing mail order is a quick and effective way of stopping rifles getting in the hands of at least 5% of people that shouldnt have them in the first place, then i'm all for it.

That's the same as asking everyone to hand their guns in to stop all gun crime isn't it?

 

Remember Dunblane and what happened to the pistol shooter afterwards?

 

Are you going to be the first to volunteer?

[Nildes]

Here you go chaps

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Simon Clarke

 

The link above is pointing to an old and out of date version of the Bill.

 

It is the Bill as amended after Standing Committee. Further amendments were made after the Bill was brought from the Commons on November 15th.

 

The current, and accurate, version of the Bill can be read here

 

our briefing on it is here

 

The briefing is designed for the House of Lords where the Bill will next appear for its second reading tomorrow. The briefing and our lobbying has been based on the political reality of what could effectively be challenged in the Lords.

 

Over the last two years we have frequently spoken to and briefed the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears and her civil servants on airguns and related issues. We did the same with her predecessors before her. While there is some sympathy for our position in Parliament, the issues involved (gun crime and airgun misuse) will not attract enough support to win a vote against these measures on a Bill of this magnitude, which covers a huge number of other areas.

 

I would have thought as responsible airgunners, you would know not to pull the trigger until you were sure of your shot. The original post was a complete flyer. Perhaps those who jumped onto the back of the bandwagon to slate BASC should check things out for themselves first. I also know better than to hold my breath for an apology from any instant BASC critic.

 

BASC does more for airgunning than any other organisation and will continue to do so.

I never mentioned the BASC.

I referred to the avalanche of legislation that the govt rains down on the innocent.

Still, if you think the cap fits..........

[rarms]

>If removing mail order is a quick and effective way of stopping rifles getting in

>the hands of at least 5% of people that shouldnt have them in the first place,

>then i'm all for it.

 

 

The problem is it is a snap decision to try and convince the majority of the public that bLiar is doing something about the increasing gun violence.

 

He has already banned handgun ownership, gun crime went up, then he banned SCGC Guns (Brococks) and gun crime went up.

 

 

>Someone who is prepared to pay the extra is surely going to be more deserved

>and respectful to the sport.

 

Blimey, so poor people shouldn't be allowed guns? :blink: :thumbs:

 

 

The purpetrator of any incident involving an airgun has already probably already broken a law, another law will do nothing to stop him.

 

You may stop a kid getting an air rifle but if he wants to cause trouble he could use a catapult, or a crossbow, cricket bat, or a knife all far more deadly than your average airgun and yet easily obtainable.

 

This ban will force online traders out of business and you can guarantee that will see prices rise in all remaining gun shops, simply because they have you over a barrel.

Edited March 28, 2006 by rarms

[Moley61]

The ages relating to Airgun ownership and use have recently been raised so being in possession under the age of 18 is now an offence regardless of how you got the gun, so how will banning mail order help in any way at all?

I don't know why bLiar & Co hate their own people (us) so much? but everything they do demonstrates that hatred.

They divide and conquer and stick it to everyone when they can.

eg. we all get taxed more at every budget, but we are all in minorities that can be picked off one at a time;

Smokers

4x4 owners

Fox Hunters

Handgun owners

Air Gunners

Motorcyclists

Car Drivers

Pensioners

Home owners

Farmers

etc. etc. etc.

We don't pull together in this country like they do in France for example so it is easy to take rights, priviledges and freedoms from us while feathering their own nests. Just look at MPs pensions-they voted to spend our money (taxes) to fill their deficit while telling us to work until we drop.

Removing mail order Air Guns will do nothing to address existing problems but it will allow a fine soundbite when they 'spin' the media to ask the right question.

So no, I don't take kindly to lying, thieving scum dictating to me and governing by 'soundbite'.

I'd rather they were more 'honest' and just broke into my house and took everything, at least I could claim on the insurance.

[pavman]

The problem is Axe, that's letting the country be ruled by the actions of the few and not the many, its totally undemocratic.

 

The 5% that cause problems are never going to just take it, they're going to find a way around the legislation and do what they want anyway.

Spot on

 

But if you are an ethnic minority and wanted to get a rifle via post it will be ok because Whitehall wants to see all fully integrated into society which includes fishing and field sports, If it offended some religion it would also be ok to get a rifle by post!

[mossy835]

got out of the basc, along time ago.not getting fat on my money

Edited April 6, 2006 by mossy835

[coupe312]

Back to the orginal point of banning mail order guns. if anyone wants gun underhand they will always be a loop hole without a simalar system to whats in place with shotguns and firearms.

 

i understand that this will anoy some people but pre selecting who can have them and not? crossbow should also need covering. i don't want nanny style country any mor ethan the rest but i can see a small need for it.

 

but at the end of the day it still boils down to if you want anything can be gained underhand guns of all kind included. :*)

[the pelt man]

Are you all missing the point.

How many of you would vote in a Party that say we want to put up income tax

To pay for the things that need to be paid for. That party would not get voted in, because most people vote for there pocket.

Now to inforce current law on gun crime & to dish out stronger sentences costs a great deal of tax payers money.

Its cheaper to make new laws to stop the easy access to guns.

 

The only way a party will stay in power is by pleaseing the majority, most people dont shoot so dont want to pay more tax to deal with gun crime, they would rather see no guns with massive savings of there money to be spent on something else.

 

Now do we want some changes in law to try to stop gun crime, which if it stops even a few events that hit the news & inflame the bad feeling about guns. Or leave it as it is spend lots of tax payers money & the bad feelings about guns increasing resulting in a bigger call for a total ban on all guns. Which we dont want.

 

If you realy want/need a gun for your sport or job then you will find a way to get one. This new law cuts out the armchair shopper who has no real intrest other than to keep the kids happy.

 

"ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE"

 

I could go on a bit more but i will save it, as i know i will need it.

 

 

The Pelt Man

[game_keeper]

i believe BASC are not doing any favours for shooting. I went to the game fair last weekend and decided to do a bit of shooting instruction. There was a big board saying ask any advice bla bla bla. So at the end i asked the instructer about suitable chokes for shooting foxes. He then took me aside and said we dont talk about shooting "live" targets here. These are the people who meant to be defending our sport, but then wont be seen to be talking about it. Utter madness

[Simon Roberts]

Lizard

 

Some people unfortunatley live too far away from a gun dealer to be ABLE to call in and order so HAVE to either order online or by phone.

 

The Main problem with the law as it stands is it ISN'T enforced enough. Little billy no nuts get a gun off his daddy and goes shooting his neighbours etc thinking it's cool. The gun is confiscated little billy goes to the police station and is given a mere caution.

 

Billy's dad or mum needs charged with negligence for allowing little billy to play out with a gun in the first place.

 

But the CPS let the whole system down when a case gets to court and dish out a sentence (if a sentence at all) that is TOO LENIENT and this sends out the wrong signals to other little billys.

 

They will be thinking it's no problem if they are caught at worst they lose their gun but what the hell mummy will buy little billy another to keep him out the house while mummy and daddy deal their crack

 

I think a bit of legislation thet SHOULD be brought in is Cabinet required for Air rifles also and it should be the parents responsibility to make sure when little billy isn't at the shooting club then the gun is securely locked away.

 

If these guns were securely locked up then surely little billy can't go playing with his no nuts pals with his gun and hopefully this will bring a sharp decrease in cases of Airgun related incidents.

 

The Law needs to be enforced to it's FULLEST extent as it is today if they are to expect Kids to sit up and listen.

 

Perhaps even go as far as to send a police officer to schools and give a talk on the law relating to Airguns and guns in general and then when cases come to court they can surely have NO excuse for not knowing the law relating to guns.

 

BUT the Crown Prosecution Service needs to make a PROPPER effort when cases like this come to court and dish out a Sentence people will start to take note of and think twice before walking the streets and being a ***** with their airguns

 

LG

How would they know you had a cabinet when they sell you a air riflr though? would you have to have it inspected by a Firearms officer and then granted a license??

[the pelt man]

LG

How would they know you had a cabinet when they sell you a air riflr though? would you have to have it inspected by a Firearms officer and then granted a license??

 

 

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME

 

Plus insurance

 

 

The Pelt Man

Edited April 6, 2006 by the pelt man