FIREARMS PETITION

[gemini52]

Signed this lets hope it can make a difference.

[wildrover77]

whats the nonsense with regard to "need" the facts are if you have a requirement for one you can get them. Targets wise there is still a fair array of things to play with its just it has changed a little.

Yes just changed a little, a complete ban on pistol ownership with the good reason being target shooting.

 

Your definition of a fair array of things to play with is different to mine, you are NOT allowed fullbore or rimfire pistols for target shooting.

 

LBR/LBP are not hanguns.

Edited May 12, 2013 by wildrover77

[timmy1146]

Just read that I may be this "forum nutter" I'm not, just an annoyed citizen who wants change to the law.

 

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

[Scully]

I don't know where you've got the quote from,but agree with it in the main.Saying that,it concerns the carrying of arms for self defence,something which the Firearms Amendments acts following Hungerford and Dunblane weren't concerned with,as we (in the UK mainland) already didn't have the right to carry arms for self defence.

If you want to reinstate the return of handguns for sporting purposes you would have more success plaiting snot,to be frank.And if you want to lobby for the right to bear arms for self defence,put some welders gloves on before trying to plait it.

No politician will go anywhere near this topic;and even though there are some politicians who have stated the handgun ban was bad legislation,you will find none to carry the flag.

If you really want to do some good, your time would be better spent in generating the numbers of people who participate in those shooting disciplines which are currently available to us.Our safety lies in numbers;all potential voters;the more of us there are the harder it is to walk all over us.

The shooting organisations aren't interested in handguns,the politicians aren't,and even more crucial,shooters aren't.

[spanj]

whats the nonsense with regard to "need" the facts are if you have a requirement for one you can get them. Targets wise there is still a fair array of things to play with its just it has changed a little.

a little .............. really ?

[timmy1146]

The quote was from Thomas Jefferson 3rd President of the United States.

 

Seems really sad that shooters aren't united when it comes to these sort of matters. How shooters don't seem the be bothered about doing anything about there sport being destroyed. Why do organisations members not join together and have there say and get things like practical handgun back?

[Livefast123]

Because as long as their little 'niche' is ok then they don't care about what happens to anybody else's. I have never known a sport / hobby where the different fractions are so alienated from each other.

 

Problem is, once they come for one they'll come for all.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Livefast123

[aris]

We are already being conditioned to lose more of our civil liberties after this latest 'terrorist' attack. It is Dunblane all over again, and the public may well swallow it.

[spanj]

Because as long as their little 'niche' is ok then they don't care about what happens to anybody else's. I have never known a sport / hobby where the different fractions are so alienated from each other.

 

Problem is, once they come for one they'll come for all.

Livefast, "they" have already come and one niche (handgunners) have all but gone. WE are all insignificant and I genuinely believe that we will loose the right to own firearms as private individuals in my lifetime ........... I'll be happy to be wrong on this one

[Paladin]

Some shooters are only shooters because it's their next 'fad'. and could easily drop it and move onto the next one.

 

We are all under threat of losing our 'sport'

In the future Shotgunners may have to use subsonic loads only, and if you own a rifle then you may be limited to a maximum range of a few hundred yards. Then if some bright 'jobsworth' decides to get a compass on your permission and draws a 'safety' circle, you may even loose it because there are dwellings within the circle.

 

 

Because as long as their little 'niche' is ok then they don't care about what happens to anybody else's. I have never known a sport / hobby where the different fractions are so alienated from each other.

 

Problem is, once they come for one they'll come for all.

[Bazooka Joe]

 

Then if some bright 'jobsworth' decides to get a compass on your permission and draws a 'safety' circle, you may even loose it because there are dwellings within the circle.

 

 

 

 

There was a halfwit up ours (made up to FEO) who did the exact same thing on ordnance survey maps,

 

he had little arrows in red pointing to the direction you could only shoot., along with a circle, drawn to scale at a mile & a half...what he'd read off the 22RF box...

[Paladin]

 

 

There was a halfwit up ours (made up to FEO) who did the exact same thing on ordnance survey maps,

 

he had little arrows in red pointing to the direction you could only shoot., along with a circle, drawn to scale at a mile & a half...what he'd read off the 22RF box...

 

 

There you go, we need to educate constantly.

 

No one will ever convince me that having several shooting Organisations/Associations is a good idea. United we stand divided we fall.

[HDAV]

*****

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34808

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43574

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44137

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40645

[Dekers]

*****

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34808

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43574

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44137

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40645

 

For once words fail me.

[JonathanL]

 

 

...we (in the UK mainland) already didn't have the right to carry arms for self defence.

 

 

Actually we do. There is nothing at all in law which says that 'self defence' is not a good reason for being granted an FAC. In fact, the blanket policy of never issuing FAC's for that purpose is unlawful in its self. If you have 'good reason' then a certificate must be granted. The police cannot operate a blanket policy which dictates what can never be considered good reason.

 

When you think about it, self defence and the protection of others from violent crime is probably the only real 'need' anyone could ever reasonably justify for possession of a firearm.

 

 

If you really want to do some good, your time would be better spent in generating the numbers of people who participate in those shooting disciplines which are currently available to us.Our safety lies in numbers;all potential voters;the more of us there are the harder it is to walk all over us.

 

 

This is something I have been preaching for years and years yet there is almost zero interest in doing it. If shooters spent even 10% of the effort they put into dreaming up reasons not to enourage new blood we'd all be laughing.

 

 

 

The shooting organisations aren't interested in handguns,the politicians aren't,and even more crucial,shooters aren't.

 

 

Which is why there needs to be more shooters. There were 57,000 pistol shooters in 1997. If there had been the same number of pistol shooters as there were/are shotgunners then pistols would never have been banned. Likewise, if there were only 57,000 shotgunners at the time of Cumbria or Peterlee then there would be precisely none today!

 

J.

[JonathanL]

whats the nonsense with regard to "need" the facts are if you have a requirement for one you can get them.

 

That isn't true. Need, is not synonymous with good reason. If it were then Parliament would simply have used the word its self. The HO guidance says something along the lines of "Good reason should not be equated with desire, nor should it be restricted to need".

 

J.

[HDAV]

Isnt it the CC who desides if the "reason" is good enough, hence why police and prison officers in NI and ex politicians and some others in the UK can have personal protection weapons (as they have a real risk of assassination). I would think a few Oligarchs have them or at least have "security men" with them.

[JonathanL]

Isnt it the CC who desides if the "reason" is good enough, hence why police and prison officers in NI and ex politicians and some others in the UK can have personal protection weapons (as they have a real risk of assassination). I would think a few Oligarchs have them or at least have "security men" with them.

 

No chance. The situation on the mainland is not the same as in NI as a CC cannot issue an FAC for a pistol because they are section 5 here and there isn't really any other. The decision isn't one to be made by him. The Home Office could issue a section 5 authority to an individual but would never do so in relation to personal protection within the UK. No private individuals, especially foreign nationals, have section 5 authority for personal protection and and the home office has always made a point of pointing that out. There is precisely zero chance of that ever chaging as it would make it extremely difficult to stem the inevitable flood of applications which would follow.

 

J.