Looks like 50 cal and some .22 could be going

[bluesj]

No chance of getting shooting organisations to work towards a common goal, shooter can't agree so why would the organisations that they pay for.

You only have to look at posts on this forum, too many people happy to see one type or another banned because they don't use them.

[Scully]

If types are banned then there has to be compensation paid; there are no alternatives.

[Dellbert]

Have I just wasted £2000 ?

 

Hope not for your sake and mine ive waited 4 months for a 22 CMMG (which i intend to get a 223 upper for ) so if they include semi 22 rimfires thats a chunk of money down the tubes as well .

[Scully]

 

Hope not for your sake and mine ive waited 4 months for a 22 CMMG (which i intend to get a 223 upper for ) so if they include semi 22 rimfires thats a chunk of money down the tubes as well .

Again; no it isnt a chunk of money down the tubes.

Compensation has to be paid in cases such as these, for legitimately bought items which government then subsequently ban.

[Old farrier]

Again; no it isnt a chunk of money down the tubes.

Compensation has to be paid in cases such as these, for legitimately bought items which government then subsequently ban.

Probably best to keep all receipt in a safe place incase they decided on a fixed price compensation package

Just a thought

 

All the best

Of

[Graham M]

I remember back in 1997 when the Liberals wanted to back Labour on the pistol ban, but wanted to go further and scrap any compensation offer.

The Liberal party are what a good friend in America used to call "Political Whores". They would jump into bed with anyone who they thought would give them something.

[ninja_fox]

I'm pretty sure that the government will decide if they're going to pay compensation and what that will be, when they decide to re-categorise anything. Just because they did it 20 years ago doesn't mean that they will do it again.

[rbrowning2]

Again; no it isnt a chunk of money down the tubes.

Compensation has to be paid in cases such as these, for legitimately bought items which government then subsequently ban.

Says who? On what legal bases are you arriving at that? And even if paid then it may only be a token amount.

 

After all those are are banning it are making up the rules.

[Guest stevo]

Says who? On what legal bases are you arriving at that? And even if paid then it may only be a token amount.

After all those are are banning it are making up the rules.

A lot of people did get fully compensated. Some even made on it. I got all my money back and actually made a out £75 on the ammo.

 

In fact a quick search has shown that up to 1998 45% had been fully paid up.

[Scully]

I'm pretty sure that the government will decide if they're going to pay compensation and what that will be, when they decide to re-categorise anything. Just because they did it 20 years ago doesn't mean that they will do it again.

Ita a matter of legalities.

[Scully]

Says who? On what legal bases are you arriving at that? And even if paid then it may only be a token amount.

 

After all those are are banning it are making up the rules.

The government may be all manner of things, but even they are bound by legalities. Edited October 8, 2017 by Scully

[rbrowning2]

A lot of people did get fully compensated. Some even made on it. I got all my money back and actually made a out £75 on the ammo.

In fact a quick search has shown that up to 1998 45% had been fully paid up.

Indeed, I was one of them, but it cost a lot more that they expected, I hope you are correct and given their are only a few 50cals they may pay up but potentially considerably more rapid fire rifles but I think they are after the Mars type cf rifles so again may not be to many. Hopefully they will see sense and not ban anything.

[ninja_fox]

From the Firearms Act (1997):

 

16.—(l) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section 15 above.

 

 

Which in my interpretation says - 'The Secretary of State will decide how much compensation will be paid, if any.'

 

Good luck getting any money out of the Government on that one.

[Guest stevo]

From the Firearms Act (1997):

 

16.—(l) The Secretary of [/size]State shall, in [/size]accordance [/size]with [/size]a [/size]scheme made [/size]by him, [/size]make payments [/size]in respect [/size]of [/size]firearms [/size]and ammunition surrendered [/size]at designated police [/size]stations [/size]in [/size]accordance [/size]with the [/size]arrangements made [/size]by [/size]him [/size]under [/size]section [/size]15 [/size]above. [/size]

 

 

Which in my interpretation says - 'The Secretary of State will decide how much compensation will be paid, if any.'

 

Good luck getting any money out of the Government on that one.

 

Yep and we all got our money back. I don’t know of anyone who didn’t get fully reimbursed

[Scully]

From the Firearms Act (1997):

 

16.(l) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section 15 above.

 

 

Which in my interpretation says - 'The Secretary of State will decide how much compensation will be paid, if any.'

 

Good luck getting any money out of the Government on that one.

Is that as the result of a ban?

Im still confident compensation will have to paid in full.

From the Firearms Act (1997):

 

16.(l) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section 15 above.

 

 

Which in my interpretation says - 'The Secretary of State will decide how much compensation will be paid, if any.'

 

Good luck getting any money out of the Government on that one.

Is that as the result of a ban?

Im still confident compensation will have to paid in full.

[Mikaveli]

It'll be a lot of noise / bad press if the government don't compensate after seizing (stealing) lawfully acquired and used property.

 

Still, the reclassification may not go ahead. Grandfather rights may apply - or they may even move to S5 with a competitive shooting exemption (just like S5 expanding bullets worked for hunters).

[Jaymo]

With what I believe will happen ( assuming the Committee agrees on their ‘banning’), is that Compensation will be paid out in full.

 

My reasoning, the low .50 cal numbers and also corresponding low amounts of VZ and lever release ( let’s face it, that’s what this is really about- not .22 rimfire) does not create such a large payout as the previous Bans.

Also, as this is not the result of any of these Weapons being used in a crime/atrocity then this also influences the potential compensation?

 

For all of our sakes, even though it’s not a discipline that I shoot, I hope that a ban will not be forthcoming

[Mikaveli]

Ban targeting just .50 cal and MARS according to BASC, in an update from today:

 

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/plans-to-change-firearm-laws-not-supported-by-evidence-says-basc/

[Scully]

Quite a cynical move really, as it isnt a ban but rather a move in categorisation and therefore unlikely to attract compensation.

Im assuming that very much like the move to license air rifles in Scotland; those who want to keep them will have to apply for a license and when granted will have to abide by those category restrictions, whatever that may be.

Those who dont wish to abide by those restrictions are left with no choice but to sell....but to whom and at what diminished value because of those restrictions?

Because its not a ban then I doubt there will be compensation. Sneaky eh?

They did this regarding high capacity magazine fed shotguns following Hungerford; but because individual shotguns werent itemised on tickets at the time, many owners chose rather than surrender or license their already legitimately purchased guns decided they would simply not bother.

This cant happen with .50 cal or MARS as theyre already licensed.

Time to start writing. Dont leave it to your shooting organisation.

[Breastman]

Quite a cynical move really, as it isnt a ban but rather a move in categorisation and therefore unlikely to attract compensation.

Im assuming that very much like the move to license air rifles in Scotland; those who want to keep them will have to apply for a license and when granted will have to abide by those category restrictions, whatever that may be.

Those who dont wish to abide by those restrictions are left with no choice but to sell....but to whom and at what diminished value because of those restrictions?

Because its not a ban then I doubt there will be compensation. Sneaky eh?

They did this regarding high capacity magazine fed shotguns following Hungerford; but because individual shotguns werent itemised on tickets at the time, many owners chose rather than surrender or license their already legitimately purchased guns decided they would simply not bother.

This cant happen with .50 cal or MARS as theyre already licensed.

Time to start writing. Dont leave it to your shooting organisation.

 

Not quite. If they permit them to be continued to be held by current owners as S5 items, the same way as Brocock revolvers then they wouldn't have to pay compensation.

 

If they move them to S5 without retention rights for the current owners, the same thing they did with 'small firearms' (i.e. handguns), then compensation would be due. What level of compensation would be an entirely different matter....

 

Either way, once the consultation opens its time to bombard them again like we did after the last HACS consultation following the shootings in Cumbria. Hopefully this time around more than 1200 out of 715,000 certificate holders will bother to pull their fingers out!

Edited October 10, 2017 by Breastman

[Scully]

 

Not quite. If they permit them to be continued to be held by current owners as S5 items, the same way as Brocock revolvers then they wouldn't have to pay compensation.

 

If they move them to S5 without retention rights for the current owners, the same thing they did with 'small firearms' (i.e. handguns), then compensation would be due. What level of compensation would be an entirely different matter....

 

Either way, once the consultation opens its time to bombard them again like we did after the last HACS consultation following the shootings in Cumbria. Hopefully this time around more than 1200 out of 715,000 certificate holders will bother to pull their fingers out!

Fair enough; Im not too familiar with S5 restrictions.

Dont hold your breath awaiting shooters to respond in significant numbers; those facing potential restrictions are an even smaller minority of a minority.

[Mikaveli]

Quite a cynical move really, as it isnt a ban but rather a move in categorisation and therefore unlikely to attract compensation.

 

Section 5 is the prohibited (banned) category... that's semi and full auto centre-fires, handguns, rocket launchers, exploding ammunition etc. It is the list of things we can't have!

 

When high capacity shotguns were recategorised, they went from Section 2 (shotgun licence) to Section 1 (firearms licence).

[Scully]

Thanks for the info.

Regarding your second paragraph; I understand how it worked. My statement regarding those shotguns affected still applies in that many of those who owned them simply kept quiet the fact they had them rather than license them.

The alternative was to sell them to a dealer at a less than generous offer; hand them in without recompense or pay to have them restricted.

I owned one which had been shoved under the floorboards so to speak. 🙂

[Mikaveli]

Shotguns were lucky - there was a special provision to allow non-S1-conforming to be altered (18" barrel to 24", folding stock to fixed etc.) to avoid S5.

 

With most other guns, once classified as S5, they stay that way. Then, the only lawful way to retain one, would be deactivation.

[wymberley]

Tacked on the bottom of these same proposals is the bit about knife purchases. Can anyone tell me if there is a legal minimum age for the carrying of UK legal pocket knives?