Looks like 50 cal and some .22 could be going

[Breastman]

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?

 

No mention of any age restrictions for carrying knives, only purchasing them

 

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186911/Knives_and_offensive_weapons_information_GDS_FAQ.pdf

Edited October 11, 2017 by Breastman

[Itchington Harris]

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!

 

Blow pipes are also section 5!

[Bangbangman]

This affects all gun owners.

 

The following (edited) was posted by a shooter on another forum, pointing out the possible hidden agenda in the new Home Office proposals:

 

This isn't intended to usurp the current thread. But to highlight the hidden barb in the HO proposals. It is a throwaway line in relation to knife type and martial art type weapons possessed in private premises. It is this:

 

“Even if the owner of the weapon in question has no intention at all of using it, there is a risk that they may be targeted by criminals intending to steal it.”

 

There is NO qualification about such an item being allowed if "kept securely" and, knowing how the HO sets up way markers that it later uses to introduce further restriction; it is a future possible threat to gun ownership.

 

I have seen this before.

 

That having had accepted the idea that item “X”, at home, is a risk to public safety as it could be stolen, that idea is then extended to banning “Y” from being kept at home. And if it cannot be safely stored away from home then for “Y” to be banned.

 

So it important even if you've no interest in .50 BMG, or corrosives, to complete the survey and and state that items kept at home should not be prohibited, as in any case if it can be kept securely then its possession at home or on private premises what is the problem that the HO Survey implies.

 

The HO proposal is a "stalking horse" to eventually require storage away from the owner's home of target weapons and/or air weapons IMHO. But in clubs. And a ban if they cannot. Just as such storage was rejected for centrefire pistols under the Tory handgun ban.

 

The HO has flown this "kite" before!

 

 

The wording of the proposals and the survey are very sneaky; a far-reaching agenda is hidden at the heart of this legislation.

 

ALL shooters must oppose it: complete the survey and write to your MP. I have done both and urge others to do the same.

 

Apathy will be the death of shooting in this country.

 

Those links again-

 

The “consultation”:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/offensive-and-dangerous-weapons-new-legislation

 

Contact your MP:

https://www.writetothem.com/

[TommyB]

Done.

[Rimfireboy]

Blow pipes are also section 5!

How do they define a blowpipe?

[Itchington Harris]

How do they define a blowpipe?

I think it's to do with them being able to fire a dart, otherwise possession of a peashooter could land you in prison for 5 years!

 

Stupid law is stupid.

[Rimfireboy]

I think it's to do with them being able to fire a dart, otherwise possession of a peashooter could land you in prison for 5 years!

Stupid law is stupid.

Exactly, that’s just about any piece of pipe is a section 5 firearm then. You couldn’t make it up....

[TriBsa]

No doubt many have read this thread, thinking that any new legislation will affect a few target shooters and not them. So no problem for me then. But this Police driven legislation seems to be only the thin end of the wedge. This rather disturbing information comes from the Dorking and District Rifle Club - https://dorkingrifleclub.com/2017/10/15/potentail-ban-update/

I'm sure most on this board can find something that would concern them here:

Quote

The message below cam to me via a source – it shows what further measures the Police would like. If you dont have a MARS and think a Lever Release isnt included or that this doesnt apply to you – they will get to you eventually so please act now to stop additional legislation

The below was obtained by a shooting organisation through a FOIA request, it is from an ACPO – whatever it is now called – position paper from 2015. We have no reason to doubt its authenticity and much fits with  long standing police aims. They are now working through their ‘wish list’ to be done in stages as the opportunity arises and of course depending how much fuss is kicked up by shooting organisations and the shooting community (that’s us).

 

1. End Section 2 – all to be Section 1.  They have been trying for this since 1973 – latest excuse is that it will be more efficient and cheaper to have one certificate. Rubbish and the potential impact on shotgun ownership is huge

 

2. All, yes all, semi-automatic firearms to be prohibited as Section 5. If it has to be done in stages they’ll do shotguns first and then .22 RF – starting by changing law to say that nothing bigger than .22  RF is permitted in semi-auto

 

3. Introduction of magazine capacity limits for rifles – not specified but assume 10 or possibly less, 5?

 

4. Reclassification of LBR and LBP to Section 5 and therefore prohibited – they have never liked them and claim people can saw down the barrels to make them pistols

 

5. End the miniature rifle range exemptions which the police claim allows an unregistered trade in .22 RF rifles.  Again they have never liked the old exemptions and have tried to deny their use over the years

 

6. Prohibit .50 calibre by moving to Section 5 as per current proposal

 

7. Airguns – ‘further restrictions should be placed on such weapons’. The announced consultation is to determine whether England should follow Scotland and licence as firearms. Police will claim it’s an anomaly in England and therefore the law should be standard across the UK so licensing for England is necessary

 

8. Old spec deacts – police want to make it a criminal offence to be in possession of a deactivated firearm that has not been deactivated to the CURRENT standard.  Anyone with an old spec deactivated firearm will have to have it done to the current standard if they wish to keep it. Creates lots of new criminals.  Coincidentally the Government has now stopped its prison closure programme…….

 

9. Antiques – requirement for antique dealers to keep registers like RFDs do for non-antiques. Reclassification of some antiques to Section 1

 

10. ‘Shotgun cartridges to be licensed’ – not sure what this means given you have to produce a certificate when buying – assume it  means the same treatment as Section 1 ammunition, limits on numbers held and entry of each purchase on certificate

 

11. Mandatory training and testing of individuals before a certificate is issued.  Not clear who does the training and decides if a person meets the standard

 

12. New powers of entry to search without a warrant – they may have got this already, or claim to have. Basically it’s to allow them to take firearms from a certificate holder without having to show good reason

 

13. Abolishing court appeals on firearms certification matters. Courts to be replaced by a ‘non-binding tribunal’.  Currently the police are bound by court decisions but a tribunal would limit the rights of the individual and for the police to be unaccountable. This is quite worrying as it would enable to Police to make up the law and do what they want without proper oversight

 

14. ‘Family members’ to be consulted prior to grant or renewal of a certificate on the suitability of the applicant.  Police want this to find ‘evidence’ of non-suitability.  ‘Have often do you argue with your spouse?’ ……

 

15. The current Home Office Guidelines on Firearms law to become mandatory and binding – but only after the police have re-written them.

 

So there you have it – as we said, winter is coming.  If they get the current proposals through relatively easily expect things from the above list to be presented for ‘consultation’ quite quickly.   The shooting organisations are moving into action and so will you by writing to your MP to object and request him/her to object to any changes to the current firearms legislation currently being proposed/suggested.

 

[Scully]

None of the above surprises me at all if true.

Ive never trusted the police and all this does is justify that mistrust in my opinion.

[spanj]

On 07/11/2017 at 22:11, TriBsa said:

No doubt many have read this thread, thinking that any new legislation will affect a few target shooters and not them. So no problem for me then. But this Police driven legislation seems to be only the thin end of the wedge. This rather disturbing information comes from the Dorking and District Rifle Club - https://dorkingrifleclub.com/2017/10/15/potentail-ban-update/

I'm sure most on this board can find something that would concern them here:

 

Point 14 above happened to me during the application process for FAC some 20 years ago........ FLO asked wife "if she had any objections to me having guns in the house", wasnt expecting it as a question and still dont expect it every time they come for renewal

[Bazooka Joe]

No-14 was used by Durham 3-4yrs ago, along with who was a regular at your house, daughters boyfriends names, DOB, address etc.

I didn't go down that route, & told the FEO at the time he was way over the mark asking.

[Guest]

I’ve written to my MP. I urge everyone else to do the same. It’s no good bleating on here.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, THEBIGMAN said:

I’ve written to my MP. I urge everyone else to do the same. It’s no good bleating on here.

What did you write in the letter/email? Any chance of putting up a draft copy so we can send our MP's one. I wouldn't know what to write, but would like to send one.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Here is what I wrote to my MP a couple of weeks ago;

 

Dear

I wish to bring to your attention my misgivings with regard to possible new legislation of offensive and dangerous weapons. A public consultation is currently being undertaken by the Home Office.

Whilst I am happy to support timely new laws that will increase public safety, I believe this is also to be used as another back door way to strike at the Lawful Gun Owner in this wonderful country of ours.

The biggest problem in relation to firearms is the number of illegally held weapons, not those held by the most law abiding members of society who by their very nature are good solid individuals.

I feel that we currently have sufficient Firearms Legislation and that more time and assets should be used to remove the illegally held weapons from those people who would never satisfy the stringent checks undertaken on a regular basis.

I would hope you would support my feelings whenever it may come to the vote within the House.

Yours sincerely,

 

I hope this may help.

[Newbie to this]

11 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Here is what I wrote to my MP a couple of weeks ago;

 

Dear

I wish to bring to your attention my misgivings with regard to possible new legislation of offensive and dangerous weapons. A public consultation is currently being undertaken by the Home Office.

Whilst I am happy to support timely new laws that will increase public safety, I believe this is also to be used as another back door way to strike at the Lawful Gun Owner in this wonderful country of ours.

The biggest problem in relation to firearms is the number of illegally held weapons, not those held by the most law abiding members of society who by their very nature are good solid individuals.

I feel that we currently have sufficient Firearms Legislation and that more time and assets should be used to remove the illegally held weapons from those people who would never satisfy the stringent checks undertaken on a regular basis.

I would hope you would support my feelings whenever it may come to the vote within the House.

Yours sincerely,

 

I hope this may help.

Thanks

[TriBsa]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

What did you write in the letter/email? Any chance of putting up a draft copy so we can send our MP's one. I wouldn't know what to write, but would like to send one.

If you are replying to the Home Office, then not use cut and paste letters. This is a consultation not a petition and it says on the Home Office Website that cut and paste letters will be ignored. You can of course use the points in someone elses letter but please use your own words. The same for MP's, they are more likely to consider individual letters. Please take the time to do this.

Edited November 9, 2017 by TriBsa

[Newbie to this]

2 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

Do not use cut and paste letters. This is a consultation not a petition and it says on the Home Office Website that cut and paste letters will be ignored. You can of course use the points in someone elses letter but please use your own words. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

36 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

If you are replying to the Home Office, then not use cut and paste letters. This is a consultation not a petition and it says on the Home Office Website that cut and paste letters will be ignored. You can of course use the points in someone elses letter but please use your own words. The same for MP's, they are more likely to consider individual letters. Please take the time to do this.

Good point, the original was all mine and yes you should always put things in your own words.

33 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

 

[CaptainBeaky]

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Here is what I wrote to my MP a couple of weeks ago;

 

Dear

I wish to bring to your attention my misgivings with regard to possible new legislation of offensive and dangerous weapons. A public consultation is currently being undertaken by the Home Office.

Whilst I am happy to support timely new laws that will increase public safety, I believe this is also to be used as another back door way to strike at the Lawful Gun Owner in this wonderful country of ours.

The biggest problem in relation to firearms is the number of illegally held weapons, not those held by the most law abiding members of society who by their very nature are good solid individuals.

I feel that we currently have sufficient Firearms Legislation and that more time and assets should be used to remove the illegally held weapons from those people who would never satisfy the stringent checks undertaken on a regular basis.

I would hope you would support my feelings whenever it may come to the vote within the House.

Yours sincerely,

 

I hope this may help.

Thanks,  tc

I'll email mine later

on

[Breastman]

As well as emailing your MP, you should also complete BOTH the ticky box consultation AND email the Home Office using the email at the bottom of this page;

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/offensive-and-dangerous-weapons-new-legislation

This is my letter to the Home Office, which is a modified version of the one I sent my MP. Now that the FCSA have got more details from the HO I will be emailing my MP again with the updated information (As mentioned above, DO NOT COPY AND PASTE THIS!);

Dear sir/madam,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to send my views to you in regard to the above consultation. I wish to make it clear that i am an active firearms owner/user and that is primarily my interest in this consultation. On that note, i have to say that i find it quite insulting that lawfully owned firearms, and by extension, their owners, have been 'lumped in' with proposals relating to vicious acid attacks. If i were more cynical i would say that the firearms element of this consultation has been 'by the back door' and i am thankful that various shooting bodies and forums have made the shooting community aware of it. I would certainly hope that it was intended to be published when it was, and it wasn't 'tagged on' to get the maximum impact because of the horrendous shooting in Las Vegas that week. 

 

The proposal to make .50BMG rifles and 'certain rapid fire rifles' (which still has not been clarified exactly what is meant by this, although it is presumed by the text that this refers to the VZ58 MARS action guns sold by Caledonian Classic Arms), Section 5 (Prohibited) does not appear to be evidence or incident based. The firearms part of the consultation paper begins by outlining an increase in firearms offences but fails to demonstrate or even acknowledge whether these offences are being carried out with legally owned firearms, let alone 50cal and 'rapid fire rifles', or (much more likely) illegal, already prohibited firearms. There appears to be a deliberate effort to try and link the two but without providing any evidence whatsoever. It is my understanding that neither legally owned 50cal or MARS rifles have ever been used in a crime or terrorist attack in the UK, possibly because both are found in low quantities in this country, possibly because the current licensing system actually works and also possibly, because the type of criminals/terrorists who would use such firearms have no difficulty sourcing them illegally/outside the control of firearms legislation.

 

The notion that a serious criminal/terrorist is going to expose themselves to police/security forces attention by applying for a Firearms Certificate to obtain one of these guns legally is bordering on the ludicrous so it can only be assumed that the 'threat' comes from the loss or theft of the firearms. Loss of a firearm that is solely used at a rifle range (they are not practical guns for pest control etc) is exceptionally unlikely, given the nature of gun clubs in the UK i.e. the guns are used from firing points and rarely, if ever, with only one person there. Even if they were somehow left behind it is again very unlikely that they wouldn't be found quickly by other members or the staff at the range. Given the size of .50cal rifles and the cost of both types, i think it is exceedingly unlikely that an owners mind would slip and leave one behind. While there is always the risk of theft of a legally owned firearm, surely the requirement for additional security would be a more proportionate response than completely banning them? It is my understanding that the targeted theft of firearms is exceedingly low, to the point that I have been unable to obtain figures on the matter and thefts of guns are generally an opportunist type crime when safes are broken into for other items.

 

Further, the idea that banning such firearms would prevent crimes being committed with that type of firearm has no empirical backing, given that fully-automatic firearms have essentially been banned since 1937, and 'proper' handguns being banned since 1997, yet both are still used in the commission of crime to this very day, with both types of gun being used at the Halloween party shooting in Leyton recently. It is also noted that the Office of National Statistics shows that handguns are still the most common firearm* used in firearm crime and murder. Why this lesson STILL hasn't apparently been learned by Whitehall is a mystery to me and the shooting community as a whole.

 

(*actual firearm, not air gun or replica)

 

Aside from the empirical evidence showing that 'banning' guns does not work, a person determined to do harm to others does not need to use a firearm, as the horrible vehicle attacks this year and last within the EU and UK have clearly demonstrated. I understand that the government at times needs to be 'seen to do something', but placating the general public by pretending that the proposals outlined will somehow make them any more safe is at best dishonest.

 

Crime, violence and murder are the result of a complex mix of socio-economic factors and gun control legislation has little, if any influence. I have seen several letters of response from MP's regarding this consultation that trot out the same tired nonsense about a USA Vs UK comparison between so-called lax and strict gun control. What most of them seem oblivious to is that the UK has always had relatively low gun crime and murder, even before we had ANY gun control at all in this country. If i was being lazy i'd say that gun violence has become worse in the latter half of the last century and beginning of the 21stC, while gun control has become more and more restrictive, as 'evidence' that firearms legislation doesn't work, however the two issues are unrelated from one another. 

 

I have also seen a bizarre response from an MP stating that reducing the availability of firearms would somehow impact upon suicide levels, with examples of World Health Organisation statistics showing that the US has more gun suicides than the UK as if that somehow means something. Of course the US will have a greater number of gun suicides than the UK because they have a much larger population, and more people there own guns! If high gun ownership levels directly equated to high suicide rates then the US would be the top of the WHO's suicide rate chart with Finland, Norway, Greenland etc coming up close behind and places like China, Japan, Lithuania and the UK far lower. Examination of the WHO data clearly shows this is not the case, and yet again it is socio-economic reasons that lead people to suicide rather than the means the person has available to them to achieve their goal.

 

To go back to the consultation documentation, it is noted in the 'risk assessment' that only 3 options are given for possible courses of action (Do nothing, and two different flavours of banning the guns). There are at least two other options that i can think of including; similar to the Brocock revolvers, give existing owners Section 5 authority to remain in possession of the guns already in circulation, but prohibit their sale/transfer, so once the current owners pass away, or no longer wish to own the guns, they are handed into the police for destruction. While i firmly disagree that these guns are any more dangerous than any other currently legal firearms, this would at least be a reasonable compromise and would mean that there would be no requirement to pay compensation, thus saving the taxpayer the expense. Another option would be to require enhanced security to be provided to retain ownership of these firearms. A monitored house alarm, vehicle safe etc would minimise the chance of theft of such guns.

 

To summarise;

 

• Banning guns does not work. If it did, handguns would not be the #1 type of firearm used in crime now despite being 'banned' for 20 years.
• Legally owned 50cal and MARS guns have no record of being used in crime or terrorism as they are not attractive guns for such criminals.
• 'What if'/no evidence based legislation is fundamentally bad legislation. The perceived actions of those who operate outside of the law should not dictate the freedoms of those who obey the law.
• Currently S5 guns are apparently freely available to criminals and there is seemingly no desire from the criminal/terrorist fraternity to obtain .50cal/MARS guns.
• Other means of causing injury and death are far more easily obtainable, and arguably more effective i.e. large vehicles.

 

It is time for the government to take a serious approach to tackling the socio-economic factors (employment, poverty, gang culture, lack of integration etc) which actually cause crime and terrorism and stop pretending that preventing Mr Smith from shooting a 50cal/MARS/handgun/semi-auto rifle at the local rifle range has had/will have any impact on day-to-day violence and the criminal use of firearms.

 

I would be most obliged if you could take the above into consideration and acknowledge receipt of this email. 

 

If you require any clarification of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on this email address.

 

Yours faithfully

[CaptainBeaky]

Good letter, BM. Logical, well-argued points.

 

Here's my effort, sent just now, with a grateful nod to Tightchoke earlier:

 

Dear (MP)

I wish to bring to your attention my serious concerns  with regard to proposed new legislation regarding offensive and dangerous weapons, on which a public consultation is currently being undertaken by the Home Office.

Whilst I would welcome new laws that will actually increase public safety, I believe this legislation is in part merely a publicity exercise, intended to show that “something is being done”, and also a thinly veiled excuse to effectively ban certain classes of firearm on fairly dubious grounds.

Certain parts of the legislation also appear to be deliberately vague, to create ‘catch-all’ rules with application far beyond the immediate professed aim of the legislation.

Proposed Amendments to Firearms Legislation

 

To quote Lord Swansea (HL Deb 23 October 1973 vol 345 cc528-616 )

 

“To-day we are faced with proposals for yet further restrictions on the legitimate possession of firearms and shot guns, and yet further administrative work for the police, with little or no prospect of making life any more difficult for the criminal.”

 

The proposed moving of “certain rapid firing rifles” and 0.50” calibre rifles to Section 5 of the Firearms Act – effectively banning them – is not supported by any crime figures: there appear to be no instances of crimes committed in the UK or Europe using either type. If there were, they would certainly have been referenced in the consultation as supporting evidence – their absence from the consultation paper leads one to the inescapable conclusion that there is, in fact, no such evidence, and furthermore, that the proposal is an opportunistic attempt to further restrict firearms ownership in the UK, in line with the views expressed in the 1973 Green Paper (Control of Firearms in Great Britain), that, and I quote, “a reduction in the number of firearms in private hands is a desirable end in itself.” I would note that the proposals were rejected by Parliament at that time as unreasonable.

The biggest problem in relation to firearms is the number of illegally held weapons, not those held by the most law abiding members of society who, by the very fact of holding a firearm or shotgun certificate, are considered to be suitable to possess firearms without hazard to public safety.

I would assert that current Firearms Legislation is more than sufficient to control the risk to the public from the legal ownership of firearms, and further, that time and assets would be better employed to remove the illegally held weapons, and to restrict or stop the flow of illegal weapons into the country from elsewhere.

 

Proposed Amendments to Knife Legislation

 

Firstly, the proposed amendment to the definition of flick knife: merely removing the reference to a mechanism within the handle from the definition, makes the definition so vague as to be applicable to almost any type of folding knife. I accept that the intent is to tighten the definition to negate attempts to circumvent the letter of the legislation, but the published attempt is woefully inadequate, and lays the proposers open to accusations of creating a catch-all definition to enable the banning and seizure of almost any type of folding knife.

 

Secondly, the proposal to restrict on-line sales of knives appears to be another example of poor targeting – the biggest problem area appears to be sales by major retailers, who are not applying the current law correctly. The vast majority of small knife-makers, of which the UK has an internationally famous community arising from a long history of craftsmanship, rely to a very large extent on on-line sales, due to the relatively small market for hand-made knives. The average gang member will not order a handmade knife online costing several hundred pounds, when taking a kitchen knife from home or buying one from a supermarket is much easier and cheaper – the legislation again, will punish the law-abiding, while having little or no effect on the law-breaker. Furthermore, I cannot accept that “anecdotal evidence” (i.e. unverifiable ) is a valid basis on which Parliament should be enacting legislation.

 

Finally, the proposal to ban the private ownership of items on the “Offensive Weapons” list would merely create a new class of criminal – those who currently possess these items legally, and suddenly find themselves in breach of the law. The very idea that the items on the list, such as flick-knives, belt-buckle knives, butterfly knives and so on, are any more dangerous than the common or garden kitchen knife, is laughable, and brings the legislation into disrepute. The bald, unsupported assertion that “Ensuring that the prohibition on the possession of offensive weapons extends to private addresses will support public safety” is similarly ridiculous – no evidence is adduced to support this statement, no reasoning is given – and is unworthy of inclusion in a document presented for serious consideration.

 

I would hope you would take the above reasoned argument into consideration should this matter come to the vote within the House.

Yours faithfully,

 

______________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Good letter, let's hope everybody bothers to get in contact with their MP.

[Jaymo]

When I write to mine, shall I ask him to read it only if he has time and isn’t too busy touching Labour. activists bottoms :-)

[Lord O War]

Just flicking through the Home office PDF and love the comment about banning certain knives from private ownership in case thieves target them! Why not ban everything in case thieves target them? Cars, Vans and scooters seem to be a criminal/terrorist fave at the minute. I cannot wait to see what other dross is in this document. If they ban deacs they sure as hell better have the cheque book at hand because I have a significant collection and will want compensation.

 

HAHAHAHAHA basically they want knives bought on the internet to go to an rfd or similar to confirm age!

Edited November 9, 2017 by Lord O War

[Me matt]

Semi auto shotguns are on the proposed list ? that makes Matt sad ? 

Matt will cry a heck of a lot if his semis have to go... Matt doesn't like over & under or side by side... be like Matt- love your semi ?