Cranfield Posted January 18, 2003 Report Share Posted January 18, 2003 red stag88, those were very unfortunate and dangerous circumstances you describe. The correct thing to have done was to notify the police, surely someone had a mobile phone. Mention weapons and the police would attend immediately. "Armed trespass" is a serious offence and a successful prosecution will mean the loss of any gun certificates, weapons, a large fine and possibly prison. Its action like this that deters poachers and the sort of people you met. Whilst I admit it is tempting to react aggressively, especially when you can, the way our laws are (at the moment), you would be in the wrong. Then it is you that loses your guns, licences etc. I,m not saying this is right. I am just saying this is how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveman Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 red stagg- Cranfield is right- someone in your group should have informed the police about the poachers. I don't think its justifiable injurying someone for poaching. And flightline- re the Tony Martin case- the person he injured has actually been released from prison whilst Martin languishes there because he thinks Britain was a better place in the 1950s (who would disagree)? The world has gone totally barmy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 I agree with Cranfield and daveman. Defence of one`s home and person is one thing, getting into a Wild West situation with poachers, even if they`re armed, is another. But I don`t think Red Stagg was suggesting for a moment that this latter was OK. I feel very sorry for poor Tony Martin and believe our laws should be changed. He was in the wrong in that his weapon was not legally held, so he did deserve some sort of sanction, but not this. The interesting thing is, will the Law protect him when the thugs` families come looking for him, as they`ve promised they will when he is finally released? :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 On other topics, I recived a letter from 10 Downing sreet today, Saying (roughly) ; Dear Sir, The pm wishes to say thanks for the letter, blah blah blah, he wishes to say your veiws have been noted, blah blah blah, Mr. Blair would like to reply personaly (my eye) but he recives thousands of letters a week and it is imposible to reply to them all (or he is illiterate, it is rumered that he can't spell tomorrow, but i can't laugh because i am dyslexic :( :( ) the subject is the responsiblitly of the home office and has been forwaded, thanks very much Mr Matt Dowding (whom he may be is a mystery) Nice to get a reply but even the signature was printed by a computer never mind, good to show they can be bothered to send a reply. it also anserwed another of my questions when it came, i always wondered if the pm used stamps, he doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 I thought we had forwarded it to the Home Office! Well I never, here we are, intelligent (?) human beings wanting to participate in a democratic debate, and we can`t send a message which goes to Blunkett, but instead goes to Blair. I dunno, it makes yer fink dunnit? :( :( The thing is though, it`s been logged. Make no mistake, the politicians get regular reports on the weight and subjects of their postbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveman Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 red_stagg- don't be too disappointed- at least you got a reply. And don't be too disappointed to receive a reply frpm some Home Office official which is just meaningless waffle which doesn't answer any of the points you raised. But you are to be comended for making the effort to write. And flightline is right when he says politicians receive feedback re the contents of their mailbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 i have also recived a letter from the Home office today saying the that they are not (famous last words) going to rais the age of shooting. And for 10 points the insane answer is, they havent had anyone shot by a youth holding a shotgun, only airrifles. madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 Anyone who is a BASC member should note that BASC has welcomed the proposed new law prohibiting the carrying of airguns in public without lawful authority. (see the latest "Shooting and Conservation" page 9). If you oppose further restrictions on shooting , it`s a little annoying to find your sub being used in this way without your even being asked your opinion. What is BASC about for goodness sake? Opposing all further unjustified regulations or managing complete surrender over time to the Nanny State? :( :( : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 My understanding on the proposed ban of "carrying airguns in public". Is that, to be committing an offence (if this becomes law), you have to be carrying the airgun in a public place ,uncovered and able to be fired. IF that is the case, why is it a problem ? I don,t know anyone with an airgun, that carries it around, without it being in a guncase or gunslip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 I agree, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 Cranfield, See previous posts. And we don`t know if this is the way the Law will be framed. The fact is, the Police have lost control of certain large housing estates and this was on their shopping list with the Home Office, ostensibly in response to a double shooting by sub machine gun. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 flightline, I read all the previous posts, but I didn,t see anything that contradicted my understanding, of what is being proposed. I agree that this Government is being very "reactive" and seems to act without thinking of all the consequences. It will be very interesting to see how this "proposal" is finally worded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Cranfield, This is one of the previous posts: "ii) the notion that a police officer can stop someone carrying an air weapon in a public place. If the PC does not like the look of the person, though he /she may have a perfectly good reason for carrying it, they may then be detained or even arrested if the explanation is not acceptable. This is the thin end of the wedge. It should be for the police to show that the actual use was unlawful, which is more or less the position now. We should not be forced into a defensive postion. The opportunity for real difficulties for legitimate shooters on, or near, say, country lanes or houses or travelling to/from shooting is obvious". :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 flightline, If I am carrying my shotgun, or air weapon in a public place in a gun slip and I am not breaking any other laws (drunkeness, assault, abusive behaviour etc), then a policeman would be very foolish to arrest me. Ultimately, the purpose of "arrest", is a prosecution. What offence would I be prosecuted for ? If I was arrested in the above circumstances , I would sue everyone in sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveman Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Cranfield- presumably, they'd arrest you for carrying a gun in a public place under these new barmy proposals. Or are we sure they wouldn't? And what about walking along a public footpath in the countryside to a shoot......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 My understanding of the law NOW, is that your gun must be covered, when carried in a public place (which includes a public footpath). If this Government pass a law, that the police interpret to mean that any shooter, taking their gun out of their house (in a gun slip or other suitable covering), is liable for arrest. Then I promise you, I will be one of the first they arrest. Gentlemen, with regard to me opposing the present Government, you are "pushing an open door". But, I want to be sure what I am objecting about. I haven,t heard anything yet, that bothers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 The website which William drew to our attention is very effective (http://www.frontrank.co.uk/) and I have a very good MP , who responded to my request for him to sign two Early Day Motions listed on the site in the following way: Dear Mr. Huntington, Thak you for your email of the 18th January. I am grateful to you for contacting me and I confirm that I have signed both the Early Day Motions. Yours sincerely, Sir Sydney Chapman MP :( :( (my smilies, not his) If we all let our MPs know what we thought....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Cranfield, ..and I`d be sueing too. And you`re right. It`s airifles in gunslips in public. I hope I`m not guilty of over-reacting. But-what is "public", do the Police know and what is lawful authority? Take a for instance: Someone complains about your shooting an air rifle near his house, up drives the PC or even worse (armed response units have been known), and at best your day is over effectively though you`ve done nothing wrong and were never prosecuted. And instead of BASC making these quite reasonable points on our behalf, or reassuring us that this can`t happen, they appear to be conniving with one of the more regulation-prone administrations we`re ever likely to see whilst it adds another few to the 32 odd regulations which already control the sport. And I don`t even shoot an airgun! I just feel we simply must make a stand against over-regulation and politicians who lie to us ("no further restrictions on shooting..."-remember?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 I had another letter from the HO today, anyoine else had one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Nope. I think they get fed up with me writing to them so much. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Or maby because i am younger?:( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 How can they tell? I ALWAYS say I`m just a youngster (Ha Ha) and it`s the first time I`ve ever written in on this issue.... 8-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 I wrote asking what the Tories would do if (when!!!) returned to power, concerning foxhunting. Would they have a free vote or would they just repeal the legislation (if it goes through). This is the reply from Tory Central Office. As you see, they are not even pledging any Parliamentary time for a free vote or any support. It` Mr Duncan Smith has asked me to thank you for your email and to reply on his behalf. He has carefully noted your comments in respect of hunting with dogs. This continues to be a free vote issue, as we recognise that the issue of field sports create strong feelings, and many feel that it is a matter of conscience - in terms of personal liberty or in terms of cruelty to animals. However, just as the current Government has given Parliamentary time for a Private Member's Bill to ban hunting, if a ban were to be passed, Iain Duncan Smith has said that a future Conservative Government would similarly give Parliamentary time for a Private Member's Bill to allow MPs to decide whether a ban, after it had been in place for a period of time, should remain. Consideration of any such Bill would be a free vote. Thank you again for taking the trouble to write. Yours sincerely, Ian Philps Correspondence Secretary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 A case of premature posting there. Not exactly a ringing defence of country sports and human frredom, is it? Get after them, you people, if you all feel as strongly as I do. I`d actually boot Widdecombe out of the Party if it was left to me, over her anti-feelings. Not sure if this is the right placer for the post. Someone asked about Tory policy and I said I`d find out. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Wrong. They will allow Parliamentary time, so that`s something at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.