So David what has happened with Lincolnshire has anyone come forward or are you going to talk to their chief con. Incidentally those who succeed do so by burning bridges - its taken as a sign that MR Nice Guy doesnt work.
Keeping politicians on side is a cost we cannot afford because no politician will be seen to be aiding the 'GUN LOBBY' or is this about who shoots with the bosses ?
This is absolutely my last post - despite extreme provocation.
I have say that I agree with this position.
The trouble with pinning your hopes on getting agreement from politicians is that
1. It's like trying to herd cats because, as we all know, politicians do things to win votes and get voters on side, however unpopular with a small corner of society that is;
2. When public opinion is swayed by false news, or media reports which have little to do with legal gun owners, politicians soon follow suit because they have to be seen to be doing something;
3. Politicians come and go like leaves on the wind. Ask Amber Rudd.
The only sensible way to tackle what rights (and they ARE rights, not currently open to the whims of chief constables or the H/O without proper legislative procedure) that we have left is to become more militant and demonstrate as a community that legal challenge will be brought switftly to bear should we be illegitimately denied renewals or grants which impinge on said rights and for which there is no legal precident.
It's all very well to suggest that us, the shooters, should be canvassing politicians and PCCs (I've done this many times) but surely our shooting organisations, the very people that we rely on to back us up and make not just a strong voice politically, but to bring the force of legal action to bear where and when needed, should be doing more in this respect.
I simply cannot see that political agreement will solve anything. It is too fickle and a bit like building on shifting sand. The BMA and H/O have already demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to keep their word, so legal challenge has to be the option now taken to make a point, and to make it hard, and to make us heard. The police are just looking to safeguard their own backsides and to reduce workload due to funding, so no surprises that allied to most CC positions of favouring a disarmed public, that they will happily go along with anything that meets those aims.
Again, our rights must be protected via legal position, not meaningless political agreement which counts for little to nothing.
All said and done, it is both the inadequacy and the ever expansion of H/O guidelines that seem to be setting the scene and determining policy, not the law itself.
