BASC, nobs, sacs, that is the question.

[enfieldspares]

The end story is that after the ban was done Cliiford (with his friends) got himself a Browning BLR in .308 and he shot that for the remainder of his stalking. It wasn't as ideal as his Remington but at least he could manage it.

But...and here's the fact of which "not a lot of people know that" the Government had also wanted to ban lever action repeating rifles but their draughtsmen couldn't frame the necesaary legislation to do so without also outlawing the "ancient" Martini-Henry in its centrefire guises.

So lever action rifles which were also up for prohibition escaped being banned.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I think all the society's have shot themselves in the foot at one time or another , we can all list them, does it help ?

No, not really! Much of it is down to individual perception of those in power at that time. I would agree that there is no heavyweight argument for a semi-auto to manage deer, but I would also argue that a decent operator could get 5 shots off in almost as quick succession with a non-SLR! At least they didn't go down the single shot route or there would have been deer welfare issues!
Time and people move on, but time clearly doesn't heal for some people who still choose to blame and disparage those in power now for decisions made by their predecessors?
MS

 

[Dalua]

I would agree that there is no heavyweight argument for a semi-auto to manage deer, but I would also argue that a decent operator could get 5 shots off in almost as quick succession with a non-SLR!

In general I'd agree too. By 'a decent operator' I guess we mean someone without any impairment of ability though: so as we've seen, there might be those who'd benfit from using a SLR.

Anyhow, the main point is akin to that regarding pistols for humane dispatch: it is entirely reasonable for people not to see a need for pistols for humane dispatch, or for SLRs. Such people are not legally obliged to possess or use them.
It does not, however, mean that it is a good idea to support restricting their availability to those who do have a good reason to use them.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

In general I'd agree too. By 'a decent operator' I guess we mean someone without any impairment of ability though: so as we've seen, there might be those who'd benfit from using a SLR.

Anyhow, the main point is akin to that regarding pistols for humane dispatch: it is entirely reasonable for people not to see a need for pistols for humane dispatch, or for SLRs. Such people are not legally obliged to possess or use them.
It does not, however, mean that it is a good idea to support restricting their availability to those who do have a good reason to use them.

But again, that is your perception of a 'good reason' as an individual which is entirely your right. I, along with many other professional deer managers who shoot thousands of deer do not seem to deem HD as a good reason to have a pistol. The line has to be drawn somewhere. You can have one, but only two shots. A fairly sensible decision I think. I'd rather have a short barrelled shotgun, but let's not go there!
MS

 

[old man]

That is now not really true MS because I have not seen the BDS do anything to improve deer welfare or investigate anything relevant in this country. As a for instance is there a welfare issue with lamping deer and shooting them out of season?. BDS answer lets wait and see what the major departments say and we will follow suit. After all we are part of the deer sector. If you ask me no deer stalker should ever give them money or support in anyway until they stand up and be counted. They are at this moment part of the problem because people look to them for guidance and it might as well come from a shooting organisation.

Sadly I feel that way too, far too remote from the membership an fairly irrelevant? I cancelled a few weeks ago.
I'm with SACS and very happy with their communications and service.

 

[Dalua]

But again, that is your perception of a 'good reason' as an individual which is entirely your right. I, along with many other professional deer managers who shoot thousands of deer do not seem to deem HD as a good reason to have a pistol. The line has to be drawn somewhere. You can have one, but only two shots. A fairly sensible decision I think. I'd rather have a short barrelled shotgun, but let's not go there!
MS

All you're saying is that as a deer manager who shoots thousands of deer you do not consider yourself to have good reason to have a pistol for humane dispatch. That's fine, but you're not really in a position to 'deem' that any particular other person has no good reason to have one - though unfortunately as a respected authority on deer management, your frequently- and firmly-expressed opinion is likely to affect the way other folk's applications are percieved both by the stalking community and, more seriously, by the police.

The point I was trying to make is that not seeing a good reason why someone should have something because you yourself do not see why they should have it is not a good reason to seek to prevent them having it, or to vilify them for seeking lawfully to obtain it.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

All you're saying is that as a deer manager who shoots thousands of deer you do not consider yourself to have good reason to have a pistol for humane dispatch. That's fine, but you're not really in a position to 'deem' that any particular other person has no good reason to have one - though unfortunately as a respected authority on deer management, your frequently- and firmly-expressed opinion is likely to affect the way other folk's applications are percieved both by the stalking community and, more seriously, by the police.

The point I was trying to make is that not seeing a good reason why someone should have something because you yourself do not see why they should have it is not a good reason to seek to prevent them having it, or to vilify them for seeking lawfully to obtain it.

Ahh, but I didn't say that I 'deemed' others should not have one! Merely that I don't deem it personally as a good enough reason to get one.
So then, what if I deemed it good reason to have a Uzi 9mm machine pistol 25 shot mag to clear my barn which is infested with rats? Should I be allowed one? Or, should there be chief reason 'deemer' to apply an element of common sense? We will all have different opinions of where the line should have been drawn, but it was drawn, and 28 years ago!!
Maybe time to dry one's eyes, change the record and move on?
MS

 

[enfieldspares]

Maybe time to dry one's eyes, change the record and move on?

Well, would you, if you were put some £ 1,000 out of pocket in 1988...never to see it back?

Remember that the compensation was fixed at £ 150 or 50% of the value of the item with no compensation for any other item than the actual rifle.

And the trade no compensation at all just told, Hurd's or Hogg's words, to take as a "risk of business".

 

[Dalua]

Ahh, but I didn't say that I 'deemed' others should not have one! Merely that I don't deem it personally as a good enough reason to get one.

Ahh, I must have misunderstood. You seem to me generally to be of the view that people who think they have good reason to have a pistol for HD are mistaken, and should therefore not be allowed them.
In this regard, I mistakenly imagined that your attitude was like that of the NRA to SLRs - namely that because they, the arbiters of all that is correct (in their case, in the realm of target-shooting), saw no need for them, no-one at all should have one for any reason.

We will all have different opinions of where the line should have been drawn, but it was drawn, and 28 years ago!!
Maybe time to dry one's eyes, change the record and move on?
MS

The line was indeed drawn, and it allows pistols for humae dispatch. I'm not crying about that.
Unsurprisingly, my view is that the record that should be taken off is the one that says 'I see no reason for it; therefore no-one else has a reason for it.' That's the record that unfailingly brings a tear to my eye.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Well, would you, if you were put some £ 1,000 out of pocket in 1988...never to see it back?

Remember that the compensation was fixed at £ 150 or 50% of the value of the item with no compensation for any other item than the actual rifle.

And the trade no compensation at all just told, Hurd's or Hogg's words, to take as a "risk of business".

That was 28 years ago! That's a long time to mourn the loss of £1000? Dalua has only had his FAC for 11 years. Can't be mourning the loss of anything other than something never held?
I'm sure some people mourn the loss of steel and cash more than loved ones?
People have lost houses and businesses lately. Flood victims have lost everything and then been looted!

Life is too short! Get some perspective in life and move on!

MS

 

[Taff]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, I am now entitled to own a semi auto rifle, ( a black gun ) , but don,t feel the need to have it for hunting, I am beginning to worry as I am agreeing with MS. As to humane dispatch pistol, I will leave that to personal choice, as we have all heard all the pro,s and cons many times.
Enfield, everyone in business can tell you of things being banned with no compensation, here's a few I can list, Kawasaki td40 strimmers, h&s grounds, jeep Cherokee tow bars ( I lost £2000 in one day as it could not tow) , thousands of pounds worth of sprays as they were banned overnight, 100s of sheep ear tags, change in colour and going electronic, it's called business and risk.

 

[Dalua]

Dalua has only had his FAC for 11 years. Can't be mourning the loss of anything other than something never held?

I don't get too hung up about no longer being able to shoot proper pistols, which I did as a member of a HO approved club before I held even a shotgun certificate. I certainly don't mind not having a pistol for humane dispatch - I've not at the moment got good reason to have one for that on any case.

I do, however, mourn the loss of liberty driven by an apparent civil-service agenda to reduce civillian firearms ownership. I'm particularly mournful when the process is supported by lawful firearms-users.

Perhaps you're right: I should just focus on my own immediate requirements, because when push comes to shove I'm right and that's that. And sod everyone else - they're just blagging the police because they think mistakenly that 2-shot revolvers are stylish and sexy in a kind of gansta-cool way.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Perhaps you're right: I should just focus on my own immediate requirements, because when push comes to shove I'm right and that's that. And sod everyone else - they're just blagging the police because they think mistakenly that 2-shot revolvers are stylish and sexy in a kind of gansta-cool way.

Yeah, but you gotta shoot it sideways - gangsta style!
The fact that the sights are on top is clearly irrelevant!

MS

 

[BRYAN]

It's a bit off to say semi auto rifles are not neccesary for destrution of deer so should be banned. As someone above said "it should be all about bullet type and placement etc". If we said deer stalking is not required because we can just farm deer in fenced land and eradicate all wild deer by the use of wolves and contraceptives, how would that go down?
The BDS and NRA old farts in their tweeds and cordouroy's have done us no favours,as they have assisted various governments in adding nails to our shooting coffins. Too many shooters slate the gun/firearm choice of others in their high and mighty attitude and wishes to hold the moral high ground.

 

[willie_gunn]

If only people expended as much effort in creating an organisation to support shooting as they do raking over history we'd be in far better shape.

But of course that won't happen. People would far rather rant on about things that can't be changed than put any effort into changing one of the current organisations into something that could represent them. Membership organisations such as BASC, NGO, BDS, SACS, CA, NRA and others can be changed, but it relies on members to get off their complacent backsides, and open their wallets, to do so.

To those of you moaning about BDS, BASC, NRA, etc. please enlighten me about one thing you're doing to improve the lot of shooters in the future that is anything other than whinging anonymously on the Internet about past perceived "injustices"?

As for the peurile argument that employees of these organisations get paid...paid, for heaven's sake....give it a rest. No-one complains that the CEO of the NRA in the US gets paid nearly a million dollars a year, but here in the UK a salary of under £30k is seen as a cushy number.

Why not leave this discussion on far easier ground and just argue over who offers the cheapest insurance, since that seems to be the sole reason why 99% of members belong to these organisations anyway

 

[enfieldspares]

No-one complains that the CEO of the NRA in the US gets paid nearly a million dollars a year

Maybe that is because the NRA of America actually properly defend shooter's rights in the USA? Obama has been, openly, a President with a determined gun control agenda. Yet the reality is that the NRA of America have now made political support for gun control by any candidate for Congress or Senate the equivalent of a political suicide note.

And Obama has been able to push through virtually zero gun control measures in his eight years of office. Such that now he has to result to threat of using an executive order. Which again the NRA of America will mobilise to resist and defeat.

Instead of as with the UK NRA simply either "rolling over" and accepting or in fact implicitly supporting further erosion of those right by selling out the interests of others in an attempt to deflect harmful legislation from their own niche interest.

For example there are ninety-two elected Members of the House of Lords. Elected from a base of over a thousand hereditary peers. Yet neither the British NRA nor the BASC has ever sought to canvass those peers on voting for a pro-gun candidate for those vacancies when they become due.

No-one objects to a high salary when payment brings results but the sad fact is that here in the UK many as shooters pay money to organisations whose results have been non-existent or, in truth, positively harmful to our interests as shooters. And among the guilty parties the BDS is historically in the top offenders.

 

[8x57]

If only people expended as much effort in creating an organisation to support shooting as they do raking over history we'd be in far better shape.

But of course that won't happen. People would far rather rant on about things that can't be changed than put any effort into changing one of the current organisations into something that could represent them. Membership organisations such as BASC, NGO, BDS, SACS, CA, NRA and others can be changed, but it relies on members to get off their complacent backsides, and open their wallets, to do so.

To those of you moaning about BDS, BASC, NRA, etc. please enlighten me about one thing you're doing to improve the lot of shooters in the future that is anything other than whinging anonymously on the Internet about past perceived "injustices"?

As for the peurile argument that employees of these organisations get paid...paid, for heaven's sake....give it a rest. No-one complains that the CEO of the NRA in the US gets paid nearly a million dollars a year, but here in the UK a salary of under £30k is seen as a cushy number.

Why not leave this discussion on far easier ground and just argue over who offers the cheapest insurance, since that seems to be the sole reason why 99% of members belong to these organisations anyway

Well said Willie.

With regard to the insurance element of your membership most of the organisations use one of two brokers and the actual cost of the insurance is much the same.

 

[JabaliHunter]

It's a bit off to say semi auto rifles are not neccesary for destrution of deer so should be banned. As someone above said "it should be all about bullet type and placement etc". If we said deer stalking is not required because we can just farm deer in fenced land and eradicate all wild deer by the use of wolves and contraceptives, how would that go down?
The BDS and NRA old farts in their tweeds and cordouroy's have done us no favours,as they have assisted various governments in adding nails to our shooting coffins. Too many shooters slate the gun/firearm choice of others in their high and mighty attitude and wishes to hold the moral high ground.

On the other hand, arguing against a ban on semi-autos because they were necessary for deer control was just clutching at straws...

 

[enfieldspares]

Jabali the specific argument I and Orion has referenced was in fact about a limiting of the ban to self-loading rifles to those with high capacity magazines. Just as people now have pistols for humane dispatch where their magazine is blanked off to two shots. Yet even though they can buy a larger, original, capacity magazine for their pistol.

So there was no sense to the blanket ban as if that logic was (still) applied today by implication any pistol with a two shot magazine is a pistol with a seven, eight, ten, or whatever shot magazine. And of course the argument was also about allowing centre-fire pump action rifles.

But I am certain that had the British NRA adopted the British SLR as the only rifle allowed in its competitions at Bisley in the 1960s or 1970s that there would have been no self-loading rifle ban and that had there been no self-loading rifle ban there would have been no handgun ban.

But truth is how many MPs now own guns or shoot? How many Lords? For if we had had a 80% "shooter" House of Parlaiment these bans would never have even been discussed. For the fact is that now the right class don't shoot any longer and as such we are ultimately doomed.

 

[Bandit Country]

I'm perplexed by the frequently expressed view that BDS is a waste of time, ineffective, useless etc, but is also apparently solely and entirely responsible for the ban of SLRs! An extraordinary achievement for a small group of some 6,000 folk with a mutual interest in deer welfare?

Isn't it rather obvious that the BDS didn't ban SLRs, just like they didn't ban handguns? I think you'll find that's down to various Conservative politicians then in Government. The BDS is NOT a shooting or stalking organisation! You may as well pillory the Gun Control Network for being anti gun.

If you really want to vent your wrath, get down to your local Conservative party office and bend their ears about it. I'm happy to be a member of BDS but won't ever vote Conservative.