like changing the law on sound mods will on paper do, but no hurry for them to pass the legislation to do so.
yet if a negative impact on the sport they do not hold back then.
New rules making section 2 obsolete?
- Thread starter Outandabout-goneshooting
- Start date
like changing the law on sound mods will on paper do, but no hurry for them to pass the legislation to do so.
yet if a negative impact on the sport they do not hold back then.
What do you mean by "look at the application process now"? It doesn't appear to me to have become significantly more onerous or restrictive. The only real problem is the time it takes, and that's a staffing issue, not an issue with the process itself.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
No “ authority”, just a healthy dose of cynicism combined with a functioning memory.
Has any legislative change over the last 100 years made firearms ownership easier or less restrictive?
I hope so, but if what I have read is correct, and this topic has been raised in several threads, the proposal is to treat shotguns in the same way that rifles are currently regulated.
How do you see that working out?
I see it increasing regulatory requirements with the express purpose of reducing the number of shotguns in circulation.
It could be a bit of governmental kite flying during the silly season, but the proposal has been reported from several sources and recent fatal firearms incidents involved shotguns, therefor I think they’re going to try to reduce numbers.
You may categorise that as rumour, misconception and scaremongering if you like, I call it a realistic interpretation of the available information.
I’m really not convinced there’s an overarching conspiracy, they’re just not that competent.
Instead, I believe that every time something happens that puts firearms licensing in the news, politicians feel the need to ‘do something’ as they’re spineless and fear being blamed if something else happened and they didn’t ‘act’.
Inevitably, that means they feel the need to change things and, usually, tighten things up.
The end result is largely the same but, rather than it being part of a conspiracy, it’s just the cumulation of politicians arse covering.
When it comes to this, I’m confident they’ll insist on some kind of good reason - to say they’ve ‘acted’ on the Keyham report and ‘done something’. I don’t think they’ll care as much about what it looks like, so long as they can say they’ve done their bit, so that’s where the orgs can put pressure on to make sure it’s achieved in the least destructive manner possible.
Instead, I believe that every time something happens that puts firearms licensing in the news, politicians feel the need to ‘do something’ as they’re spineless and fear being blamed if something else happened and they didn’t ‘act’.
Inevitably, that means they feel the need to change things and, usually, tighten things up.
The end result is largely the same but, rather than it being part of a conspiracy, it’s just the cumulation of politicians arse covering.
When it comes to this, I’m confident they’ll insist on some kind of good reason - to say they’ve ‘acted’ on the Keyham report and ‘done something’. I don’t think they’ll care as much about what it looks like, so long as they can say they’ve done their bit, so that’s where the orgs can put pressure on to make sure it’s achieved in the least destructive manner possible.
I think you're overdoing the cynicism, and as a result contributing to the scaremongering.
All I've seen is a proposal that section 2 firearms might be subject to some additional restrictions similar to section 2.
Nowhere have I seen it officially suggested that section 2 firearms will be moved to section 1. I've only read that in online posts by scaremongers.
If, as a result of any proposed changes, there is a requirement to demonstrate "good reason" for the possession of shotguns I would see that as a positive move to safeguard the future of those of us who really do have a legitimate reason for owning firearms, and weed out some of those chavvy types who want a shotgun just because they can.
The removal of expanding ammo from section 5?
Soon to add the revision of restrictions on sound moderators.
Then there were proposals that didn't go through, like licencing of air rifles In England and Wales, or the time everyone was fretting about certain high muzzle energy cartridges being banned/further restricted, which never happened.
Recently, when the government rejected a petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. Surely that would have been an easy win if they really were determined to end firearm/shotgun ownership bit-by-bit.
How about all the times additional funds have been made available to licencing departments to increase their efficiency, when they could have just said "sorry, no, we don't care if it's taking 18 months for a variation"
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
If only you could see the nonsense arguments that I've got into with the FLD over "good reason", its unbelievable if it wasn't true. Its not that the FLD haven't had to comply with the Firearms Act in the end , its just the very time consuming correspondence that you have to go through to get them there.
Oh, I forgot that time they didn't ban lead in small calibers or for target shooting, in spite of how many problems that ban would have caused shooters. Think of all those pest control 22s and HMRs that would have been rendered unusable, and all those target shooters they could have priced out. What an opportunity they missed to stealth-ban us 
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I hope you’re right, but have another look at your second paragraph, you are endorsing a reduction in the numbers of shotgun cert holders by excluding people that you don’t approve of from having one.
Logically therefor, if I write the rules and I don’t approve of you having ( or anyone else) having a firearm its acceptable to weed you out?
Slippery slope don’t you think?
New firearms rules risk overreach
New Home Office rules risk undermining fairness and consistency in the firearms licensing system, warns BASC’s Bill Harriman.
basc.org.uk
I hope Im right too!
Personally, I think the only people who need to be worried about this are the people who's "good reason" for having firearms is weak, non-existent or not good. And for the rest of us legitimate users the future is brighter if those people are excluded.
That's just my personal take on it.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Benelli m2
Well-Known Member
Well my renewal has just posted at 72 might make it my last see how things pan out in the future
stonepark
Well-Known Member
Is there a problem officer...?
My Silenced 12 bore pump - for fox
My silenced 410 pump - for corvids
My wildfowl 12 auto - for geese
My standard 12 auto - for pigeons
My pair of 12 OU - driven pheasants
My 34inch barrel 12 OU - for clay pigeons
My 410 OU - for partridge
My new 12 SxS - wood cock and snipe
My old 12 SxS salt marsh duck
My Silenced 12 bore pump - for fox
My silenced 410 pump - for corvids
My wildfowl 12 auto - for geese
My standard 12 auto - for pigeons
My pair of 12 OU - driven pheasants
My 34inch barrel 12 OU - for clay pigeons
My 410 OU - for partridge
My new 12 SxS - wood cock and snipe
My old 12 SxS salt marsh duck
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Proof of shooting rights for the above?
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
That was the Government/HO reversing something which they did by mistake.
I remain ongoingly worried about this: first, because although it has been agreed (sort of, except you'll need a FAC to own as-yet-undefined 'FAC moderators', apparently) by the one party and welcomed by the other, neither really gives a very good impression of knowing what the current law means; which leads to the second worry - that this will not just end badly for moderators but that, having been given the excuse to open the bonnet of the Firearms Act, HMG will take the opportunity to bolt in some tasty morsels from the 1973 Green Paper.
I fear there are parallels to the man in the rather off-colour joke: to whom it is granted that a single wish of his may come true - but he expresses his wish incautiously, thinking that the Power which granted it was benevolently disposed towards him; and ends up spending the rest of his days with an ostrich and a parsimonious cat for company.
How about "I really like and enjoy the fiddleback, tigerstrip, quilted maple and other interesting stock figurings in my collection of a;- shotguns and/or b;- rifles?
To my mind we need to be very careful in accepting what constitutes "good reason" as one's desire to own a given fowling peice must be afforded consideration in a nonbinary manner if freedoms we have enjoyed to date are to be retained.
K
Similar threads
