Please respond to the Home Office Survey. BASC suggested answers
- Thread starter 12gsnapcaps
- Start date
I note that the folk at the Home Office are still too lazy to actually find out what a "miniature rifle" is. Or is not. So I have made reference to that in my submission.
And so equally guilty is BASC. This is there appalling, nay disgraceful, submission regarding miniature rifle ranges and miniature rifle clubs. Yet more os the same old same old attitude that nobody should be allowed to do anything that we don't approve of and then only under the strictest of controls.
Yet again this is another shameful Marford Mill dikat. Typical "patrician" BASC knows best and the "plebs" should fill in their response to the Home Office how we tell them to.
I do hope that others who still waste their money remaining members of this so called "Voice of Shooting" (and those who realised there was a better way make clear their views that BASC does not speak for them on this matter.
So if a BASC representative should read this I'll ask this. Do any of you actually know what in 1920 the lawmakers meant...as per the SMRC Rules....when they exempted "miniature rifles"? And if you don't...and if it is correct Bill Harriman should be ashamed of himself as a supposed "firearms expert"...then read and learn!
Saying that:
A "miniature rifle" was defined by the rules of the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs as "a rifle firing miniature ammunition" at that fact (and what "miniature ammunition" would have been something fully known to those who originally granted the exemption for "miniature rifles" when the Firearms Act was enacted and therefore if the Home Office were to do correct historical research they would know that there is nothing to be concerned about.
See this link. So the often repeated spurious nonsense about "miniature rifles" being somehow a stalking horse for the acquisition of 5.56mm NATO or .223 Remington chambered rifles is just that. Nonsense.
And so equally guilty is BASC. This is there appalling, nay disgraceful, submission regarding miniature rifle ranges and miniature rifle clubs. Yet more os the same old same old attitude that nobody should be allowed to do anything that we don't approve of and then only under the strictest of controls.
Yet again this is another shameful Marford Mill dikat. Typical "patrician" BASC knows best and the "plebs" should fill in their response to the Home Office how we tell them to.
I do hope that others who still waste their money remaining members of this so called "Voice of Shooting" (and those who realised there was a better way make clear their views that BASC does not speak for them on this matter.
So if a BASC representative should read this I'll ask this. Do any of you actually know what in 1920 the lawmakers meant...as per the SMRC Rules....when they exempted "miniature rifles"? And if you don't...and if it is correct Bill Harriman should be ashamed of himself as a supposed "firearms expert"...then read and learn!
Saying that:
A "miniature rifle" was defined by the rules of the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs as "a rifle firing miniature ammunition" at that fact (and what "miniature ammunition" would have been something fully known to those who originally granted the exemption for "miniature rifles" when the Firearms Act was enacted and therefore if the Home Office were to do correct historical research they would know that there is nothing to be concerned about.
See this link. So the often repeated spurious nonsense about "miniature rifles" being somehow a stalking horse for the acquisition of 5.56mm NATO or .223 Remington chambered rifles is just that. Nonsense.
The Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs - a brief history - and access to searchable PDF files of the society's monthly journal "The Rifleman" from both World Wars
Historic Arms Resource Centre facility for British and Commonwealth Enfield and other Miniature calibre training and small-bore TARGET RIFLES (BSA- Birmingham Small Arms Co.), conversion units and accessories with representation of other nations' training rifles, plus Postal League competitions...
www.rifleman.org.uk
Last edited:
Here's BASC's craven suggested response on air weapons.
Or you might like to consider something on the lines of my response which has been slightly more robust.
With DISAGREE as a response to 7) and 8) and at 9) this:
9. Hard cases make bad laws. It should not be for the Home Office to seek to impose cost and inconvenience on sensible people because of the inability of the feckless to conduct themselves responsibly.
If you want to see the requirement eventually pass for a £20 air weapon to be kept in a £100 gun cabinet then by all means go ahead and "parrot" the useless squawking coming from BASC.
Or you might like to consider something on the lines of my response which has been slightly more robust.
With DISAGREE as a response to 7) and 8) and at 9) this:
9. Hard cases make bad laws. It should not be for the Home Office to seek to impose cost and inconvenience on sensible people because of the inability of the feckless to conduct themselves responsibly.
Last edited:
So we can mobilise on our own behalf, with our own hard thought out responses after all, ( And at no charge)
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
And this is why we’re doomed
spannulman
Well-Known Member
I’ve just completed the survey. I am surprised to read that a person may operate a range without a fac. How would they squire a number of .22rf rifles for other , non FAC holders to use?
That does seem odd. But that’s how the guidance or consultancy paper reads. I’m allowed x number of rounds but have to be vetted but if I set up a range I could somehow obtain a shedful
Of semi auto 22s and buckets full of ammo. Very odd.
That does seem odd. But that’s how the guidance or consultancy paper reads. I’m allowed x number of rounds but have to be vetted but if I set up a range I could somehow obtain a shedful
Of semi auto 22s and buckets full of ammo. Very odd.
It isn't to directly help basc, Can you not understand the end users here?
8x57
Distinguished Member
It's not quite as easy and simple as some people would have you believe. It's worth reading up on the current process in the H.O. guidance document to get a better understanding of the situation. It's a system that has operated with no issue or at least with very little problem for over 100 years until relatively recently, then one or two bright sparks decided to exploit the system to circumvent the law for commercial gain.
Last edited:
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
With respect I understand that , my point being ( as evidenced by murray50) is how many won’t/ can’t think for themselves and give the answers basc recommends in the ( untrue ) belief they have our best interests at heart , then boom hey presto more regulation
@Conor O'Gorman - what say you to all of the above messages?
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
Basc welcomes
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
I'm no legal mind, but filling it in using your own thoughts an words doesn't look like it would be time wasted.
The one about holding parts to make ammo, I read twice and reckon they'd need to prove intent to make up more than your allotment amount but other than that pretty straight forward I'd say.
What's it all for though, are HO having another push on things?
If so, why aren't the other organisations shouting from the rooftops about it also?
The one about holding parts to make ammo, I read twice and reckon they'd need to prove intent to make up more than your allotment amount but other than that pretty straight forward I'd say.
What's it all for though, are HO having another push on things?
If so, why aren't the other organisations shouting from the rooftops about it also?
Thanks Jimbo or is it Roestalker 39?
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
Did you think of that by yourself or did the voice help ?
The voice?
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
I rest my case
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Have filled it in and sent a cheque to @finnbear270. Assume that is the process?
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Happy New Year, Finn. You well, mate?And welcome it I shall!
Similar threads
