CS: Pol-Home Office looking for way to ban .50 rifles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Saturday I attended a re-enactors' Ordnance Conference at Northampton Police HQ and took part in a discussion group in which the Home Office man Richard Worth stated that they were considering how to devise a ban on .50 BMG type long range rifles and seeking to form a suitable definition that would leave other things alone. The object of the seminar was to suggest some definition that would avoid banning other things of that calibre such as Muskets and A/T rifles 'of the type re-enactors are currently using' [paraphrase]. A man from the MLAGB also attended and put the question why these things needed to be banned at all. The answer was basically that they were attractive to terrorists and that ACPO didn't like them. We weren't really there to debate the general principle but examined it from the re-enactment perspective. Some considerations were offered along those lines - not always terribly useful ones I thought. So the subject is definitely on the agenda. -- I've heard the same story several times now, I still can't get an answer to whether this is something the Home Office want to do off their own bat, or whether this is something the Firearms Consultative Committee are exploring and the Home Office is supplying information. Presumably the idea is to use an order under Section 1(4) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, but coming up with a definition would be exceptionally difficult, IMO. Even if it is limited purely to centrefire rifles using .50 bullets with smokeless powder, that still catches some big game rifles, and it would be easy to get around by slightly changing the calibre to say, .49, which is certainly as easy as putting an 18" barrel on a revolver. The whole thing is entirely potty, as there are plenty of other very powerful rifle calibres like .338 and how many crimes have been committed with them? Precisely zero, at least legally held ones. There can only be a few dozen .50BMG rifles on FAC anyway, as there are only two or three ranges cleared for them. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-self defence
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] foot self in shoots? Why should someone who had 24 hr police protection need a gun for self defence? which implies that the police *can* provide protection to Salman JFK. and a bunch of others prove that protectors failed to protect In my opinion, tempered by many years of experience, both as an armed and unarmed officer, the use of a firearm as defence against sudden or unexpected attack is of very little value. It is impossible to assess, react, draw and fire an accurately placed shot if the assailant is attacking you with even a knife from less than 27 feet away. But the argument is this: why should ordinary people be denied the *chance* to defend themselves? And equally, if ordinary people are denied the choice to carry, why should the police be allowed to carry for their own self-defence? Plainly, it isn't a question of training, because even if people had undertaken satisfactory training and demonstrated competence, they would still be refused a FAC to carry (the 1997 Act notwithstanding). FWIW, I have no desire to carry, I'm merely engaging in debate. :-) --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Bill of Rights
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "John Hurst", INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --snip-- Page 75 quotes the case of Bowles v. Bank of England confirms that the Bill of Rights remains an operative statute BTW. Page 10 contains the following passage; "The underlying purpose of firearms legislation in the UK is to control the supply and possession of all rifles, guns and pistols which could be used for criminal or subversive purposes while recognising that individuals may own and use firearms for legitimate purposes...". --snip-- Steve, John, Please -- once again -- forgive my apparent ignorance in the matter of how your Parliament makes law, but it seems rather absurd that a piece of legislation quotes a case of what we refer to here on this side of the big pond as 'settled law', and then proceeds to embark on a course of retrograde action. To wit: if the purpose of said legislation is what is stated, then what is the intent of implying that it is no longer a valid position? If the law worked before the fact such that the case law supported the contentions of the law prior, then what has changed? What I am asking is, if the law as initially enacted, was thought proper in all of its range of restraints, and has in its history of enforcement not produced a conflict with the court as regards the abilities of the citizens, then can not the current restrictions be challenged as to validity due to the merely spurious infractions of but a few actors? Is there not a premise in law that allows you to challenge a law that acts against the citizen without reason? And, cannot the 1920's set of restraints be challenged as well on the grounds that the inferred threat is no longer present? It seems to me that if the purpose of the 20's enactments were valid for that period, and since that threat is no longer valid, then the purpose for retaining the law is no longer valid either. It has merely served as a heinous foundation upon which to enact yet more prevarication denying the citizen a protected right. -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Drugs
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are WAY off topic here, and this thread should be killed (but not before I chuck in 2p's worth). From: "David Rovardi", INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Last year it was estimated that 20% of all hospital admins and upto 45,000 deaths where caused due to legal drugs. Globally? On Radio 4 this morning I heard someone (I think he was called Serle, possibly a police spokesman) said there were 250 drug overdose cases per month in England Wales (3,000 p.a.) but compared to car accidents this is a lot of people. And there are 3-4,000 deaths in road traffic accidents p.a., and ten times that number of serious injuries. (A serious injury includes "any fracture".) So 3,000 drugs overdoses (not necessarily fatal, just overdoses) and 3-4,000 fatalities on the roads. --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Policeman dies after gun goes off accidentally
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] A New York detective has bled to death after his gun went off while he was cleaning it. How can a gun go off when its being cleaned? And if it does, how on earth can it be accidental? Negligent, yes. Acidental, no. IG Stands by to repel boarders Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-self defence
From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snip. I will never ever be convinced by anyone that a general right to carry firearms for self defence should ever be allowed in this country. IG -- IG, If you knew the law, you would know that we already have this right, its part of our written constitution. You cannot pick and choose which rights you want, they come as a package deal. Part of my judgement obtained in the High Court in October 1998 in front of Justice Popplewell confirms it as an individual right to arms, "It is not in dispute that the Bill of Rights gave the citizen a right to hold arms." But then goes on to say:- "I have no doubt that the Firearms Act 1968 which is a successor to a number of Firearms Acts going back to 1920 was intended to repeal the right of the citizen to bear arms." Rather a rash statement because the debates confirm our right to arms was respected. According to the sponsors of the 1920's Bill, the reason behind the certification system was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and weak minded persons. One of the sponsors of the Bill said that "Speaking generally , it must be assumed that the ground on which a revolver will be applied for and on which the application will be granted is for the protection of the applicant's house." Note, not may be granted, but WILL be granted. Regards, Mike Burke. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Illegal for Children to Play with Toy Guns
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The beginning of this story is bad enough - but read it to the end to find out just how ludicrous these anti-gunners can be. Mike P http://www.post-trib.com/news/story4/index.html Lowell considering restrictions on guns By Martha Bisacchi / Correspondent -- -- LOWELL - Many Hoosiers feel strongly about their Constitutional right to bear arms. In Lowell, residents may have the right to "own" a gun. They won't have the right to fire it. A proposed ordinance would prohibit the discharge of a fire arm in the town limits. It would also make it unlawful to carry a weapon into the Lowell Town Hall or in a town park. Adults could receive a fine from $300 to $2,500 per violation. After a heated discussion between Lowell Town Council members, the council held over the proposed ordinance for a second reading with a 3-2 vote Monday evening. Larry Just, R-4th, and Joe Mika, D-5th, were not in favor of the new ordinance. "What are we trying to accomplish here?" Just said. "If someone legally purchases a gun and has a permit to carry a gun, he can become a criminal because he walks on town property. I can't support this as it is currently written." Lowell Town Judge Thomas Vanes said he has a case now where a handgun shot a bullet through a wall and almost hit someone. Ray Talarek, R-1st, said the ordinance was not complete protection, but it was a step in the right direction. Just countered that it was a "meaningless piece of paper" and it would not stop someone from walking in the town hall and aiming a gun at a public employee or elected official. According to Lake County Council Administrative Assistant Terry Barczak, the council has not passed an ordinance making it illegal to carry a firearm in the Government Center, but they do have metal detectors on some entrances. Also, the Lake County Parks Department has a rule against people carrying a concealed weapon or a gun in all parks except the Grand Kankakee Marsh, said Lake County Park Superintendent Bob Nickovich. The person would not be fined, but would be asked to leave, Nickovich said. The Grand Kankakee Marsh is an exception because it allows some hunting. Another section of the ordinance is aimed at younger residents. Little boys love to play with sling shots, BB guns and bows and arrows, but they may have to find different toys to play with. The new ordinance would make it unlawful for a child to play with such toys inside the Lowell town limits. It would also be against the law for their parents to allow their children to play with these toys. The ordinance may be amended before it is read a second time and becomes law. Vanes has asked for an amendment that would give him discretion for minor offenses such as slingshots. He asked the Council if the minimum fine could be dropped to $100 plus court costs. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-court cases
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I can remember a guy in Dade County Florida who set up a boobytrap by electrifying the grill over the air-conditioning vent on his premises But wasn't there a case here a few years ago where a bloke protected his car by electrifying it? I think a Hotel Parking attendent got zapped with it and the guy was prosecuted, he did get found not guilty though. Jonathan Laws -- The thing it depends on is intent, and that is why boobytraps are illegal virtually everywhere. If you electrify something and kill someone, did you intend to kill them, or merely dissuade them? Well, if you intended to kill them you can just lie and say it was to scare them off. Then it gets into a very complex technical argument determining the intent of the person, based on the amount of electricity they used or whatever. However if the people were in a fight and one guy jammed the other's fingers into a socket and electrocuted him, the intent is far more clear. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Register won't be working until 2002
From: "Jeff Wood", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The Conservative government announced a gun amnesty in the wake of Dunblane and more than 160,000 handguns have been turned in as a result. " Can this be remotely correct? -- In the world of the BBC it is. Like I keep saying, write to your MP, ask for TV and radio licensing to be repealed. Why should we subsidise this crap? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it that so many people are blinded by a venomous hatred of the police, to the extent that everything else, common sense included, is blotted out? I am sure someone can answer this one. IG Maybe I can offer at least some insight on this :-) Most "ordinary" people - ie those of the general public - do not take kindly to the - what seems like at least - fairly constant drip of authoritarian attitude from those employed to safeguard those ordinary people and their property ( partially by protection from crime and partially by law enforcement ). I believe that this resentment - I wouldn't go so far as to call it a blind venomous hatred, but there again I am not on the receiving end, so would not be adamant on that - stems from perceptions , mainly but not always justified, that the Police service are deliberately distancing themselves as a body from the general public, as they are only too aware of the shortfalls in the service they are currently providing, and appear unable to address this without politicising ie demanding more and yet more "powers" with which they may tackle "easy" or static targets whilst seemingly ignoring the real issues. What, you will probably demand of me, are these "real issues" ? I have no finite answer, but of one thing I am sure, they are constantly being obscured by the smokescreens thrown up by both the politicians , media and the police themselves - a pretty routine defense mechanism, but the smoke is wearing thinner and I believe the public is becoming less tolerant of this attitude of "Don't confuse me with the facts - these are the issues" especially when the issues are continually drummed up as "facts". It really boils down to trust. I readily appreciate things have changed in our society during the last forty or fifty years, some for the better, but trust is a commodity not lightly given and easily lost - and exceptionally difficult to retrieve from a distance or from behind a smokescreen. I for one, would dearly love to be able to advise my grandchildren as I was advised by my grandparents - "If you get lost or need help in any way, you can always trust a policeman" - unfortunately these days it's just an old-fashioned romantic idea of those who lurk behind the radar traps and surveillance cameras but rarely appear in person without two-tones and blues. Strike any chords of recognition ? Come back into the human race before it really is too late - technology is not the answer to everything. David M ( Sussex ) Don't forget - Sunday 18th March 2001 - Countryside March - be there !!! Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-pretty dumb 2
Two Men Shoot First, Figure It Out Later WINNIPEG (Reuters) - Two 20-year-old men in rural western Canada could be banned from handling firearms after what police on Friday called a bizarre experiment. It began when one of the men brought a military-style bullet-proof vest back to their Swan River, Manitoba, home. He then asked his room-mate to shoot him in the chest with a 22 caliber rifle. That done, and pleased with the lack of damage, he asked his friend to shoot him in the back with a 12 gauge shotgun. This time, the duo decided to stuff a phone book inside the vest for a bit of insurance. The phone book absorbed much of the blow, but the target still suffered cracked ribs and bruising. "The biggest question is why and it's difficult to come up with a logical reason," said Sgt. Steve Saunders of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Winnipeg. Neither man faces police charges but the Mounties are seeking a five-year firearms prohibition. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Knives
From: "David Rovardi", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Help I'm confused about these knife laws Could anyone tell me what I am and not allowed to carry. What is the definition of carry, i.e. on person, in bag etc What is the law regarding lockknives, can I have one or not Can I get done for having my spydierco knife on me ? Thanks in advance David -- Oh dear, now you've asked for it. The law is that you can't carry anything other than an ordinary pocket knife with a blade length of maximum 3 inches without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. An ordinary pocket knife has been wittled down over the years to basically a penknife, not a lock knife. What constitutes lawful authority or reasonable excuse is a very long discussion. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Crime-Madonna
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday December 1 6:48 PM ET Thieves break into Madonna's London house LONDON (Reuters) - Thieves broke into pop superstar Madonna's London home and then stole her boyfriend's Range Rover. The 42-year-old singer, her two young children and film director Guy Ritchie were asleep upstairs when the burglars struck. Police said an investigation was under way after the robbery early Friday morning in the fashionable London district of Notting Hill. ``A number of items were stolen, including a set of car keys which were then used to steal the Range Rover,'' a police spokeswoman said. ``The vehicle was later recovered in west London and forensic testing will be carried out on it,'' she added. No one was hurt in the break-in. Madonna recently said she preferred living in London to Los Angeles because she felt safer in the British capital. Tuesday night, the pop diva bounced onto a London stage for just 30 minutes and sang a handful of songs -- but her first British concert in seven years pulled in a world record Webcast audience of 9 million viewers. The online viewer figures showed that the world loves the Material Girl, eclipsing the 3 million who watched last year's Webcast of Paul McCartney at The Cavern in Liverpool. Reuters/Variety REUTERS ~ Perhaps the Uk isn't as crime free as she thought it was. Kenneth Pantling Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Mick North and others
From: Norman Bassett, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Neurotic" used to be the psychotherapeutic term for people we'd today call "traumatised" - that clearly includes Mick North and less clearly includes Anne Pearston and Sean Connery, both of whom went off the deep end emotionally. Gill Marshall-Andrews of GCN looks more like a political opportunist supporting her MP husband's career to me, but there may be more behind her interest, too. I suspect anti-foxhunting Michael Foster MP fits in this category - probably he's witnessed some animal being torn to bits by foxhounds when he was a child. Professional therapy or some hours of careful listening by someone with compassion is what they need - the journalists' rent-a-quote stuff is not doing them any good at all. The first thing is to get them to recognise they have a problem. Regards Norman Bassett drakenfels.org -- My view is that GMA is just a liberal windbag who has siezed on this issue. The fact that she still goes on and on about it when her credibility has been totally destroyed because of the tiny membership of the GCN is pretty strong evidence of it. Can't wait to see what she comes out with in the next FCC report. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
