From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm still intrigued as to how they could define it without also
banning lots of other things - which would be outside the scope
of an order under Section 1(4). Going by the draft guidance
the Home Office is concocting they still have yet to realise
that if .50BMG was banned people could use, say 20mm instead.
I think basically ACPO have been reading USA Today for too
long. They don't seem to realise our gun laws are completely
and totally different.
Steve.
__________________________________________
I think we spend too much time examining the detail of proposed
legislation and taking delight in pointing out that it will be too
complicated, unenforceable, difficult to administer or that will also
affect types of guns that should be outside its scope.
Do ACPO really care if 50 cal. muzzleloaders will also be banned. Is it
really a valid argument that if there is no evidence that a type of
firearm has ever been used for illegal purpose that it should be
permitted? On that basis everybody should be allowed to own a 25
pounder canon!!
If any piece of stupid legislation is difficult to administer, they can
engage thousands more civil servants and police and double the FAC fees
to finance it - that will be no problem at all.
I agree with Totty that any prohibition should be resisted because it is
an erosion of freedom and those purporting to act in the interests of
public safety should be required to prove that the private ownership of
"whatever" constitutes danger to the public.
But, we need to show that we are sensible too and that we are not
demanding to be permitted to own firearms that only have military
application, just because they are bigger, can kill at longer range, go
off with a bigger bang .....etc.
So, what is the attraction of .50 cal? Very good for long range
sniping? Is that a sport?
Hunting of game and vermin I understand. I also recognise and accept
target shooting. I am also in favour of the concept of legal
preparedness for self-defence.
Where does 50 cal fit in any of these?
Alex
--
The point that I was making is that an order under Section 1(4)
has to relate to something that is "specially dangerous" and
not available in significant numbers pre-1988. An order
banning anything in .50 would obviously not be legal on that
basis.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
