The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

joe wrote:This is the same stupid home office that denies that there is even a bill of rights in existence! (If they did the 1997 1987 acts are illegal and void ) However, MPs, civil servents and others love to hide behind the bill of rights when it suits them !

The 1968 act is a 'shell issue' - qualified right no ware in any of the firearms acts does it state a need or permission for a lieance only for the a person to be certified (legal under the bill of rights ) tell this to the sheep they would scream for more controls and bans because "we dont want to be like armerica"

And another thing what an idiotic name (the home office ) for a justice department! Rant over

Gazoo wrote:

joe wrote:This is the same stupid home office that denies that there is even a bill of rights in existence! (If they did the 1997 1987 acts are illegal and void ) However, MPs, civil servents and others love to hide behind the bill of rights when it suits them !

The 1968 act is a 'shell issue' - qualified right no ware in any of the firearms acts does it state a need or permission for a lieance only for the a person to be certified (legal under the bill of rights ) tell this to the sheep they would scream for more controls and bans because "we dont want to be like armerica"

And another thing what an idiotic name (the home office ) for a justice department! Rant over

From what I read, the so called bill of rights is all about guaranteeing the rights of parliament and the landowners who are eligible to stand for it , not about rights of the citizens .