Attention all MARS & Lever release owners

[toffe wrapper]

Dorset shooter

Their is a name for people like you

Jack

MP's mention disabled shooters in the debate as is the NRA. And is just one of many valid objections.
Your how many are affected question can be answered as, every single disabled person. Who may have wanted to shoot but could not because these types of rife are not available to them.

I guarantee a type of firearm you own was used by the IRA so what's to stop them banning that as its was a terrorist weapon.
thin end of the wedge.

My MP is pro shooting and will be attending a club shoot so will get to use a nasty black leaver release so he can form a opinion based on real evidence.
At least I am doing something, doing nothing is the nimby way.

[Dorset_shooter]

Dorset shooter

Their is a name for people like you

Jack

MP's mention disabled shooters in the debate as is the NRA. And is just one of many valid objections.
Your how many are affected question can be answered as, every single disabled person. Who may have wanted to shoot but could not because these types of rife are not available to them.

I guarantee a type of firearm you own was used by the IRA so what's to stop them banning that as its was a terrorist weapon.
thin end of the wedge.

My MP is pro shooting and will be attending a club shoot so will get to use a nasty black leaver release so he can form a opinion based on real evidence.
At least I am doing something, doing nothing is the nimby way.

If only we worked together, why does everyone jump down my neck for questioning the details behind
A post?

I'm pro shooting etc, stop creating arguments that don't exist.

I want a pro shooting / conservation / job promotion organisation to actually take control and fight as one.

This isn't about personal opinion but educating the general public about the positives of all aspects of our sports.

I have tried but feel like my arguments have fallen on deaf ears with my local mp

[Tacticool]

Not wanting to get into the fight but it might be of interest that in the minutes from yesterday’s second hearing at 6:37pm Gavin Robinson poo pooed the concept that disabled shooters would need MARS or lever action. His argument went along the lines of if they were serious sporting evidence for that then the Paralympic shooting committees should be able to provide it and so far they had not been able to.

I would suggest if you want to fight this then getting them to provide this evidence would be a good way to go about it.


Sent from my boing using "An application"

[Brian838]

I thought I’d start a separate thread as this could get lost in the new laws thread.

JSC has made some good points on here regarding these rifles & how shooters with a disability is a very strong & positive argument in favour of keeping them, as it could be they will be sacrificed to keep .50 cal.

If you haven’t done so already it’s imperative you contact your MP & make a strong case for these rifles being inclusive (buzzword) for disabled shooters.

Thanks.

Well done for starting a separate thread. I feel there is good momentum against the 50 Cal ban (all of which I have used in all my evidence I presented in my meeting with my MP), but I think we need to look at every possible angle when it comes to lever release/MARS.

I tried to explain to my MP that due to the very nature of their operation, a MARS rifle will never be 'faster' than even half the speed of a semi-auto, but the look in her eyes told me I was wasting my time.


I feel that our shooting organisations are failing us if they can't get even across the difference between a lever release/MARS and a semi-auto.

There are many more owners of these rifles than 50 Cal rifles, I would have hoped for more effort on their part.

[DanTheMan]

Not wanting to get into the fight but it might be of interest that in the minutes from yesterday’s second hearing at 6:37pm Gavin Robinson poo pooed the concept that disabled shooters would need MARS or lever action. His argument went along the lines of if they were serious sporting evidence for that then the Paralympic shooting committees should be able to provide it and so far they had not been able to.
I would suggest if you want to fight this then getting them to provide this evidence would be a good way to go about it.

Airbrush and myself are in communication with a disabled shooter who can only use the MARS rifles (he has several). He's asked the NRA to use his case and that of other disabled shooters and put it forward asap.

[JSC]

The first thing we could do is stop arguing amongst ourselves.

As I've said elsewhere, there is a lost of crap being spouted on other shooting social media sites which isn't going to help. Mainly people venting their spleens but not providing any useful suggestions as to how we might actually defend our sport.

So let's try and be constructive, not just critical and negative when we hear something we don't like.

The defence that prohibiting MARS/LR rifles would disadvantage disabled shooters is valid but shouldn't ever have been the main point. Yes, it would have helped if some real evidence had been submitted, but so far it hasn't.

So now, I feel it's more a damage limitation exercise and that means making sure that whoever gives evidence at the Committee stage of the Bill against the proposals understands fully how these rifles operate and can articulate that in a way so they will be considered in the same way as .50cal rifles will be. i.e.
They have never been used in a crime
They have never killed anyone
They are not sought after by criminals and terrorists (whatever the NCA might say)
They are no more a threat to the public than any other legally held firearm
They do not have anywhere near the same rate of fire as a semi-auto rifle
They have nothing to do with bump stocks
They are legitimate target shooting rifles and are subject to the same controls as all other legally held firearms

The disabled argument does have a place but it won't win the argument on it's own. Good to hear that Dan/Airbrush has a good case, but one or two disabled shooters won't stop the Home Office. They have already said that people will be inconvenienced by the Bill. That in itself is not enough to stop them.

Let's not also forget that the consultation was very misleading and badly worded and because LR rifles weren't mentioned in it the compensation costs would have been grossly underestimated.

Points like these will be lost at Committee unless you make them to your MP and the shooting organisations who will be lobbying on your behalf. Concentrate on the points with the most impact and there may be a chance to stop your rifle from being confiscated.

[breacher]

As I see it, there are two points which will help us AND it is easily proved by statistics.

ONE - Legally held firearms are not the problem. Its ilegally held firearms that are the problem.

We can prove this point by referring to the two previous bans which did not stop ( or even reduce) the criminal use of handguns / semi auto rifles.

Iain Duncan Smith raised this in the debate - "pistols banned but yet readily available to criminals - ban only punished law abiding shooters and achieved no increase in public safety".

TWO. As a group we are the most law abiding in the UK. Take any other group of sportsmen and women and they will have more participants with criminal records.

In short lets focus on how law abiding we are. And that law abiding citizens are not a problem no mater what they possess.

[Rambles35]

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... #pb6-l1g28

Propellant gas is required to come within the rapid fire definition

How does underlever come within that definition ?

[Cj10]

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... #pb6-l1g28

Propellant gas is required to come within the rapid fire definition

How does underlever come within that definition ?

UNDERlever doesn’t.

Lever RELEASE does, as it uses energy from the propellant gas to eject the cartridge thereby being, in effect, a self unloading rifle.

[Rambles35]

Thank you