50 cal ban dropped?

[dromia]

It is amazing to me ow many gun owners seem to have sympathy towards the MARs/lever release ban, a divided community indeed.

Yes the 50 cal put forward an argument and the fecked up national bodies should have put forward and equally robust argument in defense of lever release/MARs guns.

Lever release and MARS are as much a non threat to public safety as the 50 cals or any other firearm, the national organisations should have been arguing 'pon the whole principle of banning legal firearms as this is the issues not engaging with a this gun is more dangerous than that instead of agreeing with the principle and following the the anti gun ownership divide and conquer agenda.

[Sixshot6]

I believe there is an amendment or clarification of wording that separates MARS from LR.

Something about using the trigger only to reload.

I heard about that, anyone know what happen to that? Has the Verney carron speedlines to the rescue?

[safetyfirst]

Not to be forgotten is that the lever release and mars systems are an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the legislation, which is something people may not take kindly to.

Not a rational way to make legislation but then the legislation itself is riddled with irrationality and self defeating regulations*

*see the proliferation of LBP’s which for the most part sit on the floor of cabinets after they’ve been found a bit too tricky to shoot. A proliferation caused by restrictions on shooting other people’s firearms.

[dromia]

Not to be forgotten is that the lever release and mars systems are an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the legislation, which is something people may not take kindly to.

This view, especially from gun owners, really disappoints me as it implies that the people who developed lever/trigger release firearms have done something underhand, which is not so. They went through proper procedure to check whether these guns were legal before having them for sale and having firearms certification departments issuing slots for these guns. At the end of the day these guns were deemed to be legal, within the spirit and letter of the law, by the authorities, HO, Firearms licensing, or they would not be allowed to be sold, if they are not then why were they allowed in the first place?

The fact that they are allowed surely shows that the authorities believed that they do meet with the letter and the spirit of the legislation. So what has changed for them to now renege on there original decision?

Other than a cynical PC, anti gun, non evidence based, emotional, headline grabbing, being seeing to be doing something that will make no difference, anti gun agenda. Surely this should be sufficiently good grounds for a counter argument.

[JSC]

I believe there is an amendment or clarification of wording that separates MARS from LR.

Something about using the trigger only to reload.

I heard about that, anyone know what happen to that? Has the Verney carron speedlines to the rescue?

The only recent amendment I've seen is this change in wording:

The current wording (regarding which firearms are prohibited) is:

"any rifle with a chamber from which empty cartridge cases are extracted using—
(i)energy from propellant gas, or
(ii)energy imparted to a spring or other energy storage
device by propellant gas,
other than a rifle which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges;”

The proposed amendment would change it to this:

"any, other than a rifle which is chambered for rim fire cartridges, which ejects an empty
cartridge case using energy which comes (directly or indirectly) from propellant gas and
subsequently chambers a cartridge by mechanical means through the operation of the
firing trigger mechanism alone.”

Now, to me at least, this is not a very well worded amendment, but it appears to be trying to give LR rifles a chance.

But it is not in the Bill until it's considered and voted in and the earliest chance of that is next Wednesday.

[RDC]

IPSC have re-introduced lever release division for rifles. I have a feeling it was a move to add further legitimacy to the call too keep them from being banned.

[David TS]

Not to be forgotten is that the lever release and mars systems are an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the legislation, which is something people may not take kindly to.

This view, especially from gun owners, really disappoints me as it implies that the people who developed lever/trigger release firearms have done something underhand, which is not so. They went through proper procedure to check whether these guns were legal before having them for sale and having firearms certification departments issuing slots for these guns. At the end of the day these guns were deemed to be legal, within the spirit and letter of the law, by the authorities, HO, Firearms licensing, or they would not be allowed to be sold, if they are not then why were they allowed in the first place?

The fact that they are allowed surely shows that the authorities believed that they do meet with the letter and the spirit of the legislation. So what has changed for them to now renege on there original decision?

Other than a cynical PC, anti gun, non evidence based, emotional, headline grabbing, being seeing to be doing something that will make no difference, anti gun agenda. Surely this should be sufficiently good grounds for a counter argument.

For the answer to that, you only have to look at the NPCC FELWG minutes for 05 Feb 2015, agenda item 8 c.

Martin Parker of NABIS (a self serving organisation, funded by the police) was tasked to go away and look at the classification of the MARS rifles. We are now looking at the outcome of this, the NPCC tail wagging the Home Office dog.

http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/wp-content ... h-2015.pdf

[dromia]

So is it Mr Parker's review that is driving the proposed legislation?

Have I missed it in the original documentation for the proposals, were MARs/Lever release guns used in the Paris atrocity?

I suspect that based on NABIS's previously biased and poorly done research that should be easy enough to disprove the validity. Regardless of the task given them NABIS will always come up with the ban option and write their research to fit the answer they want so hardly robust, objective evidence to base legislation upon, surely NABIS is a gift for discrediting the recommendations if they are based on that skewed findings.

[David TS]

'So is it Mr Parker's review that is driving the proposed legislation?'

I suspect only Martin Parker and the NPCC know the answer to that, but it is a coincidence if there is no connection.

I don't believe Martin Parker's conclusions to the NPCC on MARS rifles are in the public arena available for scrutiny, nor will they ever be.

Isn't it somewhat odd otherwise that the Offensive Weapons Bill, predominately created to deal with knife and acid issues, acted as the trojan horse to sneak some firearms changes through?

Except, of course, that the trojan horse tactic didn't work.

NPCC direct NABIS, and the forces, primarily West Midlands, fund NABIS, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, do you?

No, of course MARS/LR rifles were not used in the Paris tragedies.

The desire to ban MARS/LR rifles has been sitting out there since 2015, waiting for the opportunity to try and sneak it through a bill at the right time. I suspect the Offensive Weapons Bill was that opportunity.

[dromia]

Then surely such secretive research and dubious commissioning by the FELWEG/NPPC group is enough to trash the proposals with, especially now that Brexit/wanna be Prime Ministers seem to be players as Tory MPs are using such opportunities to challenge the governments authority to flex some muscle afore the Brexit vote.