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

The Event wrote:

ordnance wrote:

They don't need to justify it.

They do if taken to court for violating our rights under the convention

Good luck with that.

A class action case would put the willies up em. Especially if the "public interest" is just the thought police doing overtime.

ordnance wrote:

Good luck with that.

And isn't that part of our problem? Every group gets the Govt into court to claim their rights are being violated over deportation, cuts to benefits, religion etc.
And we just give up without a fight.

A crowd funding appeal might be the way to go.

Nowts happened yet anyway so let's keep the blood pressure down and the knickers untwisted!
As I said before, buy buy buy

The Event wrote:

ordnance wrote:

Good luck with that.

And isn't that part of our problem? Every group gets the Govt into court to claim their rights are being violated over deportation, cuts to benefits, religion etc.
And we just give up without a fight.

The above all have supporters in the general public and politicians, unfortunately apart from the shooting community now one would care if they banned all firearms in the UK tomorrow. One thing about some of the politicians here in N/I they have and will support shooters and their rights unlike most other politicians in the rest of the UK.

Handguns may not be banned in Northern Ireland after all, as part of Govern- ment plans to woo the Ulster Unionists.
Tony Blair is considering the exemption from the post-Dunblane ban as one of a number of "confidence-building measures" proposed by Mo Mowlam, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in order to tempt David Trimble's Ulster Unionists into talks along with Sinn Fein on 9 September.

Home Office Consultation: "Offensive Weapons" Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced a consultation on "restricting access to dangerous firearms" with specific reference to .50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles.
To announce such proposals without prior reference to the NRA or any national shooting organisation is very disappointing. The focus on .50 calibre appears wholly illogical and without reason; I understand "rapid fire rifles" refers to MARS and probably lever release actions but am awaiting further clarification.
.50 calibre poses no greater risk to the public than any other firearm; they are few in number and their use restricted to a handful of suitable ranges across the UK. I am not aware of any recorded incident where a legally held .50 calibre rifle was used in any criminal or terrorist act. To have these firearms included in an initiative to "stamp out serious violent crime" along with flick knives and acids will astonish the law abiding and decent shooting community.
Any unreasonable and unjustified attempt to restrict shooting, no matter how small the contingent, needs to be vigorously resisted.

Our response to the last Home Office consultation (fee proposals for Home Office Approved Clubs) was impressive (nearly 5,000 responses) and effective (the Home Office is currently reviewing the fee proposals). We are urgently seeking clarification from the Home Office on the Home Secretary's unwelcome announcement and will post further updates.
Andrew Mercer Group Chief Executive & Secretary General

The Event wrote:

ordnance wrote:

They don't need to justify it.

They do if taken to court for violating our rights under the convention

They will simply quote national security.

breacher wrote:
They will simply quote national security.

Took a bit more than that with Abu Hamza didn't it.
It takes more than two words to win a court case. Whether those words are 'public interest' or 'national security'. You need to have evidence.

breacher wrote:

The Event wrote:

ordnance wrote:

They don't need to justify it.

They do if taken to court for violating our rights under the convention

They will simply quote national security.

And the sheep would lap it up ! Too many people in the uk trust the government !!