New laws coming?

[breacher]

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.

Good point.

So, who is going to challenge it then ?

And who will fund the challenge ?

[MistAgain]

They don't need to justify it.

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

We lost cases in the ECHR and the ECJ after the handgun ban when that argument was used .

The bottom line in those cases was if the government quoted public safety , that was it .

[joe]

They don't need to justify it.

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

We lost cases in the ECHR and the ECJ after the handgun ban when that argument was used .

The bottom line in those cases was if the government quoted public safety , that was it .

Don't forget we have a bill of rights which the government chooses to ignore (unless it's suites themselves re : expense cliams )

[The Event]

We lost cases in the ECHR and the ECJ after the handgun ban when that argument was used .

The bottom line in those cases was if the government quoted public safety , that was it .

And in the case of pistols there were 16 dead children and general armed crime to justify the claim of public safety. Where are the MARS and lever release bodies to justify it this time?

[Oddbod]

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

I suggest this is a good outline for a letter to one's MP. Needless to say: Don't just copy & paste. Add your own words.
Mine has gone off this evening.

[SevenSixTwo]

"I am not aware of any recorded incident where a legally held .50 calibre rifle was used in any criminal or terrorist act."

I'd strongly suggest that we don't use the above in any communication with Govt. It would be taken to imply that we would accept a ban or further restriction on a firearm simply because it had been used in a crime. Don't give them excuse to dig further.

We need to get into the mindset that any criminal use of firearms...

Has NOTHING to do with the people who didn't do it - and we will NOT accept being punished because of their actions.

[The Event]

Good point.

So, who is going to challenge it then ?

And who will fund the challenge ?

Although I only read it recently, I can't recall where - an article about a fighting fund being set up by associations & trade after Dunblane to fight future bans.
Perhaps this is the time to use some of that fund.

[The Event]

I'd strongly suggest that we don't use the above in any communication with Govt. It would be taken to imply that we would accept a ban or further restriction on a firearm simply because it had been used in a crime. Don't give them excuse to dig further.

We need to get into the mindset that any criminal use of firearms...

Has NOTHING to do with the people who didn't do it - and we will NOT accept being punished because of their actions.

TBH, if we'd seen a bunch of terrorist attacks perpetrated by people with legally held .50s, MARS & lever release rifles I think our case would be a lot harder to argue. By pointing out that there have been no incidents with such rifles we are able to show that the existing controls are already sufficient to protect the public.

[MistAgain]

Good point.

So, who is going to challenge it then ?

And who will fund the challenge ?

Although I only read it recently, I can't recall where - an article about a fighting fund being set up by associations & trade after Dunblane to fight future bans.
Perhaps this is the time to use some of that fund.

I remember reading about that fund as well , might be the GTA is looking after it .

[Hunter87]

Bye bye .22lr semi autos......