New laws coming?

[tackb]

This makes for interesting reading - apparently Rudd's grip on her seat (and reality) is rather tenuous and a concerted campaign by shooting constituents could topple her with not too much effort - if they don't suffer from an I'm all right Jack attitude.

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... ban-plans/

Although there may be three clubs in her constituency , a lot of the members may not be .

The constituency is set in a relatively isolated part of the southeast from the railways perspective and so does not enjoy some of the more general affluence of this part of the country. In the 2000 index of multiple deprivation a majority of wards fell within the bottom half of rankings so it can arguably be considered a deprived area. Hastings has some light industry, while Rye has a small port, which includes hire and repair activities for leisure vessels and fishing. Hastings is mostly Labour-voting, whereas Rye and the rest of the areas from Rother council are Conservative.

What can make the difference is shooters from outside Rudd's constituency offering to help the Labour candidate .

sorry but there is no way I can support labour , I run a business and they are not the friend of business.

[ovenpaa]

sorry but there is no way I can support labour , I run a business and they are not the friend of business.

Agreed, a Labour government would almost certainly have an adverse affect on both my hobby and my business and I am not ready to think about retiring quite yet.

[Mikaveli]

A better tactic, rather than threatening to take your vote elsewhere (which I'm sure they get a lot - and may not react positively too), let them know you voted for them (if that's what you did).

The implication is the same (upsetting their voters), but it's a lot more polite!

[Dark Skies]

I don't vote at all. I have long given up the foolish impression that British democracy is anything but a sham - whichever of the two parties is in power seems to make little difference to the things that really matter. However, I accept that politicians crave position and power, not to do anything useful with it, they just want it and the pampered trappings that go with it.

My posting of the article was merely to highlight a vulnerability Rudd is exposed to and by playing the game one could exploit it. Think of it as the old carrot and stick scenario - just because you have a carrot doesn't mean to say you have to give it to the ass.

Rudd is a conservative (small 'c') politician. She doesn't believe in anything beyond her career. She certainly doesn't have any interest in MARS or .50 beyond a headline or two and scavenging a few votes here and there alongside the usual tough on crime bo...cks. As neither figure at all in criminal stats she could care less if they were taken off the table compared to possibly losing a position where she is paid well beyond her worth.

Sad to say though that a sizeable amount of members will spend more time and effort posting on this forum saying why they won't exploit this situation than it would take to actually put a letter together, stuff it in an envelope and put a stamp on it.

[Mikaveli]

Sad to say though that a sizeable amount of members will spend more time and effort posting on this forum saying why they won't exploit this situation than it would take to actually put a letter together, stuff it in an envelope and put a stamp on it.

I've written to my MP...

Who else?

[Sim G]

Short of asking the 22,391 Sussex certificate holders which way they voted last time and how they would vote in the next election, it is impossible to say what impact threatening to vote Labour would actually have on the outcome.

All that has to happen is that Ms Rudd and the Conservative leadership have to have the impression that to progress with such legislation will see her lose her seat....

[Racalman]

This makes for interesting reading - apparently Rudd's grip on her seat (and reality) is rather tenuous and a concerted campaign by shooting constituents could topple her with not too much effort - if they don't suffer from an I'm all right Jack attitude.

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... ban-plans/

Nice one. And while they're at it they could remind her to focus her efforts on the real problems this country faces:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41549348

[James84]

Here's what I sent.

Dear Mrs Maria Miller,

I am contacting you regarding the upcoming consultation on offensive weapons as announced by the Home Secretary, Ambur Rudd which includes the moving of .50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles from Section 1 to Section 5 'prohibited' firearms. They are termed as 'dangerous firearms' within the initial announcement.

I fully appreciate and understand the other areas of this consultation (restricting open sales of acids and online sales of knives) due to their usage in recent crimes within the UK, however I am concerned as to the reasoning behind the reclassification of two legal, Section 1 types of firearm being moved when there has to date not been a single crime committed in the UK with either.

It has not been formally announced but I am assuming that the 'rapid firing' rifles refer to the recently adopted MARS and/or Lever Release rifles. Both of these sporting rifles, unlike acid and knives are currently licensed (strictly and with extra scrutiny from the licensing Authority) and have been cleared as Section 1 firearms. This raises the question as to why they have been latched onto the back of this consultation which focuses on non-licensed and criminally associated devices/substances.

In reality, firearm related crimes will continue at their current rate with or without such restrictions and as the recent and awful events in Europe have shown, mass shootings are being carried out using illegally owned firearms which were never registered to anyone in the first place. They are transported illegally from further afield throughout Europe and it is a known fact that many of these illegal firearms find their way into the UK:

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/ ... g-inquiry/

In short, banning licensed individuals from owning rifles that have never been used in any crime is arguably a pointless exercise. Surely the focus should be on ensuring no illegal firearms make their way onto our shores rather than forcing legitimate firearm owners to hand theirs over even though they are registered and traceable? The firearms in question are not used in crimes nor are they the same 'dangerous firearms' in terms of function or operation as those illegally imported into the UK and used by gangs and other irresponsible individuals.

I fear that this is another step that will undermine the UK's shooting community and that shooting is further becoming a 'taboo' sport which is hushed into the corner and beaten whenever there is a need to show that something is being done in the wake of events abroad. Whilst any shooting is a tragedy, they commonly occur with illegal firearms or in countries that allow firearms that are already prohibited in the UK.

The outcome I am seeking from this correspondence is that you consider the above points and the fact that there will be no benefit to public safety by prohibiting these two types of firearms. The UK shooting community consists of upstanding and law abiding citizens who use these firearms to challenge themselves as a sport, be it using a .50 for long range or a MARS rifle for shorter range target shooting. I ask that if you have any visibility of the proposed consultation and/or the thinking behind it that you air the idea that perhaps this minority of responsible sportsmen and women should not be punished for enjoying a hobby with firearms that are deemed by a few to be unsuitable for a licensed, vetted and competent individual to own and use on approved sites within the UK.

Yours sincerely,

[James84]

Also, for anyone looking for contact details try this. I have used it before and have had a response each time.

https://www.writetothem.com/

[Daryll]