What gun confiscation is like.
- Thread starter Scoop
- Start date
Well, I believe her, John. I believe her when she talks out of the other side of her mouth.
“I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulation on guns but we’re going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby to try to reduce the outrageous number of people who are dying from gun violence in our country.”
Hillary Clinton, April 2016
Hillary Clinton, April 2016
@Stecolclough Read thru some of this thread and join in if you have anything to add.
Last edited:
Ghmann
.270 WIN
In the context of this thread, check out this link. It relates to a "Terrifying Arsenal" of weapons turned in during London's latest gun amnesty surrender. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...zens-seized-in-mets-gun-amnesty-a3463401.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...zens-seized-in-mets-gun-amnesty-a3463401.html
Decades after Firearm Confiscation, Australia Announces New Amnesty Program
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2017
In a tacit admission that criminals and scofflaws have had little trouble circumventing Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the government’s confiscation effort, Australian officials have set a date for another firearms amnesty program. The program is set to begin in July and last for three months. Despite offering no compensation for surrendered firearms, government officials hope that the plan will net 260,000 of an estimated 600,000 illegally possessed guns.
In 1996, following a high-profile shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia’s states and territories adopted the federal NFA. The agreement set up stringent licensing requirements to possess firearms, requiring license applicants provide a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm; the agreement made clear that personal protection was not a genuine reason. The measure also targeted several types of commonly-owned firearms, and included a near total ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns.
To coincide with the new restrictions, the government provided a firearms amnesty and compensation program. Through a massive public education campaign, gun owners were warned that they were required to turn their newly-prohibited firearms over to the government for a set price. Incorrectly called a “buy-back” by some U.S. politicians, as the NFA did not grandfather the possession of firearms owned prior to the new restrictions, the ban and amnesty amounted to gun confiscation.
In announcing the new federal amnesty program, Justice Minister Michael Keenan told the Sunday Mail, “This is the first Australia wide gun amnesty since 1996, when the Howard government took action following the devastation of the Port Arthur Massacre,” but acknowledged, “there have been state-based amnesties over that time.”
In fact, according to research conducted by University of Sydney Professor Philip Alpers, from 1987 to 2015, there were 41 (38 state and 3 federal) firearm amnesties of various durations in Australia. Alpers calculated the total number of firearms turned in to various authorities over this period at roughly 1.1 million.
Implementation of yet another amnesty is a broad acknowledgement of the futility of Australia’s gun control regime and amnesty programs. Further, more sophisticated analyses have also revealed the ineffectiveness of the country’s previous turn-in efforts.
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice reviewed the available research on Australia’s NFA firearm confiscation program and issued a memorandum that concluded that the effort had no effect on crime generally. In coming to this determination, the memorandum cited work from University of Maryland Professor Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, aptly titled, “Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns.” The NIJ memo made clear that the researchers “found no effect on crime.”
Given that turn-in programs do not reduce crime, some might wonder why Australia would once again embark on such a pointless endeavor. However, Keenan was kind enough to provide the Sunday Mail with the government’s rationale, explaining, “This is as much about giving a family a chance to get rid of an old heirloom as it is about getting rid of guns off our streets.”
With refreshing candor, the Australian government has admitted that its intent with the new amnesty is to disarm the otherwise law-abiding who are not in total compliance with Australia’s onerous gun control regime. This pursuit of unregistered heirlooms and family keepsakes will no doubt have an effect on violent crime similar to that of previous amnesties; none.
___________________________________
Scoop's note: What are the chances that anyone who turns in a firearm during this "amnesty" goes on a list as a potential hoarder of other retained guns? Invitation for a raid?
Registration = Confiscation
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2017
In a tacit admission that criminals and scofflaws have had little trouble circumventing Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the government’s confiscation effort, Australian officials have set a date for another firearms amnesty program. The program is set to begin in July and last for three months. Despite offering no compensation for surrendered firearms, government officials hope that the plan will net 260,000 of an estimated 600,000 illegally possessed guns.
In 1996, following a high-profile shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia’s states and territories adopted the federal NFA. The agreement set up stringent licensing requirements to possess firearms, requiring license applicants provide a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm; the agreement made clear that personal protection was not a genuine reason. The measure also targeted several types of commonly-owned firearms, and included a near total ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns.
To coincide with the new restrictions, the government provided a firearms amnesty and compensation program. Through a massive public education campaign, gun owners were warned that they were required to turn their newly-prohibited firearms over to the government for a set price. Incorrectly called a “buy-back” by some U.S. politicians, as the NFA did not grandfather the possession of firearms owned prior to the new restrictions, the ban and amnesty amounted to gun confiscation.
In announcing the new federal amnesty program, Justice Minister Michael Keenan told the Sunday Mail, “This is the first Australia wide gun amnesty since 1996, when the Howard government took action following the devastation of the Port Arthur Massacre,” but acknowledged, “there have been state-based amnesties over that time.”
In fact, according to research conducted by University of Sydney Professor Philip Alpers, from 1987 to 2015, there were 41 (38 state and 3 federal) firearm amnesties of various durations in Australia. Alpers calculated the total number of firearms turned in to various authorities over this period at roughly 1.1 million.
Implementation of yet another amnesty is a broad acknowledgement of the futility of Australia’s gun control regime and amnesty programs. Further, more sophisticated analyses have also revealed the ineffectiveness of the country’s previous turn-in efforts.
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice reviewed the available research on Australia’s NFA firearm confiscation program and issued a memorandum that concluded that the effort had no effect on crime generally. In coming to this determination, the memorandum cited work from University of Maryland Professor Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, aptly titled, “Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns.” The NIJ memo made clear that the researchers “found no effect on crime.”
Given that turn-in programs do not reduce crime, some might wonder why Australia would once again embark on such a pointless endeavor. However, Keenan was kind enough to provide the Sunday Mail with the government’s rationale, explaining, “This is as much about giving a family a chance to get rid of an old heirloom as it is about getting rid of guns off our streets.”
With refreshing candor, the Australian government has admitted that its intent with the new amnesty is to disarm the otherwise law-abiding who are not in total compliance with Australia’s onerous gun control regime. This pursuit of unregistered heirlooms and family keepsakes will no doubt have an effect on violent crime similar to that of previous amnesties; none.
___________________________________
Scoop's note: What are the chances that anyone who turns in a firearm during this "amnesty" goes on a list as a potential hoarder of other retained guns? Invitation for a raid?
Registration = Confiscation
While I understand that the USA and Australia have different governments and laws, I can honestly relate and even sympathize with those thumbing their nose up at the gov't for what they've done.
They can get bent far as I am concerned.
They can get bent far as I am concerned.
Bobster
.30-06
I'm sure the left in America is watching this very carefully.
This a summary of research that shows there is no credible link between the Aussie '96 confiscation and decreased homicide. It is sort of boring so I highlighted the the weinie.
__________________________
New Evidence against Gun Confiscation
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017
Link to Source
__________________________
New Evidence against Gun Confiscation
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017
Link to Source
We recently discussed the selection of input variables for statistical modeling and how such choices can alter one’s findings. New research published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology examines how the choice in methodology can alter one’s findings.
This new research focuses on a favorite topic of anti-gun politicians, high-ranking politicos, and liberal media: Australia’s 1996 firearms confiscation laws. The anti-gun crowd loves to talk about how the confiscation reduced firearms mortality rates, based at least in part on research conducted in 2006 that concluded the laws led to a decline in firearms deaths, particularly suicides.
Now, Ivy League researchers have found that that the impact of the confiscation has been overstated because the 2006 effort used a statistical methodology that did not account for potential trends and seasonality unrelated to any specific event (in this case, the 1996 confiscation law). The authors present their findings with sterile text, taking no special joy in turning a long-running anti-gun narrative on its head.
Researchers ran an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to account for possible trends in the time series. The ARIMA model found less statistical evidence of the impact of the firearm law; there was marginal evidence that suicide rates declined (and so reduced total firearm mortality rates, without controlling for correlated socio-economic factors) but firearms homicide rates were not affected. They found no evidence of a change in trend after the intervention (the 1996 laws). In other words, the downward trend existed before Australia forced law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally acquired personal property.
Next, they conducted a series of robustness checks. The authors looked at years prior to the 1996 gun confiscation and inserted a series of artificial laws to determine if the previous research found causality or existing trend. Statistically significant findings would indicate the existence of a pre-existing downward trend in firearm mortality rates (and would run contrary to claims of causality).
Nineteen out of 36 artificial interruption models were statistically significant, “suggesting that the empirical model can be implemented in multiple non-intervention years with results similar to the true 1996 interruption year.” The ARIMA model using artificial laws passed the robustness checks, but with statistically insignificant results for all types of firearms mortality.
These findings demonstrate that the 2006 model was mis-specified. We don’t have much faith that politicians and gun control advocates will acknowledge the shortcomings of the previous research or of the Australian gun confiscation itself. After all, they still call it a “buy-back.”
This new research focuses on a favorite topic of anti-gun politicians, high-ranking politicos, and liberal media: Australia’s 1996 firearms confiscation laws. The anti-gun crowd loves to talk about how the confiscation reduced firearms mortality rates, based at least in part on research conducted in 2006 that concluded the laws led to a decline in firearms deaths, particularly suicides.
Now, Ivy League researchers have found that that the impact of the confiscation has been overstated because the 2006 effort used a statistical methodology that did not account for potential trends and seasonality unrelated to any specific event (in this case, the 1996 confiscation law). The authors present their findings with sterile text, taking no special joy in turning a long-running anti-gun narrative on its head.
Researchers ran an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to account for possible trends in the time series. The ARIMA model found less statistical evidence of the impact of the firearm law; there was marginal evidence that suicide rates declined (and so reduced total firearm mortality rates, without controlling for correlated socio-economic factors) but firearms homicide rates were not affected. They found no evidence of a change in trend after the intervention (the 1996 laws). In other words, the downward trend existed before Australia forced law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally acquired personal property.
Next, they conducted a series of robustness checks. The authors looked at years prior to the 1996 gun confiscation and inserted a series of artificial laws to determine if the previous research found causality or existing trend. Statistically significant findings would indicate the existence of a pre-existing downward trend in firearm mortality rates (and would run contrary to claims of causality).
Nineteen out of 36 artificial interruption models were statistically significant, “suggesting that the empirical model can be implemented in multiple non-intervention years with results similar to the true 1996 interruption year.” The ARIMA model using artificial laws passed the robustness checks, but with statistically insignificant results for all types of firearms mortality.
These findings demonstrate that the 2006 model was mis-specified. We don’t have much faith that politicians and gun control advocates will acknowledge the shortcomings of the previous research or of the Australian gun confiscation itself. After all, they still call it a “buy-back.”
I have higlighted salient points.
____________________________
With ‘Firearm’ Offenses up 27-percent, UK Holds National Gun Surrender
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2017
Link to Source
____________________________
With ‘Firearm’ Offenses up 27-percent, UK Holds National Gun Surrender
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2017
Link to Source
Anti-gun advocates like Gun Control Network Chair Gillian Marshall-Andrews tout the United Kingdom’s longstanding firearms restrictions, which include a near total ban on handguns, as the “gold standard” of gun control. In recent years, UK officials have continued to implement new policies that further burden law abiding gun owners. These include surprise inspections of gun owners’ firearm storage arrangements, the use of centralized firearm owner licensing data to target “terrorists,” and intrusive medical monitoring of firearm certificate holders.
However, the UK’s criminals appear indifferent.
According to the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) statistical bulletin “Crime in England and Wales,” firearm crimes in England and Wales were up 27-percent for the year ending in June 2017. The bulletin noted, “The latest rise continues an upward trend seen in firearms offences in the last few years.”
In an attempt to resolve some of the increase, ONS explained that part of the growth could be due to improvements in the crime reporting. It should also be noted that the UK’s definition of “firearm,” as used for statistical purposes, includes some imitation guns and other non-firearm items, like pepper spray and stun guns. However, ONS also made clear that “Evidence of some genuine increase in offences involving firearms can be seen in admissions data for NHS hospitals in England, which showed increases in all three categories of assault by firearm discharge.”
An in-depth August 2017 ONS report on firearm crime statistics in England and Wales prepared for the House of Commons painted a similar picture. Using data through March 31, 2017, ONS found that non-air firearms offences had increased 23-percent over the previous year. The document showed that the 2016/17 total number of non-air firearms offences was 31-percent higher than the total in 2013/14. The 2016/17 figure for non-air firearm offenses was the highest recorded since 2010/11. The report also noted that there was a 19-percent increase in what ONS categorizes as “violence against the person” crimes involving a firearm from the period 2014/15 to 2015/16.
In 1997 the UK enacted a total ban on handguns in England and Wales. Despite this restriction, for the year ending in March 2017, handguns were the most common type of non-air firearm used in criminal offenses. Moreover, the statistical bulletin pointed out that there was a 25-percent increase in offenses involving handguns for the year ending in June 2017. As in the United States, the use of rifles in crime is rare, accounting for about 1-percent of non-air firearm offenses each year.
This increase in the criminal misuse of firearms is being cited as justification for a two week national gun surrender period from November 13 through 26. The effort is being spearheaded by the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, which has enlisted the Metropolitan Police and other local law enforcement in the effort. Under the program, those in illegal possession of a firearm can turn it in to specially designated police stations, no questions asked. During a similar effort in 2014 about 6,000 guns were surrendered.
The Met and local police stations have come up with various campaigns to promote the surrender. The Met’s promotional materials urge London’s youth to #GiveUpYourGun and include a YouTube video explaining the potential consequences of illegally carrying a firearm. A video from the Derbyshire Constabulary challenges viewers to tell the difference between a real and imitation handgun, and implores the audience to turn either type of object over to the police.
Despite this messaging, more practical public officials don’t seem to be holding out much hope that the UK’s criminals will comply. Much of NABIS’s press release on the surrender targeted the otherwise law-abiding.
Explaining the types of guns they were targeting, NABIS Head, Detective Chief Superintendent Jo Chilton, noted, “Perhaps you have a gun that has been handed down through the family or you have found a firearm in your loft or shed which has been gathering dust and you had forgotten about.” In a video for the BBC, NABIS Head of Operational Support Clive Robinson pointed to a table full of early 20th century firearms and said, “These are the sorts of weapons families are finding from loved ones that have passed. They’re finding in garages, etc. But when they see them they’re not sure what to do with it. If you bring it into your local police station we will safely dispose of it for you.” Assistant Chief Constable from Northumbria shared a similar sentiment, telling the BBC, “We are realistic enough to realize that we’re not going to get hardened gang members who are in possession of weapons they intend to use.”
Gun rights supporters and most gun control advocates agree that turn-ins, usually in the form of so-called “buybacks” in the U.S., are ineffective public policy. Since 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice has recognized that turn-in programs do not work. A more recent DOJ survey into research concerning Australia’s 1996 nationwide amnesty (confiscation) program noted that there is little evidence that it led to a reduction in crime and that turn-ins are generally ineffective because “The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.”
It is encouraging that some UK officials have at least a remote understanding that gun turn-ins do not work as intended. The recent increase in firearm crime should prompt public officials to reflect on some of the UK’s other gun control measures with a similar skepticism. However, employing reason isn’t their strong suit. Despite the data showing that rifles are used in less than 1 percent of firearms offenses, in October the Home Office announced plans to ban “.50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles.”
However, the UK’s criminals appear indifferent.
According to the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) statistical bulletin “Crime in England and Wales,” firearm crimes in England and Wales were up 27-percent for the year ending in June 2017. The bulletin noted, “The latest rise continues an upward trend seen in firearms offences in the last few years.”
In an attempt to resolve some of the increase, ONS explained that part of the growth could be due to improvements in the crime reporting. It should also be noted that the UK’s definition of “firearm,” as used for statistical purposes, includes some imitation guns and other non-firearm items, like pepper spray and stun guns. However, ONS also made clear that “Evidence of some genuine increase in offences involving firearms can be seen in admissions data for NHS hospitals in England, which showed increases in all three categories of assault by firearm discharge.”
An in-depth August 2017 ONS report on firearm crime statistics in England and Wales prepared for the House of Commons painted a similar picture. Using data through March 31, 2017, ONS found that non-air firearms offences had increased 23-percent over the previous year. The document showed that the 2016/17 total number of non-air firearms offences was 31-percent higher than the total in 2013/14. The 2016/17 figure for non-air firearm offenses was the highest recorded since 2010/11. The report also noted that there was a 19-percent increase in what ONS categorizes as “violence against the person” crimes involving a firearm from the period 2014/15 to 2015/16.
In 1997 the UK enacted a total ban on handguns in England and Wales. Despite this restriction, for the year ending in March 2017, handguns were the most common type of non-air firearm used in criminal offenses. Moreover, the statistical bulletin pointed out that there was a 25-percent increase in offenses involving handguns for the year ending in June 2017. As in the United States, the use of rifles in crime is rare, accounting for about 1-percent of non-air firearm offenses each year.
This increase in the criminal misuse of firearms is being cited as justification for a two week national gun surrender period from November 13 through 26. The effort is being spearheaded by the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, which has enlisted the Metropolitan Police and other local law enforcement in the effort. Under the program, those in illegal possession of a firearm can turn it in to specially designated police stations, no questions asked. During a similar effort in 2014 about 6,000 guns were surrendered.
The Met and local police stations have come up with various campaigns to promote the surrender. The Met’s promotional materials urge London’s youth to #GiveUpYourGun and include a YouTube video explaining the potential consequences of illegally carrying a firearm. A video from the Derbyshire Constabulary challenges viewers to tell the difference between a real and imitation handgun, and implores the audience to turn either type of object over to the police.
Despite this messaging, more practical public officials don’t seem to be holding out much hope that the UK’s criminals will comply. Much of NABIS’s press release on the surrender targeted the otherwise law-abiding.
Explaining the types of guns they were targeting, NABIS Head, Detective Chief Superintendent Jo Chilton, noted, “Perhaps you have a gun that has been handed down through the family or you have found a firearm in your loft or shed which has been gathering dust and you had forgotten about.” In a video for the BBC, NABIS Head of Operational Support Clive Robinson pointed to a table full of early 20th century firearms and said, “These are the sorts of weapons families are finding from loved ones that have passed. They’re finding in garages, etc. But when they see them they’re not sure what to do with it. If you bring it into your local police station we will safely dispose of it for you.” Assistant Chief Constable from Northumbria shared a similar sentiment, telling the BBC, “We are realistic enough to realize that we’re not going to get hardened gang members who are in possession of weapons they intend to use.”
Gun rights supporters and most gun control advocates agree that turn-ins, usually in the form of so-called “buybacks” in the U.S., are ineffective public policy. Since 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice has recognized that turn-in programs do not work. A more recent DOJ survey into research concerning Australia’s 1996 nationwide amnesty (confiscation) program noted that there is little evidence that it led to a reduction in crime and that turn-ins are generally ineffective because “The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.”
It is encouraging that some UK officials have at least a remote understanding that gun turn-ins do not work as intended. The recent increase in firearm crime should prompt public officials to reflect on some of the UK’s other gun control measures with a similar skepticism. However, employing reason isn’t their strong suit. Despite the data showing that rifles are used in less than 1 percent of firearms offenses, in October the Home Office announced plans to ban “.50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles.”
Daryll
.270 WIN
Yep...well theres a surprise, they don't expect criminals to hand in their guns... who'd have thought it.. 
Its the last line there thats worrying the majority of Uk shooters.... they've announced a "consultation" on whether to ban .50 BMG from civilian hands.... theres less than 100 legally held in the country, and only 4 ranges they can be used on, but they consider them high risk in case they get stolen and used for criminal or terrorist use.
The "rapid firing rifles" are those types that have been developed to get around the 1986 semi auto ban, they said that there should be manual action required to chamber a round.
One type (a "Lever release") uses a lever on the left of an AR15 type rifle (where the safety would be) to release the bolt... these rifle have the usual gas parts, but the bolt is held to the rear on cycling, so you use the lever to release the bolt and chamber the next round.... these are available in 9mm, .45, .223 and .308
http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/.223-Lever-Release-Rifle-Builder
The other type is known as a "MARS" action... "manually actuated release system"... they're based on the VZ58 assault rifle and basically you double tap... first pull of the trigger releases the bolt forward to chamber the round, 2nd pull of the trigger fires it.... gas action pushes the bolt to rear and ejects the case, bolt locks open until the next trigger pull.
http://www.caledonianclassicarms.com/csa-vz-58-mars-action-target-rifle-section-1/
Both of these are seen as "not playing the game" and exploiting loopholes in the 1986 law, and the gov'ment see them as especially dangerous due to the high rates of fire possible.
And again, apprarently theres a high risk of them being stolen for criminal purposes.
Neither .50BMG or these types of rifles have EVER been used in a crime in the UK........
Of course this will be the thin end of the wedge.... we managed to keep .22rf semi auto rifles after 1986, but they can shoot as quick, or faster, than either of the above type.. and someone good with a lever action Marlin or Winchester could also keep up with them for fire rate... so when they've got rid of the "rapid firing rifles", what will they look at next..?
Unfortunately we don't have one overriding organisation like the US NRA to lobby for all shooting sports, so we have a few that are "considering their responses", but no-one really thinks they'll do anything constructive. The main body thats talking to the gov'ment is the FCSA (Fifty Calibre Shooters Association) to try and save their sport, but even then, they have no special interest in the Lever release or MARS rifle.
Many shooters are forecasting the demise of Uk shooting in the next few years...
Its the last line there thats worrying the majority of Uk shooters.... they've announced a "consultation" on whether to ban .50 BMG from civilian hands.... theres less than 100 legally held in the country, and only 4 ranges they can be used on, but they consider them high risk in case they get stolen and used for criminal or terrorist use.
The "rapid firing rifles" are those types that have been developed to get around the 1986 semi auto ban, they said that there should be manual action required to chamber a round.
One type (a "Lever release") uses a lever on the left of an AR15 type rifle (where the safety would be) to release the bolt... these rifle have the usual gas parts, but the bolt is held to the rear on cycling, so you use the lever to release the bolt and chamber the next round.... these are available in 9mm, .45, .223 and .308
http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/.223-Lever-Release-Rifle-Builder
The other type is known as a "MARS" action... "manually actuated release system"... they're based on the VZ58 assault rifle and basically you double tap... first pull of the trigger releases the bolt forward to chamber the round, 2nd pull of the trigger fires it.... gas action pushes the bolt to rear and ejects the case, bolt locks open until the next trigger pull.
http://www.caledonianclassicarms.com/csa-vz-58-mars-action-target-rifle-section-1/
Both of these are seen as "not playing the game" and exploiting loopholes in the 1986 law, and the gov'ment see them as especially dangerous due to the high rates of fire possible.
And again, apprarently theres a high risk of them being stolen for criminal purposes.
Neither .50BMG or these types of rifles have EVER been used in a crime in the UK........
Of course this will be the thin end of the wedge.... we managed to keep .22rf semi auto rifles after 1986, but they can shoot as quick, or faster, than either of the above type.. and someone good with a lever action Marlin or Winchester could also keep up with them for fire rate... so when they've got rid of the "rapid firing rifles", what will they look at next..?
Unfortunately we don't have one overriding organisation like the US NRA to lobby for all shooting sports, so we have a few that are "considering their responses", but no-one really thinks they'll do anything constructive. The main body thats talking to the gov'ment is the FCSA (Fifty Calibre Shooters Association) to try and save their sport, but even then, they have no special interest in the Lever release or MARS rifle.
Many shooters are forecasting the demise of Uk shooting in the next few years...
Well its Bleak throughout the Commonwealth, I can tell ya.....
The Canadians, the Brits, Aussies . . .
All going through confiscations.
If we don't hold out, who's going to loan the Brits guns when Putin tries to take over Europe?
No, no.... I haven't heard any rumors . . . that's just a hypothetical question.
Everybody knows it is Trump that wants to take over the world, right?
The Canadians, the Brits, Aussies . . .
All going through confiscations.
If we don't hold out, who's going to loan the Brits guns when Putin tries to take over Europe?
No, no.... I haven't heard any rumors . . . that's just a hypothetical question.
Everybody knows it is Trump that wants to take over the world, right?
The gun control group is trying to eat the elephant. One bite at a time. They also have the U.N. behind them 100%.
UK Working on New Air Gun Restrictions
Just as many American children are hoping that Santa Claus leaves them a BB or pellet gun under the Christmas tree, the Government of the United Kingdom is moving forward with plans to deliver a lump of coal to British subjects. According to a press release from the UK’s Home Office, the government has contacted stakeholders as part of a review into the air gun laws in England and Wales.
Making clear that their intent to further restrict air gun ownership in those regions, the review asked stakeholders for their views on:
Making clear that their intent to further restrict air gun ownership in those regions, the review asked stakeholders for their views on:
- the storage and safe-keeping of air weapons, including possible requirements for increased security e.g. trigger locks or locked cabinets
- whether further measures are needed on manufacturing standards to prevent accidental discharge of air weapons or to prevent modification of air weapons post-sale in order to increase their power; and
- evidence from Scotland and Northern Ireland, where air weapons are subject to a licensing regime
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171215/uk-working-on-new-air-gun-restrictions
________________________________________________________________
Registration = Confiscation