Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

No unfortunately 308 they are not. It's just part of the process for justifying what they really want. To take your firearms off you eventually.

Bullshit.

I would like to know what these clowns plan on doing, if they don't think you can justify the amount of "sporting firearms" you have.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why not just ignore it? The Act is what matters, not the code.

Writing to the Minister, wanking on about a tiny error in what is only a general guide for the public will just make you look like a pedantic cock.

That's rich.

Sent to MP.

Hello

I am writing with a query as to why the Police publication of the Arms code has been allowed to be altered to reflect requirements that are NOT law. We are now expected to answer the following questions with our license renewal as well as key wording changes to some statements.

First: On page 41 of the new firearms code it state

"A firearms licence allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A license holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when the Police inspect your security. A firearms licence is valid for ten years unless revoked or surrendered sooner"

This "justifying" is not legally required and has been added ultra vires into the guide. There is no definition of what is Justified and what is not. There is reason for this and yet it could be held against someone who is applying for a renewal. Is "because I like that one" a valid reason? My worry is that while I have a legal reason, while I am renewing the licence I do not want to be disadvantaged in my application because I do not agree with complying with a request that I am not legally required to acquiesce to.

This appears to be another example of the Police overstepping their jurisdiction and trying to write law rather than enforce it.

Secondly:The term "has been " is now "can be" in the definition of a firearm. The big problem here is ANY piece of steel or metal CAN be adapted to discharge any shot, bullet or projectile by force of explosive. In fact it does not have to be metal either. You could drill a hole in a piece of wood, fill it with powder and cap it with a projectile and ignite it. So by definition even a piece of wood falls under this description. Look around your office where you are sitting as you read this. Is there any metal tube? (Metal pen, Chair or table legs, gas struts from adjustable chairs, Plastic tubing or plumbing) Because they can be closed at one end and turned into a closed tube, these could now be considered "firearms" by that definition....Its that poorly written.

A simple guide that is written to a level of the lowest denominator and they can't even get THAT right?

And yet the cops seem to think that universal registration is all going to work well and go through error free?

These people are pathetic, wrong, and must be stopped

I have six centre fire guns, and use them for shooting a variety of game animals from rabbits to deer.

Phew that was hard

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

I have six centre fire guns, and use them for shooting a variety of game animals from rabbits to deer.

Phew that was hard

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

"I have..... because I want to."

Good enough?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Dougie

"I have..... because I want to."

Good enough?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And your 80yrs old and you need to have a good time cause your not here for a long time!!

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

I have six centre fire guns, and use them for shooting a variety of game animals from rabbits to deer.

Phew that was hard

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

But it won't be that easy, Why do you need six? One will do. Why do you even need them, you can buy meat at the supermarket. You aren't employed in the pest destruction business so that answer won't work. That rifle can shoot something 1k away, it is a sniper rifle and is illegal.
If the justify to Police becomes a legal requirement the reasons will to own will be set very high. A glib answer like your one won't work. Bye bye rifles.

Originally Posted by stug

But it won't be that easy, Why do you need six? One will do. Why do you even need them, you can buy meat at the supermarket. You aren't employed in the pest destruction business so that answer won't work. That rifle can shoot something 1k away, it is a sniper rifle and is illegal.
If the justify to Police becomes a legal requirement the reasons will to own will be set very high. A glib answer like your one won't work. Bye bye rifles.

Agree Stug, otherwise why would you take this route?

Originally Posted by Beetroot

P38, do you have a link to back this up?
Would be great to have as much ammunition as possible for any potential disagreements that may arise.

Just what I was taught in my commercially law classes back in the day.

I'm sure you could find this on Google.

The case taken to the high court was over the thumb hole stock interpretation.

Cheers
Pete

Looks like some pin head plod has been reading the UK firearms laws they have this justification BS and much worse, If they go the UK way we are screwed good and proper,
Paula Bennett and all the other MP's will follow the party line even if they don't agree with it, people have to decide if they want to keep their guns or not at the election,
It's not just the guns it is also the whole outdoors the Government make nice noises about the environment but when it comes to the crunch they back off and think about
their tax revenue and their financial supporters they don't give a toss about the average citizen.

Originally Posted by shooternz

Looks like some pin head plod has been reading the UK firearms laws they have this justification BS and much worse, If they go the UK way we are screwed good and proper,
Paula Bennett and all the other MP's will follow the party line even if they don't agree with it, people have to decide if they want to keep their guns or not at the election,
It's not just the guns it is also the whole outdoors the Government make nice noises about the environment but when it comes to the crunch they back off and think about
their tax revenue and their financial supporters they don't give a toss about the average citizen.

the U.K in brief.
disarm the populace thru misinformation
allow immigrants/refugees who want sharia law and let them.
still have a police force thats unarmed yet militants and radicals can get weapons
give lenient sentences for violent crime to not upset aforementioned groups
watch hell coming on the horizon

now i do not want to give the opinion that legal firearms lawyers want them for self defense but that we are being disarmed as an excuse for unlawful firearms violence.

It looks like a step in the direction of Australia - must provide a "genuine reason" (or similar wording) for owning firearms to obtain a license. Of course anyone going through the process of legally obtaining a license goes through the process of legally joining SSAA or whatever as a "genuine reason" and it's just a waste of everyone's time.

Originally Posted by stretch

Fucked here we go. What a feed of arse this is.

I'm only up to section 1, and it's immediately wrong. "Can be" vs "has been" is a HUGE difference. Almost any lump of metal "can be" adapted to fire a shot via explosive. FFS.

Plumbers better be getting Firearms Licences by that definition.
35 years ago when I was at university we were "firing" empty 1 litre drink bottles out of 4" PVC pipes using water and dry ice as propellant. By the above defintion that's a firearm - therefore plumbers with PVC pipes need a FAL and hardware stores need 'D' cat FALs.