Now that's saying something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Printable View
Now that's saying something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
perserverative is the adjective describing the said "legal beagles"festering desire to constantly push his own agenda!
No its nothing like what ya granny puts in jam jars!
Funny you know mid last year I was going to. It was on the list of things to do. Quite glad that it got moved to the maybe when you get round to it list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Frankly now theres not a chance in hell. Maybe the original intent was noble but they have lost it big time.. Be way too many ego s all beating each other up
Imagine keeping minutes at one of their tea parties ...
I sure as hell wont be, and if asked about it by someone I will steer them clear.
Not me I am Now Somewhat Anti
Geez, What a thread. It makes me sad to read, I'm a paid member of the NSA and I believe in what the NSA is trying to achieve but I just wish he wouldn't go out trying to alienate the other shooting groups like this. If you want to ask some questions and this is the outcome you're doing something wrong.
Yes Tussock, from that little episode I would supporting the NSA would just be supporting an ego. He won a small skirmish, I can see him needling the authorities in the future, I see little else of note.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by FletchNZ
It is all good constantly asking questions, but every now and then he needs to quieten down and listen. Communication is a two way thing.
Agreed Everyone haves the right to apply for a FAL if after vetting if they are proven to be fit and proper they are then issued a Licence. they are then privileged to hold a licence and exercise good judgement while using and possesing a firearm. if you are found to be in breech of the firearms laws then you can lose your privilege to hold a licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Isn't what they won what's caused this latest lot of rule changes?
Has anyone managed to get compensated after they won that case?
Im just asking cos i don't know.
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
VC, I think to be compensated, newly created E-Cat license holders had to give up their E-Cat license and safe after the Lincoln court case ruling.
I love Richard's work, commend him highly, but sometimes I just wish he would speak as a layman or stfu. This isn't the way to get new members.
Not at all. The police were trying to change their interpretation of what features make an A cat semi auto into an E cat. Basically it would have been the end of A cat semis to some minor extent unless you were to not have a pistol grip or thumbhole stock. The adverts were in the papers telling us all about this. NSA challenged this in court and won. The police reinterpretation was deemed illegal. Now they are trying the same thing again but they are trying to do it properly through the right legal channels and close up all the loopholes. It is a blatant gun grab in my view and part of an agenda that has been around for years, if you care to look at trends from other countries that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
He d be a great defence lawyer. Everyone would be so fuking sick of him youd be let go so long as you promised never to bring him back into court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
I thought i heard the cops stood to loose millions compensating people who had to hand in one to destroy ?
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2