Colin Allen Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 hour ago, Airpig41 said: I was looking at another forum recently and they noted an intention within the Labour manifesto to increase firearms licensing to cover the full costs involved. Now I know that's not airsoft but shooters of ALL disciplines should be aware that if one group is targeted successfully then you can bet your last BB that they will look elsewhere to do something similar. Get more money in from our sport, maybe ban it, or more difficult to access. Who knows. You can never trust these politicians........ Increasing the fee to cover costs seems perfectly reasonable; it is not really targeting anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airpig41 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 5 hours ago, Colin Allen said: Increasing the fee to cover costs seems perfectly reasonable; it is not really targeting anyone. I agree to the increased fee but the service is woefully understaffed and undertrained at the moment in a good few areas and people have waited 2 years for a grant or renewal. I fear that it could be a "you get to hit them once so hit them hard" increase in fees. Also that it does not follow onto air powered and airsoft shooting. Fingers crossed. Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted June 16 Supporters Share Posted June 16 21 hours ago, Colin Allen said: Increasing the fee to cover costs seems perfectly reasonable Then what incentive is there for them to limit costs? "My department is over-staffed and much of what we do is pointless busywork," said no bureaucrat, ever. Tackle and Hudson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Allen Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 2 hours ago, Rogerborg said: Then what incentive is there for them to limit costs? "My department is over-staffed and much of what we do is pointless busywork," said no bureaucrat, ever. Which is an utterly irrelevant argument. The principle that those seeking licensing should bear the costs of that licensing is a legitimate one. Tackle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Pith Helmet Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 The fee is to cover the grant of a license, not the checking of a person's suitability to possess a firearm. The right is a statutory one, the existing fee pays for the actual grant (printing the license, getting it signed, posting it to you). The public safety aspect/home visit, checking medical records etc is already within the standing remit of the police and thus comes from their general funding. That is how the law was framed to fit our long existing constitution. TBH I'm straining memories of a module on policing from the last millennium, however neither the original legislation that introduced licensing or the Bill of Rights 1689 have changed of course. Bill Harriman's book on shooting law gives a full account if one is very interested. DanBow, Hudson and Rogerborg 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted June 17 Supporters Share Posted June 17 On 16/06/2024 at 13:25, Colin Allen said: Which is an utterly irrelevant argument. It's an observation, not an argument. On 16/06/2024 at 13:25, Colin Allen said: The principle that those seeking licensing should bear the costs of that licensing is a legitimate one. The practice is that if a monopoly provider can bill you the "cost" for a service, they can - and will - name any "cost" that they want. For example, the £70 fee to switch a vehicle registration mark, which is a take-it-or-leave-it fee for a few keystrokes. Tackle and Hudson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_W Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) The Met released their gun crime figures this morning and interestingly stated that 46% of the 386 firearms recovered last year were converted blank firers. Note that they have specifically said Blank Firers so hopefully we have moved away from the bollocks about "replica guns converted with tools bought from B&Q" that was being spouted back in 2006. I would be curious as to wether these were UK Spec or illegally imported European Spec front venting - I suspect the latter as that was the finding of Merseyside police a few years ago. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxee411r07xo.amp Edited June 18 by John_W Spelling Rogerborg, Colin Allen and Tackle 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 On 28/05/2024 at 13:26, Tackle said: If everyone continues to be sensible You had to go and tempt fate there didn't you https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmm78j3jjno.amp Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted June 20 Supporters Share Posted June 20 8 minutes ago, Cannonfodder said: You had to go and tempt fate there didn't you https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmm78j3jjno.amp Yes, utter spacktads, but the arrest is nonsense. Highways Act 1980, Section 131 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/131 "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse discharges any firearm within 50 feet from the centre of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway, and in consequence thereof the highway is damaged, he is guilty of an offence." Whether an airsoft gun is a firearm for the purposes of the Highways Act is neither here not there. Still, the process is the punishment, and I'd expect the charge will be changed to Firearms Act 1968 S19, or something else that they can make stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amokura Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 A cheap Cybergun springer too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudotectonic Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, Rogerborg said: Section 131 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/161 "and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered" Unfortunately this might stick Rogerborg and Colin Allen 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Allen Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, Rogerborg said: Yes, utter spacktads, but the arrest is nonsense. Highways Act 1980, Section 131 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/131 "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse discharges any firearm within 50 feet from the centre of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway, and in consequence thereof the highway is damaged, he is guilty of an offence." Whether an airsoft gun is a firearm for the purposes of the Highways Act is neither here not there. Still, the process is the punishment, and I'd expect the charge will be changed to Firearms Act 1968 S19, or something else that they can make stick. Highways Amendment Act 1986: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/13/body?view=plain+extent. Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted June 21 Supporters Share Posted June 21 Sadly corrected, "interruption" gets you the jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Pith Helmet Posted Sunday at 00:39 Share Posted Sunday at 00:39 (edited) On 21/06/2024 at 02:10, Rogerborg said: Sadly corrected, "interruption" gets you the jail. Was your journey 'interrupted' by said twat, or did you merely perceive that your journey required interruption despite the lack of actual danger? I think that this is how the law was designed. It was explained to me a few years back that if one set up a pigeon shooting hide that backed onto the crash barriers of a motorway, that you would be about 50' from the centre of the highway. Some pillock could stop and report you as being a threat if they saw you. If you were shooting safely away from the highway and over 50' away, nowt the plod can do, but if closer than 50' and shooting safely then it's court and convincing 12 jurors that you posed no threat and that the reporter was incorrect in his/her/their assessment. Since Clint Eastwood has shown us all that a shotgun has an effective range of three miles and never misses, a jury may well side with the pillock rather than the pest controller these days. Edited Monday at 01:09 by Tactical Pith Helmet Colin Allen's keen reading! Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Allen Posted Sunday at 08:37 Share Posted Sunday at 08:37 7 hours ago, Tactical Pith Helmet said: Was your journey 'interrupted' by said twat, or did you merely perceive that your journey required interruption despite the lack of actual danger? I think that this is how the law was designed. It was explained to me a few years back that if one set up a pigeon shooting hide that backed onto the crash barriers of a motorway, that you would be about 50' from the centre of the highway. Some pillock could stop and report you as being a threat if they saw you. If you were shooting safely away from the highway and over 50' away, nowt the plod can do, but if closer than 50' and shooting safely then it's court and convincing 12 men that you posed no threat and that the reporter was incorrect in his/her/their assessment. Since Clint Eastwood has shown us all that a shotgun has an effective range of three miles and never misses, a jury may well side with the pillock rather than the pest controller these days. Women have sat on juries since 1920. Tactical Pith Helmet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudotectonic Posted Sunday at 09:56 Share Posted Sunday at 09:56 Section 161 is titled "Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance". It is mainly to keep the highway safe and free of distraction. Specifically it prohibits the actions of "lighting" a fire, or "discharging" fireworks or firearms. Fire itself can be dangerous and highly distracting/annoying, but it is the action of starting a fire that is illegal. Fireworks and firearms can also be dangerous and highly distracting/annoying, but it is the action of firing that is illegal. Coming back to airsoft, the mere sight of someone waving a realistic looking gun shaped object by itself doesn't qualify for Section 161. It is the firing of airsoft that got them done in. Airsoft can also be loud. Stray BBs can be dangerous. It's exactly the type of danger or annoyance Section 161 is written to protect highways from. Tommikka and Tactical Pith Helmet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommikka Posted Sunday at 11:04 Share Posted Sunday at 11:04 They were (based on the face level of reporting*) acting in a manner that members of this forum and responsible airsofters would not endorse. They were a bit naughty, brought attention to themselves and got caught. * the area does have some ‘green’, I’ll be more sympathetic if in their minds they went somewhere out of the way, had a few test/practice shots in a bush and ended up in trouble As opposed to heading up the street and shooting a bush With their ages their should have been some form of common sense, but it’s not as common as we may wish Rogerborg, Tactical Pith Helmet and Tackle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Pith Helmet Posted Monday at 01:08 Share Posted Monday at 01:08 16 hours ago, Colin Allen said: Women have sat on juries since 1920. Thanks Colin, the phrase 'twelve men good and true,' from Twelve Angry Men went through my head as I was typing. Genuine Freudian slip! ak2m4 and Colin Allen 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted Monday at 08:14 Supporters Share Posted Monday at 08:14 On 23/06/2024 at 09:37, Colin Allen said: Women have sat on juries since 1920. I hear a few of those cases are still being argued out. Dogsbody100 and ak2m4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Pith Helmet Posted Tuesday at 00:15 Share Posted Tuesday at 00:15 On 23/06/2024 at 10:56, Pseudotectonic said: Section 161 is titled "Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance". It is mainly to keep the highway safe and free of distraction. Specifically it prohibits the actions of "lighting" a fire, or "discharging" fireworks or firearms. Fire itself can be dangerous and highly distracting/annoying, but it is the action of starting a fire that is illegal. Fireworks and firearms can also be dangerous and highly distracting/annoying, but it is the action of firing that is illegal. Yep, fire can cause smoke to block one's vision, firing an unmoderated rifle 10 feet from a horse rider for example also clearly would be a serious matter too. Shotgun beside a motorway would be unnoticeable, but I wouldn't like to be in the dock arguing it these days. Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now