Here is a link to guidance on the UK's gun laws.....YOU WILL SHIT!

[Pert_UK]

Seriously....

We've talked about UK gun laws quite a lot in here, so here are the bare facts:

http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/index.htm

"Firearm certificates differ from shotgun certificates in that each individual weapon held on the former, needs to be authorised for its use. It is for this very reason that an applicant is required to satisfy the Chief Officer of Police, of his reason for requiring that weapon, for that purpose.

...The holder of a firearm certificate has a far more limited flexibility when it comes to possessing firearms. It is a requirement of the Firearms Acts that such certificate holders specify their reason for each and every firearm they require.

What is more, the police must be satisfied that the weapons requested, are suitable for the reasons stated. For instance, it would not be acceptable to request a .303 rifle for controlling rabbits!"

Prohibited weapons:

"Section 5 (1)
(a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.

(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges.

(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.

(ac) any self-loading or pump-action smooth bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or is less than 40 inches in length overall.

(ad) any smooth bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun.

(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus.

(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system.

(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.

(c) any cartridge with a bullet so designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb or other like missile, or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid."

continues....

[papau]

1. next we need to review the "carry" rules and the "storage" rules!

:-)

[vpigrad]

2. The fact that they allow the public...

to possess those things is wrong. The other rules are just minor details, and there's a lot of leeway in their rules. They didn't spend enough time tightening-up those loopholes.

[virginia mountainman]

3. hmmm........

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
Commentaries on the Laws of England."

[vpigrad]

4. Sigh

"Wherever standing armies are kept up..."

WTF! Except for a few tiny countries, every single one of them has a standing army. How could you possibly agree with such a nutty statement?

[virginia mountainman]

6. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature"

[iverglas]

9. hmm

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature"

Well damn. Who died and made nature the government?

"Law of nature" my eye.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm

Even as recently as the Eighteenth Century, we find philosophers (e.g. Montesquieu) explicitly attributing the order in nature to the hand of God, more specifically to His having imposed physical laws on nature in much the same way as He imposed moral laws on human beings. There was one essential difference, however. Human beings – it was alleged – are 'free' to break (act contrary to) God's moral laws; but neither human beings nor the other parts of creation are free to break God's physical laws.

In the Twentieth Century virtually all scientists and philosophers have abandoned theistic elements in their accounts of the Laws of Nature. But to a very great extent – so say the Regularists – the Necessitarians have merely replaced God with Physical Necessity. The Necessitarians' nontheistic view of Laws of Nature surreptitiously preserves the older prescriptivist view of Laws of Nature, viz. as dictates or edicts to the natural universe, edicts which – unlike moral laws or legislated ones – no one, and no thing, has the ability to violate.

Regularists reject this view of the world. Regularists eschew a view of Laws of Nature which would make of them inviolable edicts imposed on the universe. Such a view, Regularists claim, is simply a holdover from a theistic view. It is time, they insist, to adopt a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy of science, one which is not only purged of the hand of God, but is also purged of its unempirical latter-day surrogate, viz. nomological necessity. The difference is, perhaps, highlighted most strongly in Necessitarians saying that the Laws of Nature govern the world; while Regularists insist that Laws of Nature do no more or less than correctly describe the world.

Water boils at 100C (at sea level at one bar): dictate to the natural universe: incapable of violation ("governs" or "describes" the world, as you like): law of nature.

"<Everyone/thing has a> right of self-defence": dictate by Henry St. George Tucker to whomever he might be speaking to: neither capable nor incapable of violation (neither governs nor describes anything at all): opinion.

[davepc]

11. Well hell, lets just get rid of our entire system of government!

and thoes tired old out-dated enlightment concepts that its based on!



When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Stupid Jefferson trying to shove his "creator" and his "rights" down our throat!

[iverglas]

12. couldn't agree more!

I keep urging you USAmerican folk to join the rest of us here in the 21st century, I keep not getting anywhere.

Has anyone in this forum ever quoted anything, when it comes to "rights" and the like, that wasn't written in the 18th century??

I know. Human evolution came to a grinding halt when that Bill of Rights thingy was written ...

I know some folks at a little place called the Project for a New American Century who would pretty much agree. And then there's that George W. Bush fellow, hell-bent on marketing those past-their-sell-by-date 18th century wares around the world ... well, if you can call "buy it or we won't let you buy any food this month" marketing ...

Amazingly, of course, some USAmericans, and even some of their ... Democratic ... leaders, have managed to extricate their heads from that 18th century sand:

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od4freed.html

As America entered the war these "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - symbolized America's war aims and gave hope in the following years to a war-wearied people because they knew the were fighting for freedom.

"Freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" are of course what we, out here in this big modern world, now commonly call "human security":

http://www.humansecuritynetwork.org/menu-e.php

Human security has become both a new measure of global security and a new agenda for global action. Safety is the hallmark of freedom from fear, while well-being is the target of freedom from want. Human security and human development are thus two sides of the same coin, mutually reinforcing and leading to a conducive environment for each other.

What we need most now in Baghdad is security. How are we supposed to vote if we have no security?
- Iraqi interviewed by the CBC in the week prior to the "election" on January 30.


Henry St. George Tucker, btw:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=T000398

[davepc]

20. please, the PNAC are fascists, not proponents of Jeffersonian liberalism

And pray tell how does being disarmed and unable to react to threats by oppressors give one human security?

[iverglas]

21. all ya have to do is ask the right questions

"please, the PNAC are fascists, not proponents of Jeffersonian liberalism"

Ask Francis Fukuyama about the end of history, maybe. I assume you recognize the name; he signs that PNAC stuff ... and oh looky:

http://www.commonlawreview.com/review/common%20law%20appendix.pdf

Fukuyama's failure to convince on this score stems from his confused concept of liberal democracy. At one point he equates it with classical liberalism, what Americans call conservatism, the social order espoused by the likes of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.

My point exactly.

A "Jeffersonian liberal" calling him/herself a "liberal" in the 21st century, in the US, is just equivocation.


"And pray tell how does being disarmed and unable to react to threats by oppressors give one human security?"

Next, ask the kids whose lives of misery and exploitation provided so much entertainment in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=98628&mesg_id=98628
how secure they're feeling against their oppressors.


Or keep asking your own silly questions (and joining the crowd co-opting Gandhi into a cause that would make him puke). Your choice, as always.

[skippythwndrdog]

5. How awful.

What the hell is wrong with the UK? It seems that her people are truly subjects. What a shame.

[benEzra]

7. Egads!

I knew things were very bad in the UK for would-be lawful gun owners, but I didn't realize they were quite THAT bad...

Prohibited weapons:
(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges. :wow:

(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus. (e.g., a complete and total ban on handguns)

(ac) any self-loading or pump-action smooth bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or is less than 40 inches in length overall. (ban on defensive-type shotguns)

(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system. :wtf:

So CO2-powered airguns (even paintball guns?) are banned...

[Wickerman]

8. Hey, didn't you see that episode of CSI the other night?

Some kids caused a homeless man to have a heart attack when they "paint-balled" him to death on Halloween. I saw it in on TV - its got to be true.

[iverglas]

10. gotta love those gold stars

(edited to fix the link in the post quoted, although the page it links to is no longer available)


(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses,
or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained
gas cartridge system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=56172

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Mon May-10-04 02:59 AM
Original message
Warwickshire (UK) air gun registration

http://www.warwickshire.police.uk/newsandappeals/currentappeals/040420selfcontainedcartridgeairweapons

By Saturday May 1, owners of self-contained air cartridge air weapons in Warwickshire must have either registered an application with the Force or have handed it in at a Police Station.

"It's very disappointing that so few people have responded to this new legislation and it's also very puzzling. When you take into account that if found guilty of possessing this type of air weapon, the owner will face a minimum of five years in prison, their lack of action is absurd.

Any friends from across the pond want to comment on this registration of AIR GUNS?

I think 5 years in prison is a bit steep for a BB gun, but what do I know, I'm just a gun owner from Texas.


Pert_UK
Mon May-10-04 12:38 PM
Response to Original Message
16. If I recall correctly.....

this law is only aimed at airguns which can be easily converted to fire live ammo.

When I used to shoot a company brought out an airpistol revolver, where you used cartridges loaded with an airgun pellet and charged with compressed gas. These cartridges were similar in size and shape to bullets, and the guns themselves closely resembled S&W .357s and .38s (IIRC, it's been 15 years since I shot).

In addition, somebody had the bright idea of taking genuine Lee Enfield .303 rifles and converting them to fire these charged airgun cartridges.

It seems that it is relatively simple to convert some of these weapons to fire live ammo, and in fact many criminals have been caught with these converted weapons (including one of the So Solid Crew IIRC). It seems sensible, therefore, to require them to be registered, as they are a target for criminal misuse.

Oddly, criminals have to resort to this because there isn't a ready mass market of untraceable firearms in the UK....


WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Mon May-10-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Thanks for shedding some light on this Pert_UK

Compressed air weapons that I am familiar with use either the "pump" method or the cylinder method for gas to expel the projectile.

Honestly I had never seen or heard of the type of pneumatic weapon you are describing. That is to say it makes a little more sense now.

I doubt that this class of "firearms" includes paintball guns ...

[Pert_UK]

13. One would suspect that it would take a mere second.....

to establish whether paintballing were illegal in the UK.

It took me a mere second to find five companies running paintball centres last year, and I went paintballing for my birthday in September, around 4 months back, right in the middle of London.

I suppose it depends what they mean by "self-contained
gas cartridge system." I'm presuming that they mean exactly what you pointed out, namely a cartridge which contains compressed gas and the projectile. Paintball guns have a large, separate gas cartridge and a hopper full of paintballs.

[benEzra]

15. Mea culpa...

you are quite right that paintball guns weren't banned. Here's one that was--a fake .357.

http://www.basc.org.uk/content/90_of_banned_airguns_unac

I doubt they are built for 35,000+ psi pressures, though...

[Pert_UK]

16. We all make mistakes...incidentally - I'm a former BASC member..

and went shooting clays a few months back. Love it, but don't feel repressed or angry that I can't buy a pistol in the UK - I'm just happy that I don't feel I need one for defence.

[-..__...]

14. Who says the Brits can't own guns?!?.

Sad, really that this about the only way Brits can own a gun and have little or very few restrictions.

http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/index.htm

The reviews page is interesting...

http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/products.htm

[iverglas]

17. awwwww

Sad, really that this about the only way
Brits can own a gun and have little or
very few restrictions.

Wipe your tears. No point in weeping about something that makes the people you weep for happy, really, eh?

But ... that wouldn't be an opinion about somebody else's laws I'm seeing there, would it? Like maybe definition #3, or even #4?

sad
1. unhappy, feeling sorrow or regret
2. causing or suggesting sorrow
3. regrettable
4. shameful, deplorable
5. (of a colour) dull, neutral-tinted
6. (of dough) heavy, having failed to rise
7. slang contemptible, pathetic, unfashionable
-- Oxford Concise

Yes, I'd have to say that, in its context here, those are the relevant meanings of "sad", and that would be an opinion about somebody else's laws. Hrmph. I take offence on behalf of all denizens of the dungeon, who find the expression of such opinions ... sad.

[-..__...]

19. Yes, it's only an opinion, after all.

And wouldn't DU (or any forum for that matter), be a much boring place if opinions were something not to be shared.

Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing, pointing out the obvious is just being a bit anal retentive.

Truth be told (and I mean this with regards to both pro and anti gun advocates)...

I could care less what the numbers are in other cultures (up or down, sideways, backwards, forwards, inside-out, left or right), whom's killing whom, schoolyard murders, citizens left defenseless, criminals and gangs on a rampage, home owners charged with homicide, machine guns in closets, etc.

I don't care if the analogies, comparisons, examples, homicide/violence rates, facts, figures, graphs are made between the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, England, France, Germany, Chad, Ghana or any other "uncivilized" nation that changes flags and/or government about as often as I change my socks.

If England, Japan, Canada, etc wants to enact that sort of legislation then fine. As long as they don't try to impose their agenda on Americans (as in the UN small arms proliferation resolution), then it's no sweat off my balls. Just one more reason why I'd never want to live in a society or culture like that. But, that's just my opinion.

[T Town Jake]

18. Since the United Kingdom is a healthy, viable democracy...

...I can only assume that these laws reflect the will of the majority. Far be it from me to criticize another nation's democratically-arrived at laws and/or lack of same; respect for the internal sovereignty of the electorate involved, and all that, you know...

[Buster43]

22. Those

laws imply great trust the citizens of the UK are given. (sarcasm off)

[iverglas]

23. those

... passive verbs.

Those laws imply great trust the citizens of the UK are given. (sarcasm off)

... yes ... are given ... by whom, now?

Complete that thought. Please.


Strunk and White, The Elements of Style:

Use the active voice.

The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:

I shall always remember my first trip to Boston.

This is much better than

My first trip to Boston will always be remembered by me.

The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting "by me",

My first visit to Boston will always be remembered,

it becomes indefinite: is it the writer or some person undisclosed or the world at large that will always remember this visit?

So c'mon; be bold. Be direct.

Tell us who gives (or not) the citizens of the UK this great trust.

The writer - you?
Some person undisclosed?
The world at large?

Eagerly awaiting enlightenment, I remain ...

[skippythwndrdog]

24. Do you always have to be so rude?

Why don't you just try asking him what he means?

[Pert_UK]

25. I'm usually all in favour of politeness myself....

but when somebody makes a post like that I tend to think a little sarcasm is justified......

I mean, why log into an internet message board to write something that is almost completely incoherent and which certainly adds nothing to the debate?

I can imagine the poster sitting back thinking, "Yeah, another barbed epigram from me, that showed them!" when in actual fact all they've done is tossed a badly phrased random assertion into an otherwise sensible discussion.

The only possible justification for criticising Iverglas's sarcasm would be if the original poster were Yoda or a close relative, in which case he/she is forgiven.

[T Town Jake]

26. As someone around here is often fond of saying...

..."Res ipsa loquitur"...

[iverglas]

27. indeed

A good half-dozen times since you were incarnated hereabouts.

And I can even use it in a sentence ... and make sense!

That bar open for the evening now, is it? What hijinks await us this time?

[iverglas]

28. hmm. I wonder.

"Why don't you just try asking him what he means?"

Do you suppose that could be BECAUSE I KNEW WHAT HE MEANT, and it was just as moronic (and overarchingly rude) as every other time anyone else has said it?

Hmm. I wonder.

[benEzra]

29. Fake guns that fire blanks now illegal in the UK...

if the gas vents from the muzzle. Blank-firing guns in which the gas vents near the breech are OK...for now...

http://www.practicalpistoluk.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=8303&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21

Extendable batons are also now restricted, apparently...