Gun modelling to be illegal and references gone
|
|
Thread rating:  |
merlin_lll@hotmail.com - 26 Jun 2005 17:01 GMT I heard a guy at a recent UK re-enactment event saying a new law is aimed at making illegal realistic replica guns, though lack of careful wording, exemption or new controls will also see all re-enactment weapons and just ownership of weapons, even expensive historic legally deactivated ones made illegal. This is confirmed by Keith Bottomley of the Home Office Firearms Section. There are many re-enact events per year done by hardworking people and they are enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of spectators in total, pity MP's are too busy to attend. For us modellers, a valuable reference source will be lost, the action scenes will be gone along with no doubt many re-enactors who enjoy the action part and broomsticks just aint the same, soldiers carry weapons, drill with weapons etc.
I have seen superbly made plastic replicas in model shows, they must be destroyed.
Nobody is aware of this , there has been minimal opposition because they think its just banning fake guns, thats what it should be about and is, but current wording is making the net far too big. Anybody with an ounce of sense must write expressing their concerns over casting a broad net to catch some tiddlers, well meaning but misguided MP's may end up nuking London to kill an ants nest as it were at this rate. Its had its second reading Monday June 30th 2005.
We can't hope others will write in this instance, as everyone is in effect just waiting so it seems
This also affects weapons attached to vehicles and aircraft, Sally B without brownings, museum displays etc, they must be made to add more wording..
Write to:-Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department; and to key figures in the Lords eg Lord Putnam.
Get your parents to write perhaps if belittled by this.
A terrible way for our heritage to go, into a furnace. This is no exaggeration, it will happen, please have your say. Active guns are allowed but de-active (to Govt standards) are not, sheer lunacy.
The idea of licensing as per real firearms, two character references etc could be mentioned as this would see bona-fide owners not made into criminals, and avoid the big meltdown.
Membership of organisations, perhaps you get to keep the show winner you made if affiliated to a club.
I wish to still see WW2 re-enactments showing just what battle would have been like for years to come, just as aircraft are best seen in the air (unless the only example left).
For those wanting to know more:-
It will (fact) affect:-
a) film, TV, theatre (including corporate and other live entertainment) and re-enactment (including military vehicle owners with fixed or removable replica/deactivated weaponry).
b) the Heritage industry including historic houses, castles, museums and the like eg Historic Houses Association members and other private owners, English Heritage, Royal Armouries, The National Trust, Wallace Collection etc*.
c) specialist suppliers and armourers to (a) and (b), for example, Bapty of London, Hire & Fire, Vickers et al*
d) clients, organisers and directors of (a) and (b), eg (again) English Heritage, Royal Armouries, The National Trust, plus EventPlan, Stunt Action Specialists, et al*
e) those engaged in education such as historical interpreters, and the schools/colleges themselves.
f) airsoft and associated sporting activities.
Oh yes, serious stuff, and no doubt you can think of more.
You can read the Hansard report of the debate at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050620/debindx/5062 0-x.htm and the bill at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/010/2006010.htm
Phase 2. Await the names of those serving on Standing Committee, then immediately write to each and every one of them individually, getting your friends, members and colleagues to do the same. Subscribe direct to the free parliamentary alerts service (which amongst other topics, includes the committees) at: http://subscriptions.parliament.uk/service/subscribe.html?code=UKPARLIAMENT_86 and as soon as the Standing Committee is announced, start writing - remember, their debate may be over very quickly and once it is, the chances of getting amendments would fall dramatically as all we'd have left is the Lords, now packed with government appointees.
Its happening NOW ! Get writing NOW !
It'll be a ban on WW2 next.
EU have put a stop to Sally B flying through poorly worded insurance changes to four engined aircraft !
I would rather be modelling but there are times when one must put pen to paper.
Kurt Laughlin - 26 Jun 2005 18:28 GMT > Its happening NOW ! Get writing NOW ! While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution that limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen rights.
KL
Greg Heilers - 26 Jun 2005 20:15 GMT >> Its happening NOW ! Get writing NOW ! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > KL Lot of good that would do....just look at we Americans. Probably 95% of us don't even realize that is what our own "Bill Of Rights" was *intended* to do...
 Signature Greg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
.....
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. --- George Orwell
Kurt Laughlin - 26 Jun 2005 20:32 GMT >> While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution >> that limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > us don't even realize that is what our own "Bill Of Rights" was *intended* > to do... Well, it would still be better than what they have now.
KL
Graeme Cosgrove - 26 Jun 2005 22:23 GMT >>>While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution >>>that limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > KL We never needed a constitution because most of our laws evolved over the last 1000 years or so based upon precedence and common sense. We never needed to be told what we were "allowed" do (e.g. "...citizen rights..."), because we could do anything we wanted unless it was illegal, and that which was illegal was "obviously" so.
Now we have an "elected dictaorship" that is destroying our rights and our history - trial without jury, imprisonment without trial, and the elimination of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle which we used to take quite seriously (ID cards!!!).
We are ruled by unelected foreigners, "led" by career politicians, and "dazzeled" by "celebrity". The lowest common denominator is now our highest ambition.
'Course it's still better than being French.
G
John Mianowski - 26 Jun 2005 22:35 GMT >>>>While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution >>>>that limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >rights..."), because we could do anything we wanted unless it was >illegal, and that which was illegal was "obviously" so. Note: US Constition does not enumerate rights that the citizens are "given". It enumerates the powers granted by the citizens to the government, & reserves all those not specifically granted to government to the citizens. It's a big difference that many in US don't even understand or appreciate.
JM
>Now we have an "elected dictaorship" that is destroying our rights and >our history - trial without jury, imprisonment without trial, and the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >G Al Superczynski - 26 Jun 2005 23:28 GMT >(The) US Constition does not enumerate rights that the citizens are >"given". It enumerates the powers granted by the citizens to the >government, & reserves all those not specifically granted to >government to the citizens. It's a big difference that many in US >don't even understand or appreciate. Many in the US have never even *read* our Constitution, much less _understand_ it... :(
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Al Superczynski - 26 Jun 2005 23:29 GMT >We never needed a constitution... <snip a bunch of good stuff>
Past tense noted...
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Greg Heilers - 27 Jun 2005 01:38 GMT >>>>While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution >>>>that limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rights..."), because we could do anything we wanted unless it was > illegal, and that which was illegal was "obviously" so. That is the subtle distinction I was referring to. Our own "Bill Of Rights" does *not* legislate what we citizens are "allowed" to do. Rather, it lays down the restrictions on what the government can legislate or enforce *against* us. It does not grant us "rights"...it restricts the power of the government.
> Now we have an "elected dictaorship" that is destroying our rights and > our history - trial without jury, imprisonment without trial, and the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > G
 Signature Greg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
.....
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -- Albert Einstein
%
Greg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
.....
Our people have not been earnest enough, have thought too much of themselves & their ease, & instead of turning out to a man, have been content to nurse themselves & their dimes, & leave the protection of themselves & their families to others. -- Robert E. Lee
William H. Shuey - 26 Jun 2005 23:03 GMT Kurt:
This guy forgets, he is a "subject", not a citizen. You'd be surprised how many supposed "Americans" think it should be this way over here.
Bill Shuey
> > Its happening NOW ! Get writing NOW ! > > While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution that > limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen rights. > > KL Graeme Cosgrove - 27 Jun 2005 07:43 GMT > Kurt: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>KL It's a bit old fashioned to suggest we all go around downtrodden by our status as "subjects"! The distinction might have been true in the 17th century - I think you'll find the monarchy no longer have much of a role, constitutionally, following the civil war, and the various acts of parliament limiting their power. The Queen is head of state but it's a pretty much ceremonial role she fulfills with the executive power weilded by the government. In the US, France etc. the head of state has a legislative role as well.
I would suggest that various presidents around the world treat their "citizens" more like "subjects" than in the UK, Spain, Netherlands, etc.
G
Al Superczynski - 27 Jun 2005 07:58 GMT >In the US, France etc. the head of state has a legislative role as well. The US doesn't use a parliamentary system hence our head of state (President) has no legislative role. The US President is in the Executive branch of our government.
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Graeme Cosgrove - 27 Jun 2005 08:16 GMT >>In the US, France etc. the head of state has a legislative role as well. > > The US doesn't use a parliamentary system hence our head of state > (President) has no legislative role. The US President is in the > Executive branch of our government. Apologies. I always thought the President was responsible for bringing legislation to the Senate/HoR?
G
Al Superczynski - 27 Jun 2005 08:38 GMT >Apologies. Not a problem.
>I always thought the President was responsible for bringing >legislation to the Senate/HoR? The President's proposals must be introduced as bills by one or more legislators. From that point on his (someday her, I hope) influence is limited to jawboning although the Vice President, as President of the Senate, can cast a tie-breaking vote in that body.
Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
<http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html>
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Graeme Cosgrove - 27 Jun 2005 09:48 GMT >>Apologies. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html> Presumably the legisltaion is introduced along "party" afiliation - e.g. Republican Party proposes legislation that President Bush was advocating during his re-election.
G
Al Superczynski - 27 Jun 2005 11:03 GMT >Presumably the legisltaion is introduced along "party" afiliation - e.g. >Republican Party proposes legislation that President Bush was advocating >during his re-election. That certainly occurs but any member of Congress regardless of party affiliation can introduce legislation; in fact much of it is bipartisan, i.e. it has co-sponsors from both parties.
OTOH the majority party pretty much determines which bills get out of committee and actually brought to a vote on the House/Senate floor. This is especially true for the House, which unlike the Senate has no cloture rules.
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Graeme Cosgrove - 27 Jun 2005 11:20 GMT >>Presumably the legisltaion is introduced along "party" afiliation - e.g. >>Republican Party proposes legislation that President Bush was advocating [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > floor. This is especially true for the House, which unlike the Senate > has no cloture rules. Sounds very similar to our system, although the party in power are the only ones who can introduce legislation, "private members' bills" can be introduced by any MP. Since the Queen's Speech (actually written for her by the Government) outlines all the legislation for the next Parliament you get a good idea of the programme before it starts any way.
Gray Ghost - 29 Jun 2005 05:07 GMT >> Kurt: >> >> This guy forgets, he is a "subject", not a citizen. You'd be
>> surprised >> how many supposed "Americans" think it should be this way over here. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>While you are at it, you might want to consider writing a constitution >>>that limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific
>>>citizen rights. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > role, constitutionally, following the civil war, and the various acts > of parliament limiting their power. The Queen is head of state but
> it's a pretty much ceremonial role she fulfills with the executive
> power weilded by the government. In the US, France etc. the head of
> state has a legislative role as well. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > G I dunno, bub, criminalizng self defense seems like a pretty tyrannical thing to me.
William H. Shuey - 29 Jun 2005 18:44 GMT > I dunno, bub, criminalizng self defense seems like a pretty > tyrannical thing to me. Not to mention the Government deciding that being a burglar is a legitimate occupation and giving $5000 to a burglar who was shot by a home owner so he can sue the home owner on the grounds that post traumatic stress from the incident has left him unable to pursue his occupation?
Bill Shuey
Ron - 30 Jun 2005 16:01 GMT > Not to mention the Government deciding that being a burglar is a > legitimate occupation and giving $5000 to a burglar who was shot by a > home owner so he can sue the home owner on the grounds that post > traumatic stress from the incident has left him unable to pursue his > occupation? That is just too effed up for words.....kind of like New York's mandatory retreat law.
Al Superczynski - 26 Jun 2005 23:30 GMT >...you might want to consider writing a constitution that >limits the powers of HM Government and establishes specific citizen rights. Ouch.
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Bill Woodier - 26 Jun 2005 23:10 GMT Sounds stupid on the surface. Then I thought about it a bit. Making non-functioning guns illegal is a bit much, I suppose but more than a couple armed robberies are pulled off here in the US with non-functioning and replica guns. Back in the summer of 1973, when I was a uniformed police officer working the midnight shift, I came within about 1/2 ounce of trigger pull of shooting a 16 year old who pointed an "Interarms" replica P-38 at me.
 Signature Cheers: Bill Woodier "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm --
>I heard a guy at a recent UK re-enactment event saying a new law is > aimed at making illegal realistic replica guns, though lack of careful [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > I would rather be modelling but there are times when one must put pen > to paper. Kurt Laughlin - 26 Jun 2005 23:46 GMT > Sounds stupid on the surface. Then I thought about it a bit. Making > non-functioning guns illegal is a bit much, I suppose but more than a > couple armed robberies are pulled off here in the US with non-functioning > and replica guns. There are probably more pulled off by a note merely saying the robber has a gun or bomb. Banning paper and pencils, would stop that, I suppose.
> Back in the summer of 1973, when I was a uniformed police officer working > the midnight shift, I came within about 1/2 ounce of trigger pull of > shooting a 16 year old who pointed an "Interarms" replica P-38 at me. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to point something that looks like a gun at a cop. Why should we reduce the chances that they'll get what they deserve through laws like this? It's not like banning toy guns (or real ones, for that matter) is going to create a world where cops holster their weapons and store clerks keep the cash drawer locked because they're thinking "That thing _looks_ like a gun, but since all guns and gun like toys are illegal, it's got to be something innocent and harmless. . ."
If you want to pass a law that'll help, write one that gives absolute criminal and civil liability to citizens, police officers, and departments when a shooting turns out to be in response a gun, fake or not.
KL
William H. Shuey - 27 Jun 2005 05:45 GMT > If you want to pass a law that'll help, write one that gives > absolute criminal and civil liability to citizens, police > officers, and departments when a shooting turns out to be in > response a gun, fake or not. Hey! You wanna give the American Trial Lawyers Association a heart attack??
Bill Shuey
Gordon Davie - 27 Jun 2005 14:26 GMT >> Sounds stupid on the surface. Then I thought about it a bit. Making >> non-functioning guns illegal is a bit much, I suppose but more than a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > departments when a shooting turns out to be in response a gun, fake > or not. While I agree totally with this viewpoint, it's not always as straightforward as that.
Several years ago police in London received a call from a member of the public about a man with an Irish accent who had been seen in a pub in possession of a sawn-off shotgun. An armed response unit challenged the man as he was walking down the street, then shot him dead as he turned to face them. He turned out to be Scottish, not Irish, and the shotgun proved to be a recently-repaired *table leg* in a plastic bag. The police later claimed they thought he was about to fire at them.
The initial inquest into the shooting came back with a verdict of accidental death: the victim's family appealed and the second inquest last year decided it was 'unlawful killing'. The Metropolitan Police then appealed and this verdict was quashed. Then within the last couple of weeks the two policemen concerned have been charged with murder.
If the man had been carrying a gun, replica or not, then most people would have felt he deserved everything he got. But a table leg in a carrier bag? -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Bill Woodier - 28 Jun 2005 00:48 GMT Hmmm. Dark night, perhaps fog and/or rain, poor lighting, previous report of man with gun, suspect walking away from police, turns rather quickly, has not fully identifiable object in hand, perhaps raising it...........Shoot? Don't shoot?
I've been there. That's why I now leave law enforcement to younger, more brave individuals than myself.
 Signature Cheers: Bill Woodier "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm --
> While I agree totally with this viewpoint, it's not always as > straightforward as that. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God" William H. Shuey - 28 Jun 2005 03:39 GMT > While I agree totally with this viewpoint, it's not always as > straightforward as that. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Gordon Davie > Edinburgh, Scotland This is one reason why I wouldn't want to be a police officer today. There are too many people just waiting to second guess you from the safety of a paneled office. In London, with the Irish "troubles" going on and you never know what's next, the Officers had a tough call. There isn't a "Hogan's Alley" in the world that can train you to a point where you are infallible.
Bill Shuey
Bill Woodier - 28 Jun 2005 00:37 GMT >> Sounds stupid on the surface. Then I thought about it a bit. Making >> non-functioning guns illegal is a bit much, I suppose but more than a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are probably more pulled off by a note merely saying the robber has > a gun or bomb. Banning paper and pencils, would stop that, I suppose. I don't have the answer to that problem, Kurt, never did. I was just raising an issue to think about.
>> Back in the summer of 1973, when I was a uniformed police officer working >> the midnight shift, I came within about 1/2 ounce of trigger pull of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gun like toys are illegal, it's got to be something innocent and harmless. > . ." True that you may not have sympathy for someone like that but, unfortunately you are not sitting on the benchs or in the jury boxes in the hundreds of thousands of municipal, county, state and federal criminal and civil courts. Sadly, often the best means of protection to the police officer is to do what I eventually did and get out of that game.
> If you want to pass a law that'll help, write one that gives absolute > criminal and civil liability to citizens, police officers, and departments > when a shooting turns out to be in response a gun, fake or not. > > KL I'd like an environment where law enforcement had freedom from liability in such cases. Unfortunately, we live in an era where everyone wants to blame someone else for their screw-ups and is cocked and locked to sue anyone whenever they even perceive the possibility of making a buck at someone else's expense. I won't even begin to comment on the lawyers that blatantly encourage such action. I left law enforcement after eight years of uniformed patrol, tactical team, detective team, and counter-drug team service to reenter the military and I have never looked back. In my opinion, being a police officer just isn't worth the grief anymore.
 Signature Cheers: Bill Woodier "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm
Gray Ghost - 29 Jun 2005 05:08 GMT > Sounds stupid on the surface. Then I thought about it a bit. Making > non-functioning guns illegal is a bit much, I suppose but more than a > couple armed robberies are pulled off here in the US with > non-functioning and replica guns. Back in the summer of 1973, when I
> was a uniformed police officer working the midnight shift, I came
> within about 1/2 ounce of trigger pull of shooting a 16 year old who
> pointed an "Interarms" replica P-38 at me. People that take replica guns to a gun fight are to stupid to be allowed to reproduce.
Ron - 29 Jun 2005 08:12 GMT > People that take replica guns to a gun fight are to stupid to > be allowed to reproduce. From Snatch...."My gun has Desert Eagle .50 stamped on the side, yours has replica stamped on it..."
|
|
|