Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / June 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Gun modelling to be illegal and references gone

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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..."
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.