In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
UK Lift Handgun Ban!!!
Scarface
Member Posts: 24 ✭✭
Did you know in the United Kingdom civilians can now legally own a handgun! Firearms such as the Taurus Long barrel revolver, Britarms Single Shot & Browning Buckmark's are now readily available to the public. The only stipulation is they must have an overall length of 24" or more. The Taurus for example is a regular looking Taurus revolver with a ridiculous long 12" Barrel and an extended arm brace (It's kinnda like a low velocity rifle - Nice!!!) [:D]
Comments
I other words, the only people who will suffer or bear the burden of ridiculous laws are the already lawful people. as usual.
Funny thing is that the violent criminals who want/need/must must have a smaller handgun will just take a hacksaw and saw off the unneeded parts of the handguns that are now legal. And the lawful people will just struggle and suffer with foolishly and funny long handguns.
I other words, the only people who will suffer or bear the burden of ridiculous laws are the already lawful people. as usual.
Even with those gay * bans...the criminals still got guns
But you don't dare try to defend yourself by shooting anyone. Its against the law to defend yourself and you will go to jail. Nutty laws in that country.
its funny that they only lifted the ban on the very large revolvers, This is funny because those would be the most powerful and most accurate compared to a smaller one, more time for velocity to be built up, and the longer barrel will improve accuracy, the only problem is the size makes it hard to conceal, but that was probably the idea [|)][|)]
This is how the gun banners think. But they think wrong because the "hard to conceal" only effects the already lawful. The already lawful will put up with and struggle with such a goofey and needlessly awkward handgun.
In contrast, the criminals, having already broken many laws and intending on using/needing a handgun to break more laws, will merely hawsaw off part of the barrell and the stupid, long stock on the handgun. Then they will have their smaller, easy to conceal handgun. All the while, the already lawful will continue to suffer with having to use that cartoonish handgun allowed by the British government.
Funny thing is, if a criminal really wants a small hand gun, he merely need hacksaw off the buttstock and most of the barrel on a single shot .410 gauge shotgun. And is so doing, the criminal has his handgun while the lawful citizens continue to endure silly anti-gun (such as a total ban on handguns) laws that do little or nothing to stop crime.
Bottom line, basically all gun control laws do is to add additional restrictions to the already peaceful and lawful gun owners. As usual, the law-breaking criminals will continue on with their law-breaking ways and continue to ignore any and all laws they don't like.
P.S. I admit that sometimes there will be a rare occurance of a lawful, peaceful gun owner going "nuts" and committing some heinous crime. Such an act, while it does/has/will happen, is very, very rare when you consider there are about 86 million lawful gun owners in America.
But it is a fact, albeit a sad fact, that if society is going to allow citizens a reasonable amount of personal freedom, then society must not be shocked when a tiny number of citizens abuse that freedom. But such abuse is not cause for taking freedom away from the vast majority of citizens who continue to use their freedom wisely. Instead such abuse is cause to severly punish those who misuse their freedom.
JMHO
I'm from the UK and own one of the mentioned long barreled revolvers. The British Government didn't lift the ban, the LBR's are over 24" in length so are outside of the handgun ban. These are growing in popularity over here and I will be running the 2nd IPSC/UKPSA sanctioned pistol match for them early next year. These are only allowed for shooting comps and not for self or home defence. If you do shoot an intruder, as someone said, you will go to jail and have all your guns taken from you. If anyone wants to know more of the UK shooting scene or laws, just ask.
Hi,
I'm from the UK and own one of the mentioned long barreled revolvers. The British Government didn't lift the ban, the LBR's are over 24" in length so are outside of the handgun ban. These are growing in popularity over here and I will be running the 2nd IPSC/UKPSA sanctioned pistol match for them early next year. These are only allowed for shooting comps and not for self or home defence. If you do shoot an intruder, as someone said, you will go to jail and have all your guns taken from you. If anyone wants to know more of the UK shooting scene or laws, just ask.
So basically armed self defense, for example, for the legal residents has itself become a crime? IOW, if you as a legal resident shoot an armed intruder you will definately go to jail but the armed intruder will only maybe go to jail?
Please tell me my post above is not correct.
Oh, BTW, welcome to the board and I am especially glad to have you here because of where you are from. And keep on trying to maintain/increase interest in firearms where you are. Maybe someday there will be enough gun enthusiasts that you will have the power to reintroduce some common sense in your laws governing self defense.
In my case, I strongly believe that peaceful lawful citizens should have a basic and unalterable right of self defense of life and property. I strongly believe that a violent criminal who attacks that peacful lawful citizen needs and deserves whatever that citizen is able to do to him in self defense of himself and family (only to the extent of stopping the crime and restoring peace and safety to the scene). I also believe that all lawful peaceful citizens should have a legal right to own and carry powerful weapons. Just as the unlawful violent criminals give themselves the right to carry their powerful, ILLEGAL weapons.
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.
You do not have to wait to be attacked, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.
What if the intruder dies?
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence,as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:
having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.
My own experience and views (IMHO)
Self loading rifles and handguns have been banned under section 1 of Uk Firearms Act. They now come under section 5 which also covers machine guns etc. The man in the street will not get a s5 certificate. These changes came about from lunatics who possessed a section one firearm certificate and went on the rampage in Hungerford (England) and Dunblane (Scotland) killing many innocent men, women and a class full of toddlers and teachers. Our Government's response was to ban the weapon (SLRs, revolvers and pistols) not the lunatic shooter (who as I recall turned their guns on themselves). More could have been done and has been done in approving and renewing certificates.
Since all this there have been an instance where an intruder has been shot dead and the homeowner gone to jail and later released. I also recall an ex teacher firing air gun agreesively at someone in the street going to jail and later released. You have to exercise considerable caution in using firearms for self defence in the UK. It is not like it is in the US. The theme has been that the intruder also has rights!
I really enjoyed practical pistol shooting and had a Colt govt g70 in 45acp and a S&W model 28 (highway patrolman) in 357mag. I was more than adequately financially compensated by our govt after handing in my weapons etc and have got into serious rifle-shooting as a consequence! Granted, s1 still covers LBRs and black powder pistols and revolvers.
Hope this gives a balanced view on firearm law in the uk.
[V]
So all-in-all, except for banning some many guns, the situation regarding self defense doesn't seem nearly as bad as I thought. Although I did read about that one farmer whose house had been broken into several times and finally was broken into while he and his family were home and he shot one or two of the intruders and got a long prison sentence for doing so. Do you have anymore details about that?
Have a look at this BBC news item on Tony Martin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3098345.stm
also,http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,,1008429,00.html
Look at the detail. The circumstances are very complicated and not typical of a prima face case of armed self defence. IMHO he did not help himself with his apparent attitude and unguarded comments to the press, the Police and in court. However, he did cause quite a stir in our Parliament over the rights of criminals and those of the innocent householder. I believe he served three of his five year sentence.
Best regards,
Rob
BUT, if you use a firearm as a self defence weapon, you will be in trouble. Our firearms are listed on the Firearms certificate you need before you can legally own them. They are required to be securely locked in strong steel cabinets, the ammo stored likewise in a seperate cabinet. They are only allowed for target shooting.
On another note, I'm thinking of starting a UK ICORE club which will promote the use of the LBR's we legally own. Early stages yet, but it's something I'm keen to do. robin128, if you PM me maybe you could start shooting practical again with us.
Self defence has not been banned in the UK yet. [:)]
BUT, if you use a firearm as a self defence weapon, you will be in trouble. Our firearms are listed on the Firearms certificate you need before you can legally own them. They are required to be securely locked in strong steel cabinets, the ammo stored likewise in a seperate cabinet. They are only allowed for target shooting.
On another note, I'm thinking of starting a UK ICORE club which will promote the use of the LBR's we legally own. Early stages yet, but it's something I'm keen to do. robin128, if you PM me maybe you could start shooting practical again with us.
So, say one of your legal gun owners saw trouble coming in a situation where there was no outside help available (police, military, fleeing scene, etc) yet this innocent vicim was able to somehow get to his firearm and ammo and then use it to harm/kill his attacker(s) and thereby save his innocent self and perhaps his family.
This is of course a complex example, yet one that is not totally impossible. In that case would the defender still be charge with unlawful use of his firearm?
My personal feeling is that even, say, a person who has a gun illegally, if that person is acting in a peaceful and lawful manner and is unfairly attacked and facing the threat of serious harm or death to himself or another innocent person, and uses that illegal gun to save himself or other innocents, then there should be no prosecution for having possession of that illegal gun.
This protection from prosecution for having an illegal gun, that was used to prevent harm to innocents, would even apply to convicted felons and almost anyone else.
Basically I believe (and I hope this is the American way) that the right and ability of innocents to use any and all force needed and available to prevent unlawful harm to innocents, trumps any laws forbiding those innocents from possessing or using various weapons, etc.
Much as, say, if a young teenager (who in America is forbidden by federal law from possessing a handgun without adult supervision) used his absent parent's handgun to defend himself and siblings against a violent home invader.
Much as if a peaceful, innocent automobile driver had to seriously speed and run traffic lights to escape somebody who was chasing them with the serious intention of doing serious harm or death to that innocent driver.
Much as if someone had to steal a car in order to get an innocent, injuried person to medical care.
And on and on.
I feel an innocent person's right to self-perservation trumps all laws in most cases. But not if such action is likely to harm another innocent person
How do people in England feel?
So, say one of your legal gun owners saw trouble coming in a situation where there was no outside help available (police, military, fleeing scene, etc) yet this innocent vicim was able to somehow get to his firearm and ammo and then use it to harm/kill his attacker(s) and thereby save his innocent self and perhaps his family.
This is of course a complex example, yet one that is not totally impossible. In that case would the defender still be charge with unlawful use of his firearm?
An hypothetical situation, and as I'm not a lawyer, one I cannot give a positive answer on. I would think that in those circumstances, you would not be jailed, but I believe you would still have your firearms and FAC confiscated and you would be banned from holding firearms of any sort for life. Hopefully, I'll never have to test this out!
Quote:
So, say one of your legal gun owners saw trouble coming in a situation where there was no outside help available (police, military, fleeing scene, etc) yet this innocent vicim was able to somehow get to his firearm and ammo and then use it to harm/kill his attacker(s) and thereby save his innocent self and perhaps his family.
This is of course a complex example, yet one that is not totally impossible. In that case would the defender still be charge with unlawful use of his firearm?
An hypothetical situation, and as I'm not a lawyer, one I cannot give a positive answer on. I would think that in those circumstances, you would not be jailed, but I believe you would still have your firearms and FAC confiscated and you would be banned from holding firearms of any sort for life. Hopefully, I'll never have to test this out!
Thank you for taking the time to think and respond. Your answer, coming from someone so close to the situation, carry a lot of weight as least with me.
So what you describe, not being jailed but having your guns confiscated and losing your gun rights for life, is still a form of fairly strong punishment. I assume there would also be some heavy legal fees involved and a few weeks of worry about whether or not the innocent defender was going to go to prison.
Sadly, this reinforces my belief that many countries, and left-wing liberals in America, feel that all violence, especially gun violence, is evil and bad. It matters not to such anti-gun people whether the violence is offensive violence wielded by the attacker, or defensive violence wielded by the defender. In other words, to liberals, even violence used by a peaceful, lawful citizen to try and save himself and family from serious harm or death is just not acceptable to liberals. When confronted by a violent attacker, liberals prefer that you passively cooperate with the attacker and give him/her what they want. And this might work except when the attacker wants your body for kidnap, torture or rape and/or you life so as to leave no witnesses or simply because they like killing you. At this particular point, the liberals plan for you to use is simply "hope you are saved by the government professionals or die."
This "hope or die" plan is most evident during one of our way too many school shootings. An evil madman armed with guns enters the school building intending on killing as many innocent, peaceful unarmed people (especially children) as he can. Because of the total ban on anyone in the school being armed (with even a stun or pepper spray for God's sake) the crazed gunman knows that, unless he accidently encounters an armed police or security officer (armed security is very very rare as liberals don't trust anyone with guns except those in the priesthood of law enforcement officers) knows that he will be a very large wolf among some very small and weak sheep. He also knows that, even after the alert about his presence is sounded, the police will arrive on the scene and instead of rushing in to stop the killing, the police will instead set up a perimeter around the school and wait for further orders, etc. In the meantime the killing of unarmed innocents continues without any ability to offer serious resistance.
And there you have one of the best examples of the left-wing liberals plan of action if you or your loved ones are ever caught in such a situation. Hope to be saved by the "professionals" or die.
Actually a pretty simple plan. However for me and mine I prefer more choices of action to try and save our lives.
I enjoy my firearms in competition, shooting all over the UK, rifle, pistol & shotgun. I am having a 5.56mm AR15 M4 built for me at the moment and my one and only new years resolution is to shoot more in '07!(including, hopefully again in Florida!)
You are fortunate to be able to make a choice on wheather you go armed or not. I have asked myself the question, and of others, if we were legally allowed to carry a sidearm for personal protection, would I? At the moment, probably not, but it would be nice to have the choice. We have a different culture and public image of firearms over here than you do in the U.S. I go to some trouble to keep the fact that I have firearms in my house from my neighbours, although those who live either side of me are aware. I shot in a 3 gun comp in Florida in '05. The guy whos guns I was borrowing drove to the range with 2 or 3 rifles and a couple of shotguns openly displayed on the passenger seat! This took me by suprise, as did just walking into the Bass Pro shop and coming out with .40S&W - 5.56mm & 12g shotgun shells!! It was refreshing to encounter such a normal relaxed attitude to guns & ammo, and it is a trip I very much enjoyed.
I enjoy my firearms in competition, shooting all over the UK, rifle, pistol & shotgun. I am having a 5.56mm AR15 M4 built for me at the moment and my one and only new years resolution is to shoot more in '07!(including, hopefully again in Florida!)
In a free society citizens should have as many choices and rights as reasonably possible. This includes the right to decide whether or not to own and/or carry firearms. As well as other important and serious rights. Sometimes the idea of living in a very free society frightens some people. To a degree, concerning various subjects, I have sometimes become a little uneasy about the idea of extreme freedom. But that is one of the costs of freedom as freedom is not free.
I would by far prefer to deal with any problems associated with too much freedom than to struggle with the problems from too little freedom for myself and for my lawful, peaceful fellow Americans.
Says it all about the UK I like to think.
My one and only regret in my life (so far) is not leaving this Country 25 years ago. Before my wife & I got married, we did look to emergrating to Canada. At the time, Canada was in going into a recession and had put a stop to imigration just as we started the process.
Whenever my shooting buddies & I arrive back in the UK after traveling abroad to shoot/compete, one of us will say 'welcome back to the land of the not so free'
Says it all about the UK I like to think.
My one and only regret in my life (so far) is not leaving this Country 25 years ago. Before my wife & I got married, we did look to emergrating to Canada. At the time, Canada was in going into a recession and had put a stop to imigration just as we started the process.
How about immigrating to the USA? You sound like someone we need more of.
quote:Originally posted by Ian C.
Whenever my shooting buddies & I arrive back in the UK after traveling abroad to shoot/compete, one of us will say 'welcome back to the land of the not so free'
Says it all about the UK I like to think.
My one and only regret in my life (so far) is not leaving this Country 25 years ago. Before my wife & I got married, we did look to emergrating to Canada. At the time, Canada was in going into a recession and had put a stop to imigration just as we started the process.
How about immigrating to the USA? You sound like someone we need more of.
Thank you for your kind words. I have recently looked at the New Zealand situation as the skills and experience I have in my trade are required there. My wife will not go and will not change her mind. We very rarely argue but we did then. I cannot go without her full support so I will be staying here.[V]
I have enjoyed my trips to Florida and will be seeing more of your wonderful Country in the future and hopefully shooting there also. But it will have to remain a holiday destination. I have spoke to my wife about maybe retiring to the U.S. but when I looked into it, the U.S. Government do not do a permenant retirement visa. I've got about 20 years to go before I finish work, so maybe things will change, who knows eh!