Gun control advocates hold a “gun free” UK near and dear to their disarmament-loving hearts. American Fudds — hunters and sportsman who couldn’t give a toss about the gun rights of people who own or aspire to own handguns or ARs — are OK with the UK’s gun control regime. Yes, well, civilian disarmament is a slippery slope. The gun banners will have your shotguns and hunting rifles too, mate. Here’s proof from The Land of Hope and Glory via shootinguk.co.uk . . .
Have you ever taken a family member or friend, who no shotgun licence, on a day’s shooting on land that you do not own? If so, and you allow them to have a go, you could be breaking the law.
This illogicality on the borrowing of shotguns is why the Countryside Alliance (CA), with the British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC), is asking the Government to update the 1968 Firearms Act. After the recommendations made by then Law Commission last year, now is the perfect time to reduce the legal complexity of the Act and the administrative burden on the police.
As the law stands, Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows “an individual, without holding a shotgun certificate, to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupier’s presence”.
Taking your son or daughter out shooting or participating in a Young Shots day, where they can be taught and experience handling and using a shotgun, is one of the best ways to introduce the younger generation safely to the sport. But unless you are borrowing a shotgun from the “occupier” of the land and the occupier is “present”, then this cannot legally be done. If there is no occupier present the only way for a young person to participate is to obtain a shotgun certificate.
Never happen here? As a TTAG commentator Mr. 308 points out below, a New York gun owner can’t even let someone with a permit touch his gun. If gun control advocates have their way, Fudds will feel the fickle finger of fate, too. Count on it.
Kinda sorta, in NYS if you do not have a pistol permit, you cannot *touch* a pistol.
Thus I can’t borrow my handgun to someone at the range or whatever so they can have a go at shooting it, they cannot even touch it, unless they are permitted to own a (registered) handgun.
Why? How does this help to reduce crime and violence?
It doesn’t, it’s just an example of the state implementing maximum control over the law respecting citizen because they can.
We should be looking to enact laws that increase individual liberty, allow taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn and to enjoy the freedoms and rights that are inherent in our society. The state has little interest in that, their interests are very simple, control and collection of taxes.
Rather than enacting laws to increase liberty how about we remove ones which decrease it?
Very true, and a good distinction to make.
My bad. 🙂
This^. .
After 200+ years of passing laws, we need a Constitutional Amendment to require the SOBs to repeal at least one law for every law they pass.
We don’t need no stinkin’ new laws…we got too many already. How about we repeal the laws that created the gazillion bureaucracies we imposed upon ourselves decade after decade? How about we repeal their unjust/unnecessary rules, regulations, and taxes so we can all go out and buy and enjoy more gun stuff! You know, freedom!
Not to worry, Elmer. They won’t take your deer rifle.
First, they’ll rename it a “Sniper Rifle.” Then they’ll take it.
Of course, most modern bolt action rifles are based on the Mauser action, and Maisers were top of the line military arms. Obviously much too dangerous for civilians. And don’t forget about pump shotguns, the military still uses those. Can’t have citizens owning such dangerous weapons of war. They used to have single shot breech loaders too. Better ban those.
It’s interesting how the word “infringed” go so diluted as to have little meaning anymore.
It’s not diluted. They know exactly what they do.
When they were still free, there were some in Britain who believed that they should allow commonsense gun control. Consequently, English subjects are now at the mercy of their government and any bad decisions that they may make regarding immigration policy or anything else.
Something to keep in mind if you live in the United States.
Fudds have done their damage already in the US. In Washington, it was due to Fudd-ness that I-594 was passed, which makes it illegal to “transfer” (i.e., hand to someone else) any firearm without a background check, with a couple of arcane exceptions. So, you can’t even hand your unloaded rifle to a buddy to cross a fence while out hunting.
“As a TTAG commentator Mr. 308 points out below, a New York gun owner can’t even let someone with a permit touch his gun.”
What I find even worse is that a deceased person’s guns get confiscated in places like NY or NJ. No matter what value they may represent to the rest of the family.
I tire of FUDDs. They are really just opinionated statists who like statism more than guns or rights. I try not to waste time with them. Once I see they are state supremists, time for me to move on.
I suspect I’m old enough that I will turn over in my grave within a few years of my death.
But you’ll still get to vote!
;^)
Hopefully, fudds will go the way of shooting lit cigarettes out of people’s mouths.
Fudds eh? That’s a good word for them, but don’t start putting up barriers and let AR shooters start to look down on them. Stay unified.
Yes it was indeed the “Fuddy” Duddys that were the main reason for the shooting community giving way here in the UK, well actually there was no single unified community and therein lies the problem. Divide and rule – it works, especially if they are already divided.
Why? Partly a hangover from old fashioned class attitudes, British Fudds tended towards old fashioned Tory types and were snobbish towards anyone who didn’t shoot with a traditional configuration of gun. Part because they hadn’t taken on Pastor Niemoller’s lesson that, sooner or later, they’d be next.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
This is how it happens: It won’t be a sudden storm of black helicopters it’ll be slow, gradual and incremental over decades. Once the public has accepted the thin end of the wedge “assault rifles” being banned then it’ll move onto another category, and another, etc, etc… If they are successful one day they’ll start looking to restrict side by side 12 bores.
Comments are closed.