Gun modelling to be illegal and references gone

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:
formatting link
the bill at
formatting link

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:
formatting link
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.
Reply to
merlin_lll
Loading thread data ...
wrote
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
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
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...
Reply to
Greg Heilers
"Greg Heilers" wrote
Well, it would still be better than what they have now.
KL
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
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
Reply to
Graeme Cosgrove
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
Reply to
John Mianowski
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
Kurt Laughl>
Reply to
William H. Shuey
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.
Reply to
Bill Woodier
Many in the US have never even *read* our Constitution, much less _understand_ it... :(
Reply to
Al Superczynski

Past tense noted...
Reply to
Al Superczynski
Ouch.
Reply to
Al Superczynski
"Bill Woodier" wrote
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 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
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
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.
Reply to
Greg Heilers
Hey! You wanna give the American Trial Lawyers Association a heart attack??
Bill Shuey
Reply to
William H. Shuey
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
Reply to
Graeme Cosgrove
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.
Reply to
Al Superczynski
Apologies. I always thought the President was responsible for bringing legislation to the Senate/HoR?
G
Reply to
Graeme Cosgrove
Not a problem.
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."
Reply to
Al Superczynski
Presumably the legisltaion is introduced along "party" afiliation - e.g. Republican Party proposes legislation that President Bush was advocating during his re-election.
G
Reply to
Graeme Cosgrove
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.
Reply to
Al Superczynski

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.