50 cal.

[rizzini 1]

Is the 50 caliber round actually banned in this country? Or is it just the semi auto that fires it.

Lol I'm not thinking og getting one, I'm just curious to whether is legal or not.

[Mr_Logic 5]

It is a perfectly legal calibre, bolt actions are available for it. Like everything except .22RF, .50 cal semi auto rifles are Section 5.

[mattydski 560]

It is a perfectly legal calibre, bolt actions are available for it. Like everything except .22RF, .50 cal semi auto rifles are Section 5.

 

 

what is a 22RF?

 

 

RIM FIRE

 

Matt

[rizzini 1]

How on earth could you justify a 50cal.? Do they do target shoting wiht it in the uk?

[mattydski 560]

How on earth could you justify a 50cal.? Do they do target shoting wiht it in the uk?

 

Yes, target shooting only

Fifty cal shooters association

Google it for more info

Matt

[richie 1]

 

http://www.fcsa.co.uk/

[JOE BLOCKY 0]

i think the whole FAC issue is load of bollocks...eg. you can be trusted to own a firearm but not trusted to hold any amount of ammo you want!! or any legal firearm! the good reason is just crap!! the Bill of Rights Act 1689 gave us the right to keep and bear arms...thats ware the armericans got they 2nd amendment. my point being, after being vetted, and thus can be tusted to hold a firearm without danger to the public, how does it make sense to have ammo restrictsions and to justfiy every gun you want to have!! if you can be tusted to hold firearms that should be the end of the matter!!! it should be like a shot gun ticket !

 

rant over

[richie 1]

i think the whole FAC issue is load of bollocks...eg. you can be trusted to own a firearm but not trusted to hold any amount of ammo you want!! or any legal firearm! the good reason is just crap!! the Bill of Rights Act 1689 gave us the right to keep and bear arms...thats ware the armericans got they 2nd amendment. my point being, after being vetted, and thus can be tusted to hold a firearm without danger to the public, how does it make sense to have ammo restrictsions and to justfiy every gun you want to have!! if you can be tusted to hold firearms that should be the end of the matter!!! it should be like a shot gun ticket !

 

rant over

 

 

i take it youve been turned down for a certain firearm calibre ?

 

they have to have some kind of restrictions on the type of firearms people can hold. i think that if someone can show a neccessary need to hold a firearm then thats ok, but if not, why should they have it.

 

i think the whole idea with the shotgun vs the firearm is that less damage can be done with a shotgun a long distances.

 

rich

[jamie g 17]

i think the whole FAC issue is load of bollocks...eg. you can be trusted to own a firearm but not trusted to hold any amount of ammo you want!! or any legal firearm! the good reason is just crap!! the Bill of Rights Act 1689 gave us the right to keep and bear arms...thats ware the armericans got they 2nd amendment. my point being, after being vetted, and thus can be tusted to hold a firearm without danger to the public, how does it make sense to have ammo restrictsions and to justfiy every gun you want to have!! if you can be tusted to hold firearms that should be the end of the matter!!! it should be like a shot gun ticket !

 

rant over

 

 

i take it youve been turned down for a certain firearm calibre ?

 

they have to have some kind of restrictions on the type of firearms people can hold. i think that if someone can show a neccessary need to hold a firearm then thats ok, but if not, why should they have it.

 

i think the whole idea with the shotgun vs the firearm is that less damage can be done with a shotgun a long distances.

 

rich

 

your right there mate but close range a shotgun would cut someone in half !

 

we all have to go by what the firearms officer wants us to have and what he dont. but sometimes there abit over the top.

 

but i dont mind the only thing what gets up my nose is the land pass system if you havent got open fac

Edited July 24, 2008 by jamie g

[rizzini 1]

Is long range vermin a good reason for 50 CAL.?

 

 

 

 

 

Just joking lol

 

 

Anyway. This guy was lucky http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc

Edited July 24, 2008 by rizzini

[JOE BLOCKY 0]

i take it youve been turned down for a certain firearm calibre ?

 

they have to have some kind of restrictions on the type of firearms people can hold. i think that if someone can show a neccessary need to hold a firearm then thats ok, but if not, why should they have it.

 

i think the whole idea with the shotgun vs the firearm is that less damage can be done with a shotgun a long distances.

 

rich

 

 

 

No i havent been turned down for anything. If someone is vetted and can be intrusted to hold firearms why should he need a good reason!! Most countries in europe dont have this good reason thing, and they dont have blood baths because of it!

[rizzini 1]

Classic knee-jerk reactions to gun crime. In our bill of rights it says we have the right to keep and bear arms. The Americans copied it from us.

 

I agree with joe blocky.If you have no record you should be able to purchase guns wiithout giving any reason. They should bvring back hanguns aswell.

 

Gun crime is not legally owned guns. I mean how many bank robbers get there guns from say, "litts"???

 

Point made!Point proven!

[SportingShooter 0]

Enough of this Bill of Rights misapprehension.

 

The B of R was written in 1689 and has since and for many hundreds of years been outdated and its clauses not recognised.

 

The more recent curtails to this Act, come in the form of the Firearm(s) Acts from Circa 1920 onwards.

 

There is no legal right in this country to bear arms. The only way it could be was if we had an entrenched constitution(which we don't) and a written constitution(which we also don't). This would be the same as the Second Amendment in the USA, and seen as the US constitution is so hard to change, 17 changes since 1789, it is classed as entrenched. Unless the UK adopts this system, we have no right to bear arms. We are granted the temporary right to hold weapons by the nature of the Firearm(s) Act(s) which can be repealed by any government.

 

Regards

SS

[rizzini 1]

The English Bill of Rights (1689) sets out a right to bear arms. In the 1755 reforms it was challenged.

[SportingShooter 0]

Correct, but im not sure what your point is.

 

This country and the constitution is based on Convention, meaning that the whatever has been done in the past is what we carry on doing, hence the term a break with Convention.

 

It has been convention for the past ??? years not to accept the Bill of Rights or many of the older pieces of legislation such as Habeas Corpus and the the Works of Authority(which are also a part of the constitution) as evidence or that citizens be bound by them.

 

The reason for this is yet another Convention, and it is that the legislation which is passed after original legislation, i.e the Firearms Acts passed after the Bill of Rights. Are taken to be Law and the older, out of date legislation be disregarded.

 

Also, the Bill of Rights only applies to Parliamentarians which sit against the Crown in Parliament. I.e. the legislation is to be decided by Parliamentarians and they alone can decide whether any part of the Act is implemented or discarded.

 

In addition, even if this law were to be read as Law today, it would still only apply to the Right to bear arms for Self-Defence and Key to this whole post, " As allowed by Law". I.e. You are still governed by later or specific laws.

 

I hope this will clarify that the Bill of Rights has no place in Firearms law today, nor would it have any implications for sporting rifle shooting.

 

Regards

SS