I can see where you are coming from but an ejit will always be an ejit, with or without a licensed "tool"... Shotguns, and vehicles need licenses but it does not stop the chimp man using them to maim or injure.
Ban on crossbows
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I can see where you are coming from but an ejit will always be an ejit, with or without a licensed "tool"... Shotguns, and vehicles need licenses but it does not stop the chimp man using them to maim or injure.
I did my DSC1 course a few weeks ago. One of the instructors told us that thye recently had a deer in the larder, and when they took the hide off, they found a collection of air gun pellets under the skin on the rump.
OK, this animal healed up and didn't seem to have suffered. But it is an indication of the stupidity of some people.
OK, this animal healed up and didn't seem to have suffered. But it is an indication of the stupidity of some people.
Arctic Bob,
Do the people who use them to poach deer use broad heads, or just standard field pointed bolts?
A collection of airgun pellets in a deer's rump also suggest that that particular deer wasn't all that bright either! I struggle to imagine even one of our local, very laid back, deer standing around while someone shot repeatedly it in the butt. It sounds like someone trying to keep it from eating their garden...one shot in the butt per shrubbery visit...
Do the people who use them to poach deer use broad heads, or just standard field pointed bolts?
A collection of airgun pellets in a deer's rump also suggest that that particular deer wasn't all that bright either! I struggle to imagine even one of our local, very laid back, deer standing around while someone shot repeatedly it in the butt. It sounds like someone trying to keep it from eating their garden...one shot in the butt per shrubbery visit...
i simply don't see it as punishing myself - if you have a legimate reason for owning and using a crossbow (or a shotgun, or a rifle), and you have both somewhere to use it and somewhere to store it, and you aren't an idiot, criminal or fruitcake, you can have one.
if you either don't have those things, or are a criminal, idiot or fruitcake, then you've no business having a crossbow - or shotgun, or rifle.
Arctic Bob, on the face of it I would agree with you, if someone has a legitimate reason, and is sane and sensible, there shouldn't be a problem, but I am still very uncomfortable any time the government starts talking about banning anything. The problem I see is in differing comfort levels, and different views on what constitutes a "legitimate" reason. Currently you are comfortable with the idea that cross bows, rifles or shotguns require a license that is granted based upon the grantor's satisfaction that the person has a good enough reason for owning, has a good enough place to use, a good enough place to store, and is of good enough character.
What constitutes a legitimate reason? I am sure there are plenty of people out there who own a shotgun but don't get to go game shooting all that often, and maybe don't go shooting clays all that often either. They enjoy it when they do, but don't get out as often as they would like. Maybe they used to...So should they sell up and quit the sport because getting out three or four times a year isn't a good enough reason to keep the gun?
What about long bows, air guns, catapults and bushcraft knives? There are people out there who feel that society would probably be safer if all those things were banned, or required a license. Further, there are people who will disagree with what you think is a "legitimate reason", and cannot be persuaded that there is any good reason for anyone to have any of those things. We might think that they are idiots, but these days there are a lot of them, and their voices and votes count.
Every time I hear about a new ban, even of something that I don't have anything to do with, I feel that we are getting gobbled up piecemeal.
What constitutes a legitimate reason? I am sure there are plenty of people out there who own a shotgun but don't get to go game shooting all that often, and maybe don't go shooting clays all that often either. They enjoy it when they do, but don't get out as often as they would like. Maybe they used to...So should they sell up and quit the sport because getting out three or four times a year isn't a good enough reason to keep the gun?
What about long bows, air guns, catapults and bushcraft knives? There are people out there who feel that society would probably be safer if all those things were banned, or required a license. Further, there are people who will disagree with what you think is a "legitimate reason", and cannot be persuaded that there is any good reason for anyone to have any of those things. We might think that they are idiots, but these days there are a lot of them, and their voices and votes count.
Every time I hear about a new ban, even of something that I don't have anything to do with, I feel that we are getting gobbled up piecemeal.
In several countries, you have to be an 'active' shooter.
Here, on the warm fringes of United Kingdom, it means one comp and one practice session to retain your handgun license.
(handguns are only allowed to be shot at the gunclub, for practice and competitions)
I do not know of ANY other country that has banned something after making it licenseable first, might be wrong as I know nothing about Africa and Asia.
To be frank, I do not like control by the State.
But when it comes to guns and other potentially lethal items, I am fine with that. I want to be as safe as possible walking the streets, being stopped by the police when they stop me for speeding as similar...
Here, on the warm fringes of United Kingdom, it means one comp and one practice session to retain your handgun license.
(handguns are only allowed to be shot at the gunclub, for practice and competitions)
I do not know of ANY other country that has banned something after making it licenseable first, might be wrong as I know nothing about Africa and Asia.
To be frank, I do not like control by the State.
But when it comes to guns and other potentially lethal items, I am fine with that. I want to be as safe as possible walking the streets, being stopped by the police when they stop me for speeding as similar...
Last edited:
I assume you don't want hand guns available to anyone without a licence? Thing is once you licence one thing the arguments against licencing something else don't seem to hold up. Plenty pf people happily work with 'good reason' for firearms so why not bows? A sensible approach would be to treat them like shotguns, once you've got your certificate you can own any number and shot them where you see fit.
My own comfort level was that we had more than enough restrictions prior to the all out ban. I know that I my feelings about "public safety" vs freedom do not entirely mesh with those prevalent in the UK. I think that when a permit system switches from an assumption that everyone should be free to have something, except for an unfit minority to one which assumes no one should have something except for a minority who have had every crevice of their lives probed, things have gone wrong.
I have never had a shot gun license, but a friend who does described the ridiculous grilling he got when it was time to renew. An edict had been sent out that police were to "get tough" and limit licenses. The joke for him was that he was a police officer himself and shot with a team from the force.
We can all agree that some control is sensible, but once in place it is all but certain that over time that control will be tightened, and abuses of power will happen, and criminal numpties will still get their hands on things to create mischief with.
He should know, being a police, that as a police he has to undergo the same testing, as he has to obey the same rules and regs, as a 'normal' citizen.
(We have several police in our gun club. They too have to produce a Police Clearance certificate, and undergo the safe inspection for each new gun, and renewal of existing permits.)
Being a responsible citizen with no crim record, and having a need for it, I am sure he got the renewal.
(We have several police in our gun club. They too have to produce a Police Clearance certificate, and undergo the safe inspection for each new gun, and renewal of existing permits.)
Being a responsible citizen with no crim record, and having a need for it, I am sure he got the renewal.
Last edited:
The problem I had with my Local Police Firearm officers was that they tried to interpret the law, their job is to enforce the law, not put their own interpretation onto it.
I was told that fitting new 'woodwork' to a rifle voided the proof test - after a long and heated argument where I explained that the proof testing is conducted without the woodwork (to avoid damage in the vices and clamps) I had to get the proof office to write to the Chief Constable explain that his firearms manager was talking a load of twaddle and to do their job and not interfere with the proof house job.
I also had some in depth discussions with him about 'personal imports' of firearms from outside of the EU, again he was shown to be in the wrong.
The firearms manager left shortly afterwards.
As gun owners we need to be aware of what we can do, what we must do and what we shouldn't do - irrespective of what the Police tell us.
I was told that fitting new 'woodwork' to a rifle voided the proof test - after a long and heated argument where I explained that the proof testing is conducted without the woodwork (to avoid damage in the vices and clamps) I had to get the proof office to write to the Chief Constable explain that his firearms manager was talking a load of twaddle and to do their job and not interfere with the proof house job.
I also had some in depth discussions with him about 'personal imports' of firearms from outside of the EU, again he was shown to be in the wrong.
The firearms manager left shortly afterwards.
As gun owners we need to be aware of what we can do, what we must do and what we shouldn't do - irrespective of what the Police tell us.
I believe you need to keep firearms in a gun safe, locked, and bolted to floor/wall?
(that was the rule when I lived in UK and had shotguns, a .22 LR high precision rifle)
If crossbows become an item that needs licensing/permit, will they need to be kept in a similar safe?
Can you easily take them apart?
(that was the rule when I lived in UK and had shotguns, a .22 LR high precision rifle)
If crossbows become an item that needs licensing/permit, will they need to be kept in a similar safe?
Can you easily take them apart?
Missing my point a little, but maybe that way my fault. He had a hard time because the person quizzing him about his "need" wanted to contest that shooting clays with other officers wasn't a good enough reason for having a gun. I thought it a good example of my point about the difference in bias between looking for reasons why someone shouldn't have something, and them having to provide reasons why they should. The latter gives the grantor of the license a lot of power.
Apropos the cabinets and cross bows. The reason for putting firearms in cabinets is two fold, one is to cut down on accidents, but the main one is to stop the people who haven't been granted licenses from being able to get around that by stealing guns for use in crime. I find myself wondering whether the readiness to see things that become licensed get locked away is based upon a real need to restrict access to prevent accidents and crime, or just the result of an automatic assumption that that is what one does for all things that are licensed.
Unstringing cross bows can be a real pain of a job. The ones that use compound cams need the same gear as compound bows. Not practical every time you want to fit it in storage.
Got you!
Sounds like the officer doing the questioning was one of those whose personal opinion colours his job performance.
Police should not set up the rules, but obey rules set by a higher authority.
I hope your friend complained.
I guessed it is not feasible to dismantle a x-bow to fit in a normal sized gun cabinet.
Outside this topic: We are soon getting new rules for storage.
The rule will be that the gun has to be stored in two parts, in separate safes.
Fine for a shotgun. Fine for a rifle with a detachable magazine.
Fine for a semi auto pistol ( magazine can be removed easily). Revolvers?
Our gun club Board had a hell of a job explain that it can not be done to a revolver.
we also have to have a 'need'. I advised the gun club board to agree to divulge only the fact if a member was 'active' or 'inactive'. To divulge more would be breaching our trust.
Active = minimum one training session and one comp a year per gun.
Sounds like the officer doing the questioning was one of those whose personal opinion colours his job performance.
Police should not set up the rules, but obey rules set by a higher authority.
I hope your friend complained.
I guessed it is not feasible to dismantle a x-bow to fit in a normal sized gun cabinet.
Outside this topic: We are soon getting new rules for storage.
The rule will be that the gun has to be stored in two parts, in separate safes.
Fine for a shotgun. Fine for a rifle with a detachable magazine.
Fine for a semi auto pistol ( magazine can be removed easily). Revolvers?
Our gun club Board had a hell of a job explain that it can not be done to a revolver.
we also have to have a 'need'. I advised the gun club board to agree to divulge only the fact if a member was 'active' or 'inactive'. To divulge more would be breaching our trust.
Active = minimum one training session and one comp a year per gun.
Changing the stock voids the proof test?lmfao! Thats a new one
They really will try anything to weasle us out of our rights.
Some FLO's really do need a good shake.....some firearm knowledge wouldn't hurt either
Did you laugh in his face when he said it?
If we're talking shotgun certificates then you don't need to show good reason, the police have to prove they have good reason to turn you down. I am aware some forces don't seem to stick to the laws when licencing though, so you do need to know what your rights are.
I think a similar form of licencing for bows would be much better than a ban, once it's gone it gone as they say.
