EXCLUDING Northern Ireland, which is why I stressed 'Mainland'

Legal ownership of regular-looking handguns in Northern Ireland is a simple matter of having the correct set of conditions fulfilled - full membership of a gun club, and the relevant entry on your Firearms Certificate. Northern Ireland has a great history in IPSC shooting, BTW.

It's a different story on the big island - Great Britain [England, Scotland and Wales]. Callum Long-Collins has put this video together to let you know the skinny on handgun ownership of guns that look just like yours do - well, within reason - and NOT like my poor old Ruger Super Redhawk.

So here is probably the best explanation so far about how an ordinary Joe like me, a law-abiding citizen who has had a UK firearms certificate since 1968, an ex-soldier and officer, and an erstwhile Crown Expert Witness on firearms-related offences on CCTV and other imagery. Please note that this is how it is - I neither have any input into the law, nor any recourse to getting it changed, that is because it is an Act of Parliament, and the common herd, like me, cannot influence it in any way. So PLEASE don't flame me or call me a sheeple/panty-waist/coward et al. I do NOT subscribe to this method of handgun ownership, so I put up with what I CAN have, and do all my handgun shooting in the USA with guns just like the ones I used to have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1WbpwuQ5wk

Thanks tac. Very interesting.

Interesting and a good reminder of what we need to actively fight to keep from being taken from us in the US.

It's good to see that it *is* possible to still own handguns in the U.K. It looks like the people who make it to ownership, making it through all the bureaucracy, must be a dedicated bunch of blokes.

As someone who's recently been purchasing classic motorcycles, and as a big fan of the British-twins styling, I now see that I need one with a crew-served, water-cooled MG.

It's ironic that, given the U.K.'s current restrictive practices, England was the origin of the American RKBA. She was, at the time, the only country in western civilization, or perhaps the world, that had such a right codified in law.

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." -- English Bill of Rights, 1689

The rest of the civilized world, and its monarchies, thought the English Parliament and monarchy had lost their respective minds.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Interesting and a good reminder of what we need to actively fight to keep from being taken from us in the US.

What happened in the U.K. is an object lesson in why we Americans can never give an inch, no matter how "innocuous," "innocent," "reasonable," or "well-meaning" new restrictions may seem. In the U.K., the current restrictive environment didn't happen all in one fell swoop, but by having what was once a guaranteed right chipped-away piece by piece.

For those who truly want to understand what happened in the U.K., and how, read Joyce Lee Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right

Can you explain how your Parliamentary or statutory system is different than ours in the US? Can acts of Parliament not be undone or amended by other acts?

Do you not have bills that are passed into law?

Curious to understand your system, because I never really thought about it on that score until I read your post.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Can you explain how your Parliamentary or statutory system is different than ours in the US?

Parliamentary system

Furthermore: We are a republic. The U.K. is not a parliamentary republic, but a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Can acts of Parliament not be undone or amended by other acts?

Do you not have bills that are passed into law?

Yes, they can, and yes, they do.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Can you explain how your Parliamentary or statutory system is different than ours in the US? Can acts of Parliament not be undone or amended by other acts?

Do you not have bills that are passed into law?

Curious to understand your system, because I never really thought about it on that score until I read your post.

Yes, Acts of Parliament CAN be undone, but not by the voting population. They can be repealed, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. I'd have to look up how it might be done. However, bear in mind that the Amendments to the Firearms Act are just like the amendments to your Constitution, and there has to be a real WILL for any part of it to be altered, and extremely vital rationale to do so. Here in UK there has been no demonstrable reason for repealing ANY part of the Firearms Act, in spite of the well-established fact that the ever-increasing strictures imposed on law-abiding citizens has noticeably failed to stem gun crime in any way. there are a number of members of parliament of both sides of the House who appreciate that this is so, but it is a sad fact that anybody who stood up and proclaimed that the FA was an obvious failure in trying to stem crime, and served only to alienate a goodly proportion of the voting public would be looking for a job by the next morning.

Thank you for sharing tac. There won't be any personal digs from me as,if the progressives and liberal elite have their way, we may be in the same boat someday.*

*Some RINOS also it seems.