Speak you Brains - For Paintball

[Bully]

I hope the powers that be make this a sticky!!

Have a look at this link and then download the document at the bottom of the page.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violentstreet4.htm

This is a "Consultation Paper on Firearms" the results of the consultation could possibly have an effect of paintball.

If you can spend sometime to address the points on page 10-12 it would be appreciated. BUT before you all start sending pages of info to the HO I would ask that you send it to me. I will then add your letters to the file I will be sending to the HO on behalf of paintball.

I feel it is better to submit one document of behalf of the United Kingdom Paintball Sports Federation than individuals sending comments to the HO.

I want your letters to add weight to my file so get writing and send them to the UKPSF before the end of July.

It will be interesting to see how many paintballers take the time to write a letter!!

Steve

 

[JoseDominguez]

Interesting stuff, but from the looks of it Blunkett has forgotten about us (or they are just confused by our brightly coloured "guns"), aren't we going to keep out heads down this time?
Sorry to have no faith in our government, but I don't, they'll do as they see fit anyway.
I'm writing a letter anyway. You never know, they might listen for once.

 

[Mark]

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
I'm writing a letter anyway. You never know, they might listen for once.

Be sure that this time you send the letter to Bully, NOT the HO as before

 

[JoseDominguez]

I didn't send any letter to the HO, I made a general enquiry to answer a question that arose in a discussion, which turned out to be relevant to a product that became available months later. I still haven't gotten a straight answer for that one......... and it's just the kind of thing that anyone anti-paintball will bring up in this consultation period....... I won't even mention it here as it just brings complaints of "drawing attention to the problem"
Oh, and I'd been happy to leave it as requested, even deleted some info from earlier posts...... did it need dragging up again?

 

[Mark]

Ok I will give you that you have indeed deleted stuff before...not before you got in a real knot in having to answer etc as to why you said/did/sent whatever and when I saw Bully's post I complied a very short list of people who would send direct so short a list that only one person was on the list....you. Then look who was the first to reply to the thread?

In answer to Steve I can see the areas you are looking for clarification however if things do indeed stay as written...the idea of the paper as it appears in the sections you highlighted then things will still be as they are unless anyone asks for things to be changed and the HO agrees a change is needed.
Definition of a paintball marker would be one for sure as way back when they were regarded as "Pistols" and the addition of a stock them made them "Rifles" and in so making them something different then the higher power rating was "allowed" How a paintball marker in reality can ever be considered a "Rifle" in any crazy govermental description is silly to say the least as none have stocks...the odd one or two but not many. the perfect result would be a seperate section altogether but trust me that won't help as some of the existing air rifle classifications will be migrated across to be included and as such will effect the Air rifle section itself by default. if you take the Foot poundage as it currently sits and apply it to a paintball marker (this was done some time back by Manike IIRC) and the numbers for the grain weight of a paintball worked out to 320 FPS was very very roughly = to 12 foot pounds...and as the classification states about a maximum allowable limit of 12 foot pounds, no paintball marker can fire over 320 fps can it? Now see what I mean about effecting the air rifle section aswell...for once I think silence is the best policy here.
Note if anyone is going to reply to this post remember I have been both truthful and vague enough for the reader to make up their own mind as to what I am getting at so don't pick holes in the reply as you may by default say what I was hinting at...remember this is a public forum

 

[JoseDominguez]

Funny you should say that........ with the exception of yourself I'm also the only one who seems to have responded at all. Paintballer apathy at it's best, the main reason I responded was to keep the post up at the top...... doesn't seem to have made much difference though. Oh, and I didn't get in a knot over my own decision to delete stuff....... I just explained that I had E-mailed a query to the HO a month before the thread in question (relating to a discussion I had with Olly) and that relevant info was included (still wondering how that's panned out and I'm sure any re-classification will specify "ammo")

Just think about it ........ Bully asks for a letter from us...I don't think he's going to get many, but I bet Blunkett gets plenty from people who've had bad experiences paintballing.
As for the rest? I agree completely, but drawing attention to it on a public forum can't be a good idea. It's one of the things I'm worried about, if that's picked up then we are knackered, it won't take a change in the act, just someone taking a closer look.

Bully, are there any key points you are going to push? anything we can include to give more weight to it? rather than lots of clashing POV's?

 

[JoseDominguez]

Cool, it's a sticly, I can stop arguing to bump it now
And before everyone gets complacent (I've had it from my team mates) and believe that "they'll never take paintball away, it's too big a business"
Anyone remember handguns? they can and they will
get typing.

 

[Bully]

Thanks

To the moderators - Thank you for making it a sticky

To the couple of players who have added comments - Thank you - that is what is needed.

Personally I only want the HO to be aware of paintball so if they change anything they don't "accidentally" create a problem for the sport of paintball.

The HO are aware of us and are very happy with the way paintball regulates itself BUT it is not the sensible guys behind the Whitehall desks who have the final say it is politicians who are "influenced" by what they read in the press plus one or two "incidents" that have occurred where paintballs have been involved. Knee jerk reaction from politicians is what we have to avoid.

So we need to point out how we self regulate our sport, (using HO guidelines) not to write a calibre into any regulation (i.e they ban everything over .22 and this would ban paintball - this is the sort of thing that could happen) how as a sport we avoid "replica" weapon paintball markers (RAM) , how paintball markers/guns don't look like "guns", the positive sides of rec ball, tournaments and customer games, these are the types of points we need to make to the authorities.

It is accidental inclusion that I worry most about. Paintball could have been banned in its early years, only because CO2 was not an approved propellant for air weapons. Once this had been written into the firearms act then it could not be banned because CO2 became an approved propellant as well as air.

Just a few ideas!!

Cheers

Steve

 

[JoseDominguez]

cheers mate, helps if we are firing in the same direction

 

[Pump'n'Splat]

It doesn't state in the paper what a Paintball Marker would be considered as for classification.....would it be classified as an Airgun? If so, then how come so many youngsters are toting Angels, because it'd be illegal for them to buy one!!!

I'd like to see Paintball markers as a seperate classification, with regulations laid down as per UKPSF recommendations.