The mother of a slain Police Constable has initiated a campaign to make it illegal to privately manufacture ('reload') ammunition by outlawing reloading presses and components.
Given their hopolphobic legislation, this is definately a 'loophole'; it's illegal to buy ammunition, but not the materials and equipment to make it yourself.
Some Yob bought the gear and the goodies, loaded up a batch of ammo, and used it in his ILLEGAL pistol to gun down a bobbie.
Let me see; it's illegal to have the gun, and the laws didn't stop him there. It's illegal to buy ammunition, and that didn't stop him. So just HOW is it going to stop him to make reloading illegal?
THE LEGAL loophole that allowed the killer of Leeds police officer Ian Broadhurst to produce home-made bullets is set to be shut tight by MPs today after a tireless campaign in Yorkshire.Here's a thought: you can't stop the Yobs from arming themselves; God knows you've tried to do so by passing laws, and it just . . . hasn't . . . worked!
Ex-US Marine David Bieber was jailed for life last December for gunning down the 34-year-old policeman in cold blood on Boxing Day, 2003, and firing at two other officers using a pistol loaded with ammunition made from components that had been bought completely legally.
So how about you allow the police to carry arms? At least they would be able to defend themeselves.
During Bieber's trial, Mr Justice Moses said it was "completely barmy" that the killer had legally bought a Dillon RL550 bullet press and re-loader from a Hertfordshire gunshop that he had used to manufacture thousands of bullets in a home-made weapons factory in a Leeds lock-up.
PC Broadhurst's mother Cindy Eaton – backed by the Police Federation and PC Broadhurst's MP, Batley and Spen's Mike Wood – launched a high-profile campaign in the Yorkshire Post for a ban on the unrestricted sale of bullet-pressing kits and primers – the essential mini-detonators which set off the propellant in a round.
Following Bieber's conviction, the MP called directly on the Prime Minister to change the law.I can understand the mother's anguish, but all I'm reading here is that she's blaming the laws (or lack of them?) for the death of her son. Isn't anybody blaming the creep who shot the bobby? Maybe they're missing a good bet. Maybe they could pass a law against humans being ornery. Or vicious. Or human.
His pleas are set to come to fruition today, as MPs give their final approval to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which will make buying components subject to the same restrictions as buying firearms.
Clause 28 of the Bill will make it an offence to sell primers to anyone without a firearm licence and Clause 29 will ban cartridge and bullet presses."Victim to home-made bullets"?
Ms Eaton said last night: "We're thrilled at the progress that has been made and look forward to these measures becoming law.
"It's nice to think that something like this can come of Ian's death and that a loophole we weren't aware of previously can be closed."
Mr Wood was delighted that what he called a "lethal historical anomaly" would finally come to an end and that Ms Eaton's successful campaign may well have prevented someone else falling victim to home-made bullets.
How about 'victim to a thug, who will do what he wishes, to whomever he wishes, as long as he's the predator and everyone else is prey'?
"Enacting legislation can be a long and drawn out process – often it has to be – but these restrictions on bullet-making components are well worth the wait," he said.Waiting for these Britanic Buffoons to wake up and smell the coffee is a long and drawn out process, too. How they can catagorize these treat-the-symptoms laws as being "well worth the wait" is beyond me.
"We believe it's totally right that people cannot legally buy the sort of equipment that he used to assemble bullets," ....Rights? They're talking about RIGHTS?
"Bieber made literally thousands and it was always disgraceful that there had been no control on the materials and machines to make these sorts of bullets.
"It's quite right that this ban should be in place."
How about the rights of private citizens . . . and police officers . . . to protect themselves?
Why aren't they talking about societal changes, including an attempt to identify and get killers off the streets before they kill again? Why aren't they talking about rehabilitating a society which makes it EASY for people to become killers?
Why? I'll tell you why?
It's easy to pass laws against 'things'. 'Things' can't rebel, can't exercise free will, aren't intimidated by their illegality.
Yobs aren't intimidated, either; they're challenged. Human ingenuity will always win out, there are always ways to circumvent the law if you've already decided to break the law anyway.
British Parliament isn't able to deal with the real issues. As long as they continue passing laws, the brainless public will believe that they are trying to resolve issues, even when they're NOT!
What's not easy is to deal with people. Laws don't affect humans, except for those who have already made the personal choice to be law-abiding already.
My advice to Great (?) Britain is to get rid of all those laws which handicap only the law-abiding, and let them protect themselves.
They certainly can't count on the police to protect them.
The police can't even protect themselves.
Making laws against private ownership of weapons is as ineffective as making laws against narcotics. They're not protecting anybody, they're only creating a very lucrative market.