and they all shout "why buy a gun from europe"

[evenbad]

[QUOTE=brucegill;6733907]I see the thread has disappeared with all the Euro shop links What on earth is going on on the BBS at the moment....[/QUOTE
Well its a forum here where people should be allowed to post without fear of retribution unless you break the rules so I should imagine the admin has PM the OP who opened the thread and explained why it gone.

[evenbad]

GTA doesn't 'sell' anything, EB. Please stop distorting facts to suit your preferred verdict. TD
You are quiet aware of what I mean the GTA members who have openly sold S/A guns , lets not split hair over this and get in the real world.

[Terry D]

Its not taxing at times at all just answer the points I have raised

EB, I assure you, what you post does at times, take quite some deciphering. If you check back on my replies to you, you'll find I've done my best to answer your points comprehensively in the time I have available.

Its you who get personal not me as we will never agree by the looks of things, so lets try and be civil and reply to the questions or points raise in my previous post.

You continually use 'shouty' capitals, you claim I've stated things I have not stated, and you have accused me of being a bully and trying to stop you thinking and being able to post your opinions on here. You have also implied that I conspired to ban SA guns and to dictate what you can and cannot buy. These are all false claims made by you against me, personally. Compared to such claims, my replies to you have been extremely polite I think.

this is a valid point which would be nice if you are not sure and again I ask you to contact THE GTA as you have previously on many occasions regarding S/A issue

Yet again you make untrue statements and involve me in them. I have not 'contacted the GTA 'on many occasions regarding S/A'. Why do you keep making these false claims?

[RobF]

It doesn't increase cost but it sure as hell restricts the possible sales via delivery as opposed to collection which is what the VCR does. The VCR SHOULD apply to all UK sales regardless of origin. That would level up the playing field.
Someone mentioned earlier about cars bought abroad not having a warranty. The warranty on any car bought within the EU is valid in any member state.

No it wouldn't. A £2750 rifle delivered to my door from a £1600 one abroad is not a level playing field. That's the fundamental issue. Cost. You can add service with a smile and warranty and ease if the price is close... they are things to mitigate a difference. But not when the difference is 40% or whatever.

Even if the £:Euro were 1:1... and the exchange rate was at the all time low... the rifle in question still only retails at a street price of 2250 euros inc VAT... it's never, ever going to be £2750 unless the £ loses a 1/4 of it's value from it's worst ever position.

Do you not see how that is never going to be a level playing field? £500 still buys you enough to fly back personally to Germany with said item to the dealer's front door and return it by hand.

The warranty when brought abroad is valid, only with the manufacturer or it's official dealers. But someone like Steyr UK is a separate company from Steyr Austria. If you buy from Austria, UK does not have to honour that warranty. Steyr Austria does. Nor does Steyr UK have to sell spares. A non hull cartridge rifle is not treated the same as a HC stamped one, so HC don't have to honour non HC warranties (i believe).

[Terry D]

GTA doesn't 'sell' anything, EB. Please stop distorting facts to suit your preferred verdict. TD
You are quiet aware of what I mean the GTA members who have openly sold S/A guns , lets not split hair over this and get in the real world.

OK, here's the 'real world' for you, courtesy of the Home Office. I'm sure you'll have already seen this, but in case you haven't, it comes from a posted reply to an FOI request about the meeting between GTA and the HO.

'The attendees at the meeting were from the Home Office, Law Commission and the GTA. The meeting was a standard GTA demonstration to familiarise attendees with a wide range of firearm types and how the law applied to them. There was no discussion about any other subject, so it was not necessary to take any minutes.'

So, a standard meeting about a wide range of firearms, with no discussion of any other subject. That's it. Direct from the Home Office. No lobbying to ban anything and no campaign to restrict trade. Now, either admit that you were wrong about that meeting, or tell me why you don't accept that this is what happened.

[rogb]

That's my take on it as things stand, Rog, although, as I keep saying, I'm not the expert on these matters and all further clarification on this issue is welcome.

Well I really hope it is sorted out soon. They are essentially the same items, one a 12 ft/lb rifle , one a 6 ft/lb pistol but operating in much the same way, both with rifled barrels.
To my mind, if one is legal then so is the other. If they are found to be over-power then they are both apparently S.5 (although should be S.1, like other airguns). Does that seem a correct understanding?

[Terry D]

Well I really hope it is sorted out soon. They are essentially the same items, one a 12 ft/lb rifle , one a 6 ft/lb pistol but operating in much the same way, both with rifled barrels.
To my mind, if one is legal then so is the other. If they are found to be over-power then they are both apparently S.5 (although should be S.1, like other airguns). Does that seem a correct understanding?

Rog - I leave the defining of such things to the experts, mate. I learned a long time ago that what appears practical, sensible, and obvious, doesn't always sit as perfectly with the letter of the law. It's frustrating but it's what we're obliged to work with.

[secretagentmole]

That's my take on it as things stand, Rog, although, as I keep saying, I'm not the expert on these matters and all further clarification on this issue is welcome.

OK, here's the 'real world' for you, courtesy of the Home Office. I'm sure you'll have already seen this, but in case you haven't, it comes from a posted reply to an FOI request about the meeting between GTA and the HO.

'The attendees at the meeting were from the Home Office, Law Commission and the GTA. The meeting was a standard GTA demonstration to familiarise attendees with a wide range of firearm types and how the law applied to them. There was no discussion about any other subject, so it was not necessary to take any minutes.'

So, a standard meeting about a wide range of firearms, with no discussion of any other subject. That's it. Direct from the Home Office. No lobbying to ban anything and no campaign to restrict trade. Now, either admit that you were wrong about that meeting, or tell me why you don't accept that this is what happened.

Not necessary to take minutes when a 1997 guideline from the Home Office has been summarily and perfunctorily over ruled for rifles and is probably going to be ignored for pistols?

Mr Doe, if you are going to be a scrote who uses any weapon for crimes and misdemeanours then a damned pistol is a site easier to hide then use than a 4 ft long ruddy rifle. The GTA seem to be cherry picking how this applies and the law will make no sense as someone being prosecuted for using a rifle can point in the law to the pistols being the same ie full UK power (6 ft lb), rifled barrel and semi automatic and be judged legal!

Or to put it simply for those non versed in legal jargon it would be like saying it is legal to do 90mph on the M1 but not on the M6! Oh well, may we live in interesting times.

Getting back to the main thrust of the thread though, are weapons on the continent sold wholesale to the retailers or do they buy direct?

[RobF]

Getting back to the main thrust of the thread though, are weapons on the continent sold wholesale to the retailers or do they buy direct?

Depends on what arrangement they have with the manufacturer and what the product is. I know one dealership has sewn up European distribution rights. But I can't say for sure how others do it. Nor do I care. Why should a customer have to concern themselves with what arrangements it takes to get a tin of pellets to their door? All they need concern themselves is the product they are buying is a legitimate item sold in a legal manner.

[rogb]

Not necessary to take minutes when a 1997 guideline from the Home Office has been summarily and perfunctorily over ruled for rifles and is probably going to be ignored for pistols?

Mr Doe, if you are going to be a scrote who uses any weapon for crimes and misdemeanours then a damned pistol is a site easier to hide then use than a 4 ft long ruddy rifle. The GTA seem to be cherry picking how this applies and the law will make no sense as someone being prosecuted for using a rifle can point in the law to the pistols being the same ie full UK power (6 ft lb), rifled barrel and semi automatic and be judged legal!

Or to put it simply for those non versed in legal jargon it would be like saying it is legal to do 90mph on the M1 but not on the M6! Oh well, may we live in interesting times.

Getting back to the main thrust of the thread though, are weapons on the continent sold wholesale to the retailers or do they buy direct?

When I bought mine, it was supplied to the German dealer direct from the factory configured to my specification, which took a few days only.

[RobF]

When I bought mine, it was supplied to the German dealer direct from the factory configured to my specification, which took a few days only.

That would be my experience as well. I know I've also purchased direct at trade price from a German manufacturer. However I'm not aware if this is a special circumstance and perhaps a distributor still takes a rake in between despite there being no physical interruption.

If manufacturers are allowing distributors to sew up exclusive territories but also deal direct in others, without price matching, then it's the distributors and manufacturers that need to sort that out. I can understand why they do it, as distribution deals tend to guarantee a certain amount of purchases to retain exclusivity... which maintains a stream of income for the manufacturer. However if someone is in the middle, and they aren't elsewhere, then it's going to cause issues.

[banksy!]

OK, here's the 'real world' for you, courtesy of the Home Office. I'm sure you'll have already seen this, but in case you haven't, it comes from a posted reply to an FOI request about the meeting between GTA and the HO.

'The attendees at the meeting were from the Home Office, Law Commission and the GTA. The meeting was a standard GTA demonstration to familiarise attendees with a wide range of firearm types and how the law applied to them. There was no discussion about any other subject, so it was not necessary to take any minutes.'

So, a standard meeting about a wide range of firearms, with no discussion of any other subject. That's it. Direct from the Home Office. No lobbying to ban anything and no campaign to restrict trade. Now, either admit that you were wrong about that meeting, or tell me why you don't accept that this is what happened.

Lets assume that what you say is correct; that there was a "standard GTA demonstration" of weapons and the law.

A couple of things strike me as really odd, and I wonder if they seem at all strange to you too?

First, it seems odd to me that the GTA would be 'familiarising' the Home Office about the law. You say that the GTA were seeking advice from the Home Office and nothing more. Yet the Home Office version is different.

Secondly, does it not seem strange that following a simple "demonstration" that the Home Office would suddenly find it necessary to brief the press about a thread on the BBS? I mean, this isn't normal is it?

[Terry D]

Not necessary to take minutes when a 1997 guideline from the Home Office has been summarily and perfunctorily over ruled for rifles and is probably going to be ignored for pistols?

Please take it up with the Home Office, Moley. Contrary to belief in certain quarters, I didn't have any involvement in this process, therefore I'm not the person to ask.

Getting back to the main thrust of the thread though, are weapons on the continent sold wholesale to the retailers or do they buy direct?

Not a clue. Maybe you should ask those retailers. Not the most helpful answer, but completely honest.

[Terry D]

Lets assume that what you say is correct; that there was a "standard GTA demonstration" of weapons and the law.

I'm not saying that - the Home Office has.

A couple of things strike me as really odd, and I wonder if they seem at all strange to you too?

First, it seems odd to me that the GTA would be 'familiarising' the Home Office about the law. You say that the GTA were seeking advice from the Home Office and nothing more. Yet the Home Office version is different.
Secondly, does it not seem strange that following a simple "demonstration" that the Home Office would suddenly find it necessary to brief the press about a thread on the BBS? I mean, this isn't normal is it?

The GTA sought clarification on SA, that much I know. How that process works, I haven't a clue. That HO statement, confirmed that a meeting had taken place and that nothing other than how the law applies to a wide range of firearms was discussed. It didn't read to me as though GTA were familiarising the HO about the law, but that ALL attendees were discussing how the law is applied to the examples involved.

As for the HO briefing the press, I was grateful for it, although I didn't request it. Perhaps the FOI requests prompted Adam Lassman's email? Maybe he was directed to the thread and wished to clear up confusion? As ever, he's the person to ask.

[banksy!]

The GTA sought clarification on SA, that much I know. How that process works, I haven't a clue. That HO statement, confirmed that a meeting had taken place and that nothing other than how the law applies to a wide range of firearms was discussed. It didn't read to me as though GTA were familiarising the HO about the law, but that ALL attendees were discussing how the law is applied to the examples involved.

No, that's not what Mr Lassman said. The meeting has been described separately as "a demonstration" and "a lecture" by the GTA, not that all parties were discussing the law. That part you either made up, or you know more than you say.

As for the HO briefing the press, I was grateful for it, although I didn't request it. Perhaps the FOI requests prompted Adam Lassman's email? Maybe he was directed to the thread and wished to clear up confusion? As ever, he's the person to ask.

Yes, and as I said before, if you are sincerely concerned about giving your readers the facts, I would have thought you would have asked for clarification about an 'out of the blue' email that is vague and not consistent with current published Home Office guidance.