Originally Posted by Shaun
Please don't shoot the messenger.
from the definition of kneeling:
The leading hand will support the gun and, forward of the wrist should itself be unsupported
I think the opposition is because the sling could support the wrist.
The proposal has been raised many times by the FFTA and this is the first time it was supported.
Hi Shaun, Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet
That would make more sense; that it came about in an organic way from a conversation over kneelers and the definition thereof. However in the agenda & minutes it is it's own separate proposal and point(?) and so does not seem to be part of a wider debate. Also, assuming that were correct, you would imagine the ban would be confined to kneelers, whereas infact the proposal quotes "any type of shot".
Whats more, if the idea is that the gun should not be supported in front of the hand, then could this not mean that a sling could be mounted behind the hand and still used?
I think it needs to be redrafted and made clear - if it's part of a definition of the kneeling position, then it should be included in that proposal & only as part of that proposal and the proposal should be voted on as one matter. Or the FFTA or whoever else wants to should raise it as a separate, stand-alone proposal ie. a ban on the use of slings or other restraints for anything other than carrying the rifle. This would also clear the way for an open debate on the issue, without it being clouded by a wider argument.
As it is it looks like a total ban on slings has been sneaked in under the radar by using the more open, kneeling definition debate as a cover to help hide & obfuscate the real intention. Afterall, did most grass-roots shooters voicing their opinions to their regional reps on the kneeling issue really intend to ban the use of slings outright? - I would not have thought so.