From: "SA Mail", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPORTSMAN'S ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON THE GOVERNMENT'S
REPLY TO THE HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT INTO
CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS
Comments prepared on 9th. October, 2000
We received the Government's reply to the HASC on
Wednesday, 4th. October and our first step was to place
the Home Office News Release onto our website and to
broadcast it via our Fax and e: mail networks. In this
way we hoped to ensure that as many shooters as possible
could get speedy access to the long-awaited information.
Our detail comments on the individual recommendations
contained in the HASC Report, as sent to the HASC by us,
are also on our website. These comments were made on the
25th. May, 2000, i.e. shortly after the HASC Report was
first issued to the public. The Government have not
adopted all the recommendations of that HASC but our
comments remain, in our view, valid.
Let us take a broader view of what the Government are
now proposing:
Firstly, we must recognise that the proposals are very
skillfully worded. To anyone unfamiliar with the way in
which our police forces operate to achieve results beyond
those apparently intended by, let us loosely say, Parliament,
the Government proposals seem eminently reasonable. Who
could possibly object to the requirement for anyone who
wishes to possess a shotgun having to demonstrate that he
has 'good reason' for wanting it? Surely that is just
common sense, isn't it? Shooters, of course, know better
as it is by interpreting 'good reason' that the police
have been able to cause Section 1 firearm owners so much
grief and hassle. 'Good Reason' to possess a Section 1
firearm for, say, target shooting used to be just that.
Now it includes 'membership of a Home Office Approved
Club with access to suitable Ranges with a valid Range
Safety Certificate for the type of firearms to be used'
and also the ability to be able to demonstrate that one
has 'attended a range to shoot at least 12 times a year'
and 'has used each firearm at least six times in that
period'. Where, in the present law relating to firearms
does it require us to comply with all that? To the
uninitiated, even these requirements do not seem
particularly arduous or unreasonable but imagine the
situation if the shooter owns, say, five or six firearms
- which he could quite easily do if he has a general
interest in a variety of the shooting sports. He is then
faced with quite a significant task unless he just fires
a few shots out of each gun each time he visits the range
just to comply with this latest 'requirement'. From a
public safety point of view, there is no benefit to this
requirement. Indeed, one could argue quite the reverse,
as more firearms would be transported to and from the
ranges than would normally be the case - just to be
fired to comply with a useless criterion rather than
for any good reason. (The point that Lord Cullen was
addressing in his report was to get the police to
identify those shooters who showed no real interest in
the sport but who just 'wanted to own firearms' and who
may be potential Hamiltons in their own right. The police
have discovered a way to make life harder for the
legitimate shooter, and, perhaps as a byproduct, to
'reduce to a minimum the number of firearms in private
hands' without having any impact on the criminals. Our
view is that a person is either a fit person to possess
firearms or he is not. There are no half measures on
this. If a person is fit to possess firearms, it doesn't
matter how many he has or how often he uses them. If he
is not a fit person, he shouldn't have any at all.)
The Firearms Acts give Chief Officers of Police
discretion to decide for themselves what constitutes
'good reason' and also who may be classified as 'fit
persons' to possess firearms and ammunition, and they
do just that - adopting, from time to time, the
recommendations of ACPO to 'help them' in their
interpretation of the 'law.'
We consider that, if the Government imposes the
requirement for 'good reason' on Section 2 guns, the
initial interpretation of what constitutes good reason
will be eminently sensible and should cause no problems
for the majority of shotgun owners. That situation will
not last very long, however, in our opinion, if the
history of Section 1 controls is anything to go by.
The Government give pre-eminence to the concept of
'maintenance of public safety' as their principal
purpose behind firearms legislation. We do not argue
with that concept but would demand that they demonstrate
just how their current proposals are supposed to make
any contribution to public safety. (One of the
contributors to our website Bulletin Board made just
this comment and, in our view, he is absolutely right.)
So far as we can see, these new proposals will impact
solely upon the already law-abiding and will leave the
criminal unaffected. The only good point to come out
of the new proposals in this regard is the intended
investigation into the provenance of criminal firearms.
i.e. where do they get them from? We believe we already
know some of the answers to that question and it
certainly isn't from the law-abiding shooter (theft
notwithstanding). We look forward to the results of
this proposed research - it is long overdue.
We were pleased to see that the Government, for the
time being at least, recognises that it would impose
a huge and unnecessary burden on the police if they
were to adopt some form of licensing process for those
air guns that are currently outwith the licensing
system. There is still some cause for concern though
in their notion of re-considering the power level at
which a firearm could be considered to be 'lethal' -
this includes all air guns, of course.
We are concerned to note also that the Government is
considering regulating the sale of non-licensed air
guns and may impose a requirement that such sales
could only be made by Registered Firearms Dealers. This
would have a devastating effect on trade in air guns
and would also have the 'knock on' effect of reducing
newcomers to our sport.
We note that the Government has no intention, at this
time, of placing the licensing of firearms in the hands
of a Civilian Licensing Board of any description but is
determined to leave this work in the hands of the police.
They say that this is one of the recommendations made by
Lord Cullen. One can accept that the police must have an
intelligence input into determining whether or not a
person is a fit person to be entrusted with firearms but
they have not demonstrated that they have the resources
to carry out the licensing work efficiently. (Current
long delays in processing of applications for renewal
of Firearm Certificates etc. are ample evidence of this.)
The Government accepts the recommendation that 'clear
Home Office Guidance to the Police on the operation of
the Firearms Acts should be regularly updated and
promulgated to all forces, and that chief constables
should make it a priority to ensure that the guidance
is consistently followed.'
If only that were so! One of the problems we face in
trying to defend our sport is the lack of such consistency
in the application, by the police, of the 'law'.
One of the slightly sinister aspects of the Firearms
(Amendment) Acts, 1997 was the proposal to introduce a
computerised National Database recording details of all
persons who possessed Firearm or Shotgun Certificates
and also of all those who had even made an application
for a certificate - whatever the outcome of that
application. i.e. a 'register of interests' was being
set up. One should note that there is no suggestion in
the Act that the records should include any details of
the firearms possessed by the Certificate holders or
applicants, just the personal details of those people.
For a variety of reasons, the police have not yet been
able to set up such a computerised database. The
Government are now proposing to extend the register to
include details of firearms held. Why?
There can be only one reason for a Government to want
to know what firearms are held by supposedly trusted
citizens and that is to facilitate the total confiscation
of those firearms when the Government decides it is in
its interests so to do. In our view, the only firearms a
Government should be concerned about are the illegal
ones as those are the only ones that represent any
threat to public safety. (Remember, although both
Hamilton and Ryan had been granted Firearm Certificates
by their respective police forces, they should not have
been. From Lord Cullen's Report we know that, in the
case of Hamilton, the police failed to apply the then
existing law properly. We do not have the benefit of a
Public Inquiry in the case of Ryan and can only base
our comments upon newspaper information made available
at the time - 1987. Those comments gave ample indication
of Ryan's unsuitability to possess firearms and yet he
had been granted a Firearm Certificate. The question
must be asked. Why was this so?)
The HASC have recommended proposals to revise the minimum
age at which a person may purchase and own firearms to 18.
The Government apparently believes that 'the purchase and
unfettered ownership of firearms is broadly an adult
responsibility, and we believe that the age for such
responsibility should be at least 17, as at present.' They
have also undertaken to 'explore further and possibly
extend the provisions that would allow young people to use
a borrowed gun under adult supervision if the minimum age
is increased to 18 as recommended.' This could be a good
thing but we shall have to wait and see what happens here.
The HASC recommendations bear some similarity to the
European Directive on Firearms in this area and our
Continental colleagues do not appear to have many
problems with it - certainly, there are no problems for
youngsters shooting in French clubs.
We must now consider whether or not we, as taxpayers, have
received value for money from the HASC Report. How do we
judge this?
If we base our assessment on the probable benefit to
public safety of the proposals, then we can come to only
one conclusion - the whole affair has been an enormous
waste of time and money. If, for example, we assume that
there are upwards of two million shotguns legitimately
owned in this country under existing Section 2 conditions
then one fact leaps out at us all: We do not have any
problems with shotgun controls. If only a tiny proportion
of the legitimate guns were misused, we would be
experiencing mayhem on a wide scale. Such mayhem does not
happen. Why not? Because most legitimate shooters, be
they rifle or pistol or shotgun shooters, have no wish to
act in an irresponsible manner. We are largely
self-regulating and do so effectively. i.e. legitimate
shooters can be trusted and do not represent any threat
to public safety.
We conclude, therefore, that the Government have wasted
a good opportunity to re-examine the whole basis of
Firearms Law in this country. If the HASC had been
allowed to examine that legislation dispassionately and
to consult widely with the users of firearms we could,
perhaps, have come up with proposals that could have
made a genuine contribution to public safety and at the
same time reduced the present bureaucratic system to
something more efficient and effective.
http://www.sportsmans-association.org
--
The scariest bit in the command paper is the last
paragraph, a "wholly new Firearms Act" which will
allow them to address "other issues" as well.
I personally think the whole thing about "good reason"
to get an SGC is simply bureaucratic nitpicking, because
an SGC can be refused if the Chief Officer of Police
is convinced that the applicant has no good reason.
I can't see how reversing this will make much
difference. Certainly a licensing officer at the
moment will ask what the applicant wants a shotgun
for, I would be surprised if one would be granted
without at least an explanation as to why it is
wanted.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
