I had the following reply from Caroline Flint MP at the HO via my MP, Alistair Carmichael. It had all the usual waffle about 'balance', that the government had no objection to the lawful use of firearms etc. In case it might be of use to anyone here, this was my response:
Dear Alistair
Thank you for passing on the response from the Home Office regarding the Firearms Consultation Document.
The Home Office have always argued that a balance has to be struck between the safety of the public at large and the legitimate activities of gun owners and shooters. This argument transcends party lines. Indeed I have a letter from the Rt. Hon. Douglas Hogg MP from 1987 that uses almost the same wording as Rt. Hon. Ms. Flint used in her letter. No one in their right mind would object to a balance being struck – indeed the need for such a balance was acknowledged by Blackstone in his Commentaries, over 200 years ago. The problem is that the balance struck is not a constant but a variable that (with very minor reverses) has moved inexorably in one direction for the last 100 years. It is high time that this subject was looked at dispassionately and logically, and this Consultation Document could have provided such an opportunity. Instead, the Home Office, under the auspices of the present government, has simply used it as an excuse to continue their ‘salami-slicing’ approach.
The Rt. Hon. Ms. Flint specifically states that she can assure me that the document ‘contains no specific proposals for further restrictions on lawful shooting’. I have read the document and Ms. Flint appears to be pushing the boundaries of semantics to new limits. Some excerpts from the document are as follows:
Page 3:
We are looking for your suggestions, your comments and your ideas as to whether further
legislation is required and what form it should take. We have asked specific questions but we
want an open debate and welcome your thoughts.
Note that the Rt. Hon. Mr. Blunkett makes is clear they do not want suggestions to the effect that less legislation is required. We will address how some of the ‘specific questions’ are posed below.
Page 6:
We are particularly interested in views on whether any other types of firearms should be moved into the prohibited category. For example, large caliber
“materiel destruction” rifles, long-barrelled revolvers or ones with wrist braces or similar
extensions, long-barrelled pump action shot guns, self-loading shot guns or self-loading .22 rimfire rifles.
It is hard to interpret the above paragraph in any other way than that the Home Office is seeking a ban on those specific categories of firearms. If this were truly an attempt at ‘balance’ it would (at the very least) also give a list of firearms already prohibited and ask whether they should be moved to a lower category of licensing.
Page 7:
What might “good reason” for holding a shot gun consist of and would it need to be different to that for guns presently held on a firearms certificate? Should there be minimum
requirements for levels of use as there are for guns held on firearms certificates or would this be too difficult to evidence? Should the onus be placed on those applying to hold a gun to show that they have “good reason” for doing so rather than, as currently, being placed on the police to show that they do not?
This paragraph leads the reader toward imposing a ‘good reason’ requirement on shotguns. A balanced document would have questioned the existing ‘good reason’ requirement on rifles and other S.1 firearms, perhaps asking whether those controls have actually achieved anything.
Page 8:
Mandatory training/testing.
It has been suggested that applicants for certificates should undergo mandatory training and/or testing in the use of firearms. Most target shooters have to undergo a probationary period of at least three months (and satisfactorily complete a course in the safe handling and use of firearms) when joining clubs but there are no comparable requirements for those who have guns for other purposes, such as deer-stalking or vermin control. If this were changed, what level of training or testing would be required, who should provide it and who should pay for it?
‘It has been suggested’ by whom? It is not stated that countries with such testing (for instance France) have much worse accident rates than the UK. The vast majority of road accidents involve drivers that have undergone training and past tests. Conversely, no test is required to drive a vehicle on private land. No thought is given to how such a scheme could work in remote areas (or to any other conceivable problem such a scheme could generate).
Page 18:
Exemptions for borrowing firearms on private premises.
Exemptions exist to allow individuals, without holding certificates, to borrow shot guns or rifles from occupiers of private premises and use them on those premises in their presence (or also in the case of rifles in the presence of the occupier’s servant). Different age limits apply to the exemption for guns held on shot gun certificates and rifles (shot guns can be borrowed by somebody of any age, under 17s cannot borrow rifles). Again, we would be interested in whether there is value in maintaining these exemptions. If you believe there is, we would welcome views on whether there should be any difference between provisions relating to guns held on shot gun certificates and rifles, whether it would be helpful to define in law the terms “to borrow”, “occupier” and “in the presence of ” (and, if so, how) and whether people who have had certificates refused or revoked should be able to take advantage of these exemptions?
The Home Secretary wishes to know if there is any ‘value’ in preserving individual liberties used by thousands of shooters every year, generating huge revenue in deer-stalking using ‘estate-rifles’, and offering, in many cases, the only practical way of gaining experience prior to applying for a certificate. None of the above is stated although it is hinted that those who have had certificates revoked (for any reason – not just negligence and/or criminality) can use these provisions as a way of returning to the sport. Again, not exactly evidence of a desire for ‘balance’.
To confirm all of the above, you can access the document here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/c...n_firearms.pdf
As stated above, this is not really a party political issue. Anyone who has participated in shooting for as long as I have will have seen ample evidence that firearms restrictions are part of a long-term Home Office agenda, and that successive governments are used as a tool to implement the mandarins’ wishes, usually in the aftermath of tragedies that do not even involve the items or freedoms they wish to prohibit.
In the current ‘politically correct’ climate, it is fashionable to involve the public as ‘stakeholders’, however nebulous this concept may prove to be in actual practice. However, it is apparently acceptable to lead Joe and Josephine public in a way that would not be permissible in a court of law. If you have made a manifesto commitment not to further restrict shooting sports, what better way is there to get around that pledge than to be able to wave a piece of paper in the air claiming you ‘consulted’ the public and that they demanded change?
That said, it would be strange indeed if the Consultation made no worthwhile suggestions – indeed some of the proposals are (in my humble opinion) actually positive – although I am left with a feeling that they were placed there to placate legitimate fears among the shooting community. I would be very pleased to see all hunters allowed to own sensible numbers of rifles rather than having to ‘prove’ a ‘good reason’ for each one, perhaps to a Police Officer who doesn’t understand difference between a rifle and a shotgun (as has actually happened to me in Orkney). However, I do feel it is necessary to confront what is obviously a heavily biased attempt at putting through additional restrictions in defiance of a manifesto promise. I am most grateful for your assistance in forwarding my objections.
Yours faithfully
Chris Werb.
Reply With Quote