Support for .22LR Pistol Shooting - 2012

[Powderfinger]

On the whole, my experience is the same as yours, Hemmers. However, I have encountered some foolish attitudes among those involved with the more elite levels of shooting. There does seem to be a view amongst some of them that these temporary s.5 licences are some kind of marvellous victory. You have a PM, btw.

[Rutty]

I am going to play devil's advocate on this one.

I find it unbelieveable that he is taking such an attitude when he must know full well that these S5 permits will expire the moment the last British shot is fired. The war is not even vaguely won, even for the elite squad. They have only secured the most minor of victories.

Getting the '98 Firearms Act amendment struck out is not realistic aim in the short term. Nether is re-instatement of the small calibre pistols amemdment that would have continued to allow their use in this country. To get a number of S5 permits that will allow British shooters to have these firearms available for use over an extended period is achievable. Whilst the government currently says that after the Olympics the situation will revert does not address the question of "So, what is different the day after London 2012?" When the permits are granted, then we can start asking that question at every possible opportunity. The second point to remember is that it is increasingly unlikely that the decision will be taken by the present government.

We got short term S5 for the Manchester CWG, we won the argument over .22 long arms (free pistol by any other name) and we look set to get some long term S5 for London 2012. We get a little more each time and it will be a very long process. Those who campaign for total repeal and refuse to countenance any negotiations for anything less are being unrealistic. To achieve anything you have to play a part in the process.

So, maybe what the coach really meant when he said:

He has no interest in bringing pistols back for all the club shooters in Britain. As far as he is concerned so long as his squad have pistols for the Olympics then he could not give a toss about anyone else.

was that he realises what is achievable and at present it is not worth putting significant effort into trying to get any more.

Rutty
A golf course is the wilful misuse of a perfectly good rifle range.

[Lord Cripton]

but I thought they'd moved the "illegal" firearms events to the Isle of Man where real pistols are still legal, specifically to get around all this. As I said; I may be very wrong.

[south]

Hemmers

You may think me slightly mad but I don't have a big problem with the attitude of the coach. He would be stupid to bite the hand that feeds and it may be a way as Rutty suggests to slowly claw back some of what we have lost.

Where I do have a problem is the rationality of the law itself and how it is being "rationed" out. If it is ok for some to hold .22 pistol, albeit under presumably draconian rules, then why not more??

Why is it limited to the squad shooters only?? How do we get a new squad in the future if we can't use the guns??

Why is it ok now and not the day after the Olympics 2012 when the squad will be thinking of the next major competition??

My problem is that the answers form the government don't stand up to logical scrutiny.

Please tell me of any responses you get

South

[Powderfinger]

So, maybe what the coach really meant when he said:

was that he realises what is achievable and at present it is not worth putting significant effort into trying to get any more.

Unfortunately, the chap I spoke to did not say anything like that at all. There might well be Olympic organisers and coaches who take your optimistic view of a long-term plan to bring target-pistols back. But I have never heard them say that nor read it in print, sadly.

[maximus otter]

...government...logical...

There's your problem, right there.



maximus otter

[Rutty]

Rockphoon,

Unfortunately, the chap I spoke to did not say anything like that at all. There might well be Olympic organisers and coaches who take your optimistic view of a long-term plan to bring target-pistols back. But I have never heard them say that nor read it in print, sadly.

Optimistic?, long term plan?, I merely outlined a possible strategy and that is to exploit situations as they arise. That's what has been going on since the '98 amendment and the shooting organisations seem to have made the best of it so far. If that was not the case there would not be even any possibility of getting the limited S5 permits for the 2012 Olympic squad. What other policies do you have in mind, what else should the shooting organisations do?

To move on to the points south raised:

Where I do have a problem is the rationality of the law itself and how it is being "rationed" out. If it is ok for some to hold .22 pistol, albeit under presumably draconian rules, then why not more??

I agree, but let's get some pistols privately held for sporting use into the country first and then we can raise the issue of fairness.

Why is it limited to the squad shooters only?? How do we get a new squad in the future if we can't use the guns??

It is limited to squad shooters because we have gained the exemption on the basis of possible Olympic participation. If you are not in the squad then you're not in line for selection. You get into the squad by demonstrating your potential with air pistol. That is how all the current members got there, quite a few of them through the Pony Club and Modern Pentathlon, not the traditional shooting route. There aren't many, if any, pre '98 members of the current squad, probably because they do not meet the GBTSF Selection Criteria.

Why is it ok now and not the day after the Olympics 2012 when the squad will be thinking of the next major competition??

Well it's not quite "now". We have all heard that it is imminent but it hasn't happened yet. When it does we need to all start asking the "day after" question at every opportunity. That means putting real and prolonged effort into it, signing petitions and the like just doesn't count. What does count is clubs raising the issue in the local press, writing to your MP, going to see your MP at the constituency surgery and above all being a member of a relevant shooting organisation and supporting their efforts.

So that there is no misunderstanding, I have no connection with GBTSF, I have no connection with the coaching or running of the current GB/England/Welsh/Scottish/Irish Squad., or any other. I am an annual member of the NSRA but play no part in the running of that organisation. I have no "inside knowledge", agenda or "axe to grind". I am just an ordinary shooter and I try to support any realistic efforts to overturn the ban on privately held pistols. I have never owned a cartridge pistol and have no interest in doing so but have been a target rifle shooter most of my life.

Rutty

[Powderfinger]

What other policies do you have in mind, what else should the shooting organisations do?

[I]I would like to see the shooting organisations make it very clear on all their publications and websites that they support the return of pistols and SLRs as they were before 1988. I would like to see the shooting organisations make this clear in all their contact with the media.[/I]

I agree, but let's get some pistols privately held for sporting use into the country first and then we can raise the issue of fairness.

[I]Not necessarily a bad idea.[/I]

It is limited to squad shooters because we have gained the exemption on the basis of possible Olympic participation. If you are not in the squad then you're not in line for selection. You get into the squad by demonstrating your potential with air pistol. That is how all the current members got there, quite a few of them through the Pony Club and Modern Pentathlon, not the traditional shooting route. There aren't many, if any, pre '98 members of the current squad, probably because they do not meet the GBTSF Selection Criteria.

[I]I think you might be incorrect on the subject of qualifying to shoot cartridge pistols under s.5 by demonstrating your potential with the air-pistols. To qualify you have to shoot qualifying shoots with a cartridge pistol in Switzerland. That immediately has the effect of putting off vast numbers of shooters who do not want to spend the amount of time and money that will involve. And that's a dangerous precedent: what if rifle or shotgun ownership was changed to include only an elite squad? Would any shooters consider thatr acceptable?[/I]

What does count is clubs raising the issue in the local press, writing to your MP, going to see your MP at the constituency surgery and above all being a member of a relevant shooting organisation and supporting their efforts.

[I]Yes, all great stuff and I agree with it. I am a member of two large shooting organisations.[/I]
I am just an ordinary shooter and I try to support any realistic efforts to overturn the ban on privately held pistols. I have never owned a cartridge pistol and have no interest in doing so but have been a target rifle shooter most of my life.
Fair enough, Rutty. You are a decent chap but I think you are too kind to British Shooting/GBTSF. Unlike the NSRA/NRA/CPSA/BASC, no-one elects GBTSF but GBTSF go around acting like they represent target-shooters and have some kind of mandate to make decisions on our behalf. GBTSF represent no-one and I have never heard them criticise the pistol ban.

Rutty

I have added a few of my thoughts.

[Hemmers]

Fair enough, Rutty. You are a decent chap but I think you are too kind to British Shooting/GBTSF. Unlike the NSRA/NRA/CPSA/BASC, no-one elects GBTSF but GBTSF go around acting like they represent target-shooters and have some kind of mandate to make decisions on our behalf. GBTSF represent no-one and I have never heard them criticise the pistol ban.

British Shooting (formerly GBTSF - they changed their name a mere 12 months ago) do not "represent" shooters within the UK, nor do they pretend to.
They administer UKSport funding, and run the GB pathway programs. This is because there is a need for a single body for the funding bodies to talk to - they don't want to talk to the CPSA or BICTSF about the Olympic Clay Shooters, NSRA about the Olympic Rifle shooters, NRA about the Commonwealth Fullbore shooters, etc.
They are given the mandate to do this by the CPSA, NSRA, NRA, etc who delegate all things international to them on our behalf. The CPSA, NSRA and NRA deal with National issues.

Plus, the ISSF only want to talk to a single body. From an international standpoint, the governing body for the UK (as far as the ISSF and IOC are concerned) is British Shooting. No, they're not elected by shooters, and they have no members per se - but who else is going to administer UK shooting Quota places, the UK Olympic Squads, etc? Some mis-mash conglomarate of NSRA, NRA, CPSA?
The International bodies will talk to one body per nation and that's it. It's why all the US shooters are branded with USA Shooting - not the NRA. Whilst the NRA does represent all things shooting within the USA, it doesn't govern the Olympic Clay Target disciplines, and so could not be the representative body.
USA Shooting does much the same job as British Shooting (they're just rather better funded).

I agree, that the NRA/NSRA/CPSA could and should make a lot more out of the pistol/SLR ban. However, lay off British Shooting!

I think you might be incorrect on the subject of qualifying to shoot cartridge pistols under s.5 by demonstrating your potential with the air-pistols. To qualify you have to shoot qualifying shoots with a cartridge pistol in Switzerland. That immediately has the effect of putting off vast numbers of shooters who do not want to spend the amount of time and money that will involve. And that's a dangerous precedent: what if rifle or shotgun ownership was changed to include only an elite squad? Would any shooters consider thatr acceptable?

Having proven your mettle with air pistol, and shot in national or even international matches in the air pistol events, then you would get invited to the Alpine Rifle Club (never understood the "rifle" bit) for training and eventually selection to the cartridge pistol team. Usually you would be GB squad already, and then progress to additional cartridge disciplines.
This would be partially funded no doubt by British Shooting and the squad. I do however agree with the fact that vast swathes of people are put off by the fact they cannot practice at home, and of course - it will only be partially funded.

And no, of course we would not consider it acceptable if rifle or shotgun ownership were changed to elite squad only. We don't find the pistol scenario to be acceptable, but there's only so much you can do about it. A lot is being done, although more could be done.
Bear in mind - the elite squad deal for 50 S.5 permits was brokered behind closed doors. Meanwhile nigh on a million people marched on Westminster and hunting with dogs was still banned. The deal was brokered - I might add - by British Shooting, (who you so thoroughly lambasted), and is possibly the biggest single step that has been made yet.

It's all about gaining the trust of key ministers, getting yourself invited to committees and meetings, talking to the people that make the real decisions - that achieves more than any amount of statements on websites, NSRA/NRA/CPSA making a public noise at the front-end as it were.

[Powderfinger]

No, they're not elected by shooters, and they have no members per se - but who else is going to administer UK shooting Quota places, the UK Olympic Squads, etc? Some mis-mash conglomarate of NSRA, NRA, CPSA?

Yes. A new congomerate called NATSS, perhaps?


I agree, that the NRA/NSRA/CPSA could and should make a lot more out of the pistol/SLR ban. However, lay off British Shooting!

I think the NRA and NSRA do a pretty good job politically. I will lay-off British Shooting when I see a statement on their website that current legislation in the UK makes it difficult for British athletes to compete in shooting events at the Olympics. I heard a radio interview by one of their spokesmen on the subject of pistol shooting. He did not criticise the pistol ban. Have a look at their website and see if you can find such a statement. It's not as if British Shooting can't campaign politically: they circulated a petition to get the 2012 events moved to Bisley (not necessarily a good idea, anyway).

Having proven your mettle with air pistol, and shot in national or even international matches in the air pistol events, then you would get invited to the Alpine Rifle Club (never understood the "rifle" bit) for training and eventually selection to the cartridge pistol team. Usually you would be GB squad already, and then progress to additional cartridge disciplines.
This would be partially funded no doubt by British Shooting and the squad. I do however agree with the fact that vast swathes of people are put off by the fact they cannot practice at home, and of course - it will only be partially funded.

Bear in mind - the elite squad deal for 50 S.5 permits was brokered behind closed doors.

[COLOR="red"]And what good will that do for the average shooter in a pistol club? As soon as the 2012 Olympics are over, the permits will be withdrawn, anyway and the government of the time will take the credit for a "successful Olympics".[/COLOR

The deal was brokered - I might add - by British Shooting, (who you so thoroughly lambasted)
And that's why I lambasted them. Who gave them the mandate to start negotiating about who should be allowed to own a pistol in Britain? I do not agree with this 50 permits insult nor do many other shooters. Who made this decision on our behalf without consulting us?

, and is possibly the biggest single step that has been made yet. #
It will entrench the pistol ban not overturn it.

If British Shooting want to negotiate a limited return of pistols then they should have consulted with the people and clubs who have been affected by the pistol ban.