Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post
One is enough though . The other incident at the Full Metal Jacket Range with bullets flying over the heads of truckers may have been the straw that broke the camels back.

It only takes one incident to get the ball rolling sadly.
Unfortunately there have also been a number of other cases over the years involving individuals who have been deemed unsuitable to possess firearms; some having had their certificates revoked; who have (mis)used S11(4) to acquire or reacquire them. These cases have attracted little media interest as they are usually thought of as too “technical” by the press and action was taken by the licensing authorities before any serious criminality occurred. Indeed some have gone unreported altogether. The cases have usually resulted in suspended sentences sufficient to invoke the provisions of S21 and thus making it unlikely that the individual will ever be granted a S1 certificate again.

I accept that reform of S11(4) is necessary and for a properly constituted and managed rifle club still employing it there should be no substantial difficulty in becoming a Home Office approved club. Those who it will impact most are the outlier groups such as Scouts who would have practical difficulties in complying with the HO criteria. Cadet units wishing to acquire rifles to augment the MoD issued equipment, or purchase better quality ammunition, will also be disadvantaged. A one size solution will definitely not fit all.

The question in the consultation that I find most interesting is this one:

Q12. To what extent do you agree that self-loading .22 rimfire rifles should not be considered miniature rifles for the purposes of the provision?
In other words, should Pay to Play Miniature Rifle Ranges be permitted to offer the public “look alike” military weapons? There are many potential ramifications in that question.

Rutty