New laws coming?

[Airbrush]

Update on Home Office .50 calibre consultation

At 3pm on the 6th November, the FCSA met with the Home Office officials who are working on the firearms consultation. The meeting lasted for over 2 hours, it seemed very productive and did not appear to be simply a tick box exercise on their part.

The meeting provided the opportunity for us to better understand their concerns, provide an opinion on how realistic such concerns were and how the risks they perceived could be mitigated to fall short of requiring an outright ban on .50 rifles.

We needed to get some clarification on the scope of these proposals, establish exactly where these “public concerns” have originated from (and whether there is any evidence for these concerns), details on how best we can influence the decision making process and ensure that the FCSA is THE organisation that has a direct line of communication with the Home Office when matters relating to our particular shooting discipline need further discussion. We were particularly keen to establish a direct link – rather than rely on any other shooting organisation which, while well intentioned perhaps doesn’t really understand the ballistic detail and competitive aspect of large calibre rifle shooting.

We ended up with a mixed bag of results, some good news, and some worrying news.

Firstly,it appeared that the concerns were primarily related to such rifles falling “into the wrong hands” and the police not being equipped to deal with misuse. They accepted that current FAC holders were not “the wrong hands”. They also broadly accepted that the potential “criminal use” of such rifles was limited and not of great concern. This left the main expressed concern appearing to be the potential for these rifles to be acquired by a terrorist organisation through acquisition of a legally civilian owned rifle and misused.

We discussed potential measures to the risk of a civilian owned .50 calibre rifle falling into the wrong hands, which I’ll go onto shortly. The Home Office staff were keen to advise us to submit detailed recommendations in writing to the consultation.

The bad news is that they are considering EVERYTHING over 10,000ft/lbs. Not just .50cal. Exemptions may be made for historic very large calibre rifles (anti-tank), however it would be up to us to define the exemptions. This is easily done by a manufacture date cut off. As this has now officially opened up to include anything over 10,000 ft/lbs there are a lot more rifles that may subject to prohibition. so watch out .460, .55, 14.5, 20mm – and no doubt several large hunting calibres.

We did point out that there is no ballistic significance of the 10,000 ft/lb figure and that the “material destruction” capability of firearms essentially bore down to the projectile but this appeared to be a figure that was felt to include those firearms that they had concern about. It was then that it appeared that the view of some in the home office was that it is considered that there should just be some limit on the muzzle energy of firearms that civilians could own in the UK. This was presented without any further justification.

Further bad news is that the Vz58 MARS was merely an example of a rapid firing firearm, and any other firearms that are capable of a similar rate of fire will be considered for section 5 categorisation. (See statement ** below).

The good news is that they will indeed consider suggestions that sit in-between an outright ban and ‘do nothing’. Such as Section 5 type security at the rifle storage address, and enhanced security for guns in transit. This was not previously seen as an option available to us. We discussed monitored alarm systems, CCTV, separate safe for the bolt, keeping the bolt separate in a locked box from the rifle when in transit, even potentially storing the firing pin mechanism separately and GPS trackers. Although these measures would be difficult to incorporate into primary legislation they could be incorporated into current FACs conditions. I have also since been advised by an FEO that the Home Office “Guidance on Firearms Licensing” will soon be a legal document referenced from within a revised firearms act. There is the possibility that the above examples of risk mitigating measures could be incorporated into a revised Guidance on Firearms Licensing Law document. This may be a good option all round, as it would eliminate the need to push for any parliamentary debate on the matter.

The Home Office has agreed that we are ‘the’ primary stakeholders when it comes to .50calibre and anything over 10,000ft/lbs, and will be dealing direct with us on any issues relating to these type of firearms. As such we may have to give evidence to a parliamentary select committee.

We explained the issue we have over the term “material destruction”, and talked at length about ammunition types. They have requested ballistic reports to prove that a .50 calibre rifle using section 1 ammunition does not have the same material destructive capabilities as AP or API ammunition.

(Some quick work needed here – help from the membership or anyone with the correct qualifications IS required). It’s crucial that we can submit evidence to support our claim that .50 ball/brass/copper/AMAX will not penetrate steel plate at whatever distance …(100 yards?). They have asked for evidence. This, however, would have to be relevant to the supposed “real world” scenarios the may be worried about.

We were advised that it’s VITAL that we have an
MP, or MPs, on our side, because if they decide to press on with changes to legislation then we will need representation in parliament.They admit that their figures are wrong, both in terms of numbers of rifles, and costs, we need to provide this data!

Now that we are talking about a lot more calibres than just .50 the numbers are going to increase dramatically. We also raised the fact that we spend £36,000 with Landmarc each year, plus numerous B&Bs and restaurants, often in remote rural locations – plus we have dedicated reloading equipment, parts, ammunition and components.

The police service appear to be concerned about being, colloquially speaking “outgunned”. It’s important that we can debunk the myth that a terrorist lugging around a .50/.460 and attempting to shoot targets at long range will be more of a problem for the police to deal with than a bad guy with a smaller calibre such as 300WinMag, or even 308 for that matter.

They admitted that the only people who have raised any concerns with .50 are the police and MPs, although I doubt whether many MPs know what a .50 is.

MP Nick Hurds comments on civilian clubs using AP ammunition are to be withdrawn or corrected, as the HO admits they are incorrect and misleading.

So where do we go from here?

We need to provide solutions, not moans or complaints. They don’t care how outrageous all this is, they will only take note of either possible solutions to reduce the so called risk, or any financial implications of a ban. I will send out some pointers over the next few days, but for those wishing to respond now, think about the risks, and how we can reduce those risks, even if there is no evidence of these risks. If a final decision is made on unsound evidence, then we will look at a Judicial review.

For every risk we need to either debunk the risk using evidential based hard facts, not opinions, or suggest a sensible and robust fix.

You need to speak to your MP, we need MPs on our side – this won’t be easy, firearms are seen as toxic by MPs, even if they agree with us in private that further prohibition is unnecessary and pointless, they will need a lot of convincing to say this publically.

The Home Office seem genuinely keen to work with us, and lines of communication have been opened up. This is the start of a process.

**Statement on lever release/MARS etc:

You ask about the reference to MARS type rifles in the consultation document. Although we specifically mention the VZ 58 this was only by way of an example and we would wish to consider any firearm which employs a Manually Actuated Release System capable of achieving a similar rate of fire. We do need to consider, however, how the MARS system is best defined and whether other operating systems with similar characteristics such as lever release should be included and we would welcome responses on this aspect. Just to be clear, it is certainly not our intention to include self-loading rifles chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges which are already allowed by virtue of section 5 (1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968.

Finally, I would emphasise that we are keen to avoid any unintended consequences and look forward to working closely with you and other interested parties to ensure against this.

Chris Stevenson

Chairman, FCSA (UK)

[joe]

Make it clear to the relevant ministers that they will lose votes out of this ! Majority of shooters would most likely be conservative voters ! Votes is all they care about ! However small

[Blackstuff]

Well there you have it, virtually anything 'high-powered' or centre-fire that can fire rapidly is on the table. Are they even aware that a .50BMG gun can be made to produce less than 10,000ft/lb simply by altering the length of its barrel?!

Time to get writing (again!) peeps!

[A.J.P.]

Well there you have it, virtually anything 'high-powered' or centre-fire that can fire rapidly is on the table. Are they even aware that a .50BMG gun can be made to produce less than 10,000ft/lb simply by altering the length of its barrel?!

Time to get writing (again!) peeps!

Quite right. I've been holding off replying to the consultation and writing letters in the hope of a little more clarity regarding the consultation's scope. I feel that point has arrived; and as such, will be stating my opposition in the clearest possible terms.

[Cad Monkey]

Well there you have it, virtually anything 'high-powered' or centre-fire that can fire rapidly is on the table. Are they even aware that a .50BMG gun can be made to produce less than 10,000ft/lb simply by altering the length of its barrel?!

Time to get writing (again!) peeps!

Quite right. I've been holding off replying to the consultation and writing letters in the hope of a little more clarity regarding the consultation's scope. I feel that point has arrived; and as such, will be stating my opposition in the clearest possible terms.

Why did you need any clarity before responding, was you only concerned about your own situation?

[Cad Monkey]

Firstly I would to personally thank Chris for the time and effort he has taken in this matter and it’s good to see that the FCSA is fighting the cause from all angles not just in relation 50cal rifles.
I think the most obvious thing that stands out for the latest set of notes is that the original financial risk published by the Government is massively undervalued and does not reflect the true cost to the taxpayer if these changes were to be implemented. If the spectrum of rifles which fall within this brief are to expanded to include all firearms producing a muzzle energy in excess 10,000 ft/lb and any full bore ‘rapid’ fire rifle which includes the MARS and ALL SGC lever releases then the original document needs to be revised and republished to that all parties are aware of the true cost to the public.
I fail to understand how the Government can justify these changes when no evidence can be provided to prove that their implementation will lead to a safer country. They are simple focusing their efforts at the wrong sector.

[A.J.P.]

Why did you need any clarity before responding, was you only concerned about your own situation?

Of course not. I would hope that I've made my position on these types of matters quite clear in the past.

the original document needs to be revised and republished to that all parties are aware of the true cost to the public.

This is a perfect example of why I was holding off. I personally felt that I would rather wait and reply once I had a better grasp of the HO's position. I would always have responded to the consultation, and in writing to MPs, stating my opposition in principle, even if "only" .50 cal rifles had been affected.

We're all in this together.

[The Event]

"They don’t care how outrageous all this is, they will only take note of either possible solutions to reduce the so called risk, or any financial implications of a ban."

Sounds like our best approach is to make it appear too expensive. Governments don't like to spend money.

[Rockhopper]

Make it clear to the relevant ministers that they will lose votes out of this ! Majority of shooters would most likely be conservative voters ! Votes is all they care about ! However small

From hanging around various Facebook shooting groups its clear that the vast majority of FAC/SGC holders know nothing about shooting other than the area they themselves are involved in. We had a huge discussion on a shotgun UK group the other day about PSG - several posters flatly refused to believe that something like that went on in the UK....

My point is that the amount of votes lost would be minuscule and thats one of the problems with our sport.

[A.J.P.]

"They don’t care how outrageous all this is, they will only take note of either possible solutions to reduce the so called risk, or any financial implications of a ban."

Sounds like our best approach is to make it appear too expensive. Governments don't like to spend money.

The impact assessment has certainly grossly underestimated the potential cost of prohibition.