The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

This was posted on NRA Facebook page today. https://www.facebook.com/NRAUK/

Note they write about promoting another ammendnent for MARS / lever release


Urgent - Offensive Weapons Bill Update

Tortuous discussions with the government have not yielded the expected results so it appears we will have to rely upon Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown’s amendment to be presented tomorrow, Wednesday 10th October 2018.

In essence we are proposing additional home security for .50” calibre owners; we are promoting another amendment for MARS / lever release rifles.

Please email your MP asking them to add their name in support of this amendment by contacting Sir Geoffrey’s office in the Commons on 0207 219 1294; his assistants are Matthew and Judith.

Offensive Weapons Bill – Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown’s Amendment:

Prohibition of certain firearms etc: England and Wales and Scotland

Delete clause 30 (ag) of the Bill to remove the ban on rifles over 13,600J muzzle energy and insert the following new clause:

Special security provisions for firearms

(NC ) A chief officer shall grant a certificate for a high energy rifle where the applicant has installed security measures equivalent to Level 3 of the Home Office Security Handbook.

For the purposes of this section “High Energy Firearm” means any rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged.

Prohibition of certain firearms etc: Northern Ireland

Delete clause 31 (ea) of the Bill to remove the ban on rifles over 13,600J muzzle energy and insert:

Special security provisions for firearms

(NC ) A chief officer shall grant a certificate for a high energy rifle where the applicant has installed security measures equivalent to Level 3 of the Home Office Security Handbook.

For the purposes of this section “High Energy Firearm” means any rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged.

To find your MP and their contact details please follow the link below:

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

https://nra.org.uk/offensive-weapons-bill-update/

Thorney wrote:Imo our biggest weakness is that we treat our position as hobbyists (which of course we are), we are doomed.

Only way to represent ourselves is the same way that other unpopular activities do - spend money on providing proper research to back our position and then spend even more money on professional lobbyists to present our case over and over again.

None of the current shooting organisations are willing to do either. Either by choice, lack of budget or both.

It would be interesting to see how much income (in subs) all of our shooting organisations receive in total and how much they spend on lobbying govt. I bet its bugger all.

I agree with the above however when Lincolnshire (and now also Nottinghamshire) so blatantly go against the Home Office Guidelines in regards to medicals and use the words "public safety" as a reason then it will take a lot to change the attitude in the law enforcement/government. At the end of the day that is what we are up against, not so much the attitude in society, most people I have spoken to who are not shooters are indifferent to interested in my hobby. Law enforcement/government on the other hand are not happy about ordinary citizens having guns. For two reasons that I can see, one reason has to do with perceived public votes...the other is that they are playing catch up with criminals and want to be seen to do something in the public eye...easier to take the guns off us than to tackle something they simply do not have the resources to tackle.

christel wrote:

Thorney wrote:Imo our biggest weakness is that we treat our position as hobbyists (which of course we are), we are doomed.

Only way to represent ourselves is the same way that other unpopular activities do - spend money on providing proper research to back our position and then spend even more money on professional lobbyists to present our case over and over again.

None of the current shooting organisations are willing to do either. Either by choice, lack of budget or both.

It would be interesting to see how much income (in subs) all of our shooting organisations receive in total and how much they spend on lobbying govt. I bet its bugger all.

I agree with the above however when Lincolnshire (and now also Nottinghamshire) so blatantly go against the Home Office Guidelines in regards to medicals and use the words "public safety" as a reason then it will take a lot to change the attitude in the law enforcement/government. At the end of the day that is what we are up against, not so much the attitude in society, most people I have spoken to who are not shooters are indifferent to interested in my hobby. Law enforcement/government on the other hand are not happy about ordinary citizens having guns. For two reasons that I can see, one reason has to do with perceived public votes...the other is that they are playing catch up with criminals and want to be seen to do something in the public eye...easier to take the guns off us than to tackle something they simply do not have the resources to tackle.

Actually it has something to do with risk assessment and yes, public image. Whether we like it or not, the public owning firearms is a risk (albeit a small one) but when it goes wrong it goes spectaculary wrong. Dunblane, Hungefrord, Moat etc etc. They all had huge ramifications for licensing and our sport. The criminal use is a sideshow because generally speaking (apart from shotguns to be swan off) we dont own the sort of firearm that the crims want, and they can get them easilly elsewhere.

Some departments take a pragmatic approach and dont bother you unless you bother them. But I agree with Adam regarding inter discipline. I have seen some cases of complete ignorance (one even suggesting .22RF was non lethal) when supporting the above ban, by shooters of all people. I educated them stating why and where .22RFs were used in terrorist and military/clandestine Ops. I by no way tar small bore shooters with the same brush, this was a one off but quite vocal and was swiftly re-educated. One off the safest and most well run shoots I attended was with the FCSA, I hope they keep going. Lever releases also have their place and get my support (even the ones used in CSR...bloody cheats )

Sadly, certainly in competitive shooting, we do have to be seperated by discipline because the methods and courses of fire are so different from each other, so it makes sense, but it can cause a rivalry bordering on childish/tribalism. Some people just attack, either through ignorance, jealousy (because they cant do the other discipline) or because their peers/club sec say it is illegal/immoral/fattening. There are so many falsehoods spouted about my own discipline that in many ways it is laughable, but invariably the perps end up looking foolish when the complain to the range office and get politely told to do one, or as happened at the weekend, get caught photographing the firing point and when questioned it was because someobody had done something that was "Illegal" in the individuals club and he was going to take action. I directed him toward the RCO/CD which happened to be the director of shooting division....Problem solved

I would just echo what Adam is saying regarding sticking together as "Shooters" and while I am an NRA member, I believe all of the national bodies could do more IF they could get the main media outlets to get the message out. Its a sport, end off

christel wrote:
I agree with the above however when Lincolnshire (and now also Nottinghamshire) so blatantly go against the Home Office Guidelines in regards to medicals and use the words "public safety" as a reason then it will take a lot to change the attitude in the law enforcement/government.

This is more to do with ass covering christel. Far better when it goes wrong to turn round at the subsiquent board of enquiry and say...."Well his GP said he was ok, how would we know he was an axe weilding homicidal maniac?".

Its a win/win/win. It slows things down allowing catch up in the department, it covers arses, and potentially it puts people off applying for or renewing their FACs

Its all pants of course because although (Quite rightly) if an applicant has suffered MH problems in the past, then it needs to be considered, however, a clean bill of mental health is only as good as its day of issue (even if they got it right). Dont forget, GPs might do a psychiatric rotation in training, but unless they have specialised then gone into general practice, chances are they are not experts. Not fair on the shooter or the GP IMHO. Mine refused point blank to say that I either was, or was not, fit to hold firearms on this basis adn I can see many more doing it....unless of course we end up paying huge sumns for spcialists consultations and even then......

The other problem with the competitive discipline approach is that the vast majority of FAC holders in the country are not competitive target shooters, the discipline dominance of our "national" bodies skews this and consequently they are only of relevance to a minority of FAC holders.

Their failure to recognise and the reflect the fact that most shooters and gun owners are non competitive or even see their guns and shooting in the form of "disciplines" means that the there is no organisation that represents, understands and is in contact with the vast majority of gun owners, they are unrepresentative and missing the key nature of shooting and gun ownership in this country. They reflect only some niche parts of the gun owning community.

Talking about and defining legal UK gun ownership through discipline focussed, competitive shooting excludes the majority of gun owners from knowing about and participating in challenging the current wave of institutional anti gun initiatives.

Whats the policy for issue of an FAC to a HO Approved club? the holder is not an individual with individual rights to the firearms but is representing the needs & interests of the HO approved club?

Also if one has an FAC in place what is the policy for medical refs for a club FAC on top!? I have 3x FAC's !

dromia wrote:The other problem with the competitive discipline approach is that the vast majority of FAC holders in the country are not competitive target shooters, the discipline dominance of our "national" bodies skews this and consequently they are only of relevance to a minority of FAC holders.

Their failure to recognise and the reflect the fact that most shooters and gun owners are non competitive or even see their guns and shooting in the form of "disciplines" means that the there is no organisation that represents, understands and is in contact with the vast majority of gun owners, they are unrepresentative and missing the key nature of shooting and gun ownership in this country. They reflect only some niche parts of the gun owning community.

Talking about and defining legal UK gun ownership through discipline focussed, competitive shooting excludes the majority of gun owners from knowing about and participating in challenging the current wave of institutional anti gun initiatives.

Fair comment, take it up with the bodies then I see that, but each one will have some sort of represantative body such as BASC or the NRA etc, so they need to engage. To be fair, I expect that the various bodies prefer disciplines because it makes life easier, although you have to declare a primary discipline on your membership. Maybe stand for the general council and represent general shooters They will only get representation IF someone makes enough noise and represents them.

You do not have to compete to be part of a club that practices a specific discipline in any event, but it will help you with a clear reason to hold.

"Fair comment, take it up with the bodies then I see that, but each one will have some sort of represantative body such as BASC or the NRA etc, so they need to engage. To be fair, I expect that the various bodies prefer disciplines because it makes life easier, although you have to declare a primary discipline on your membership. Maybe stand for the general council and represent general shooters They will only get representation IF someone makes enough noise and represents them."

This unfortunately doesn't work, I have been doing so for decades, "making noise"and all that happens when you challenge these organisations is you are damned as anti them. Nothing changes for the better, even just looking back on the short life of this forum will show that despite the promises of change and improvement nationally it still hasn't been delivered.

Standing for council would be a no no as obviously the gun owning constituency you would seek to represent aren't members so there would be no support, the "national" organisations need to recognise how they massively under represent shooters and take steps to address that.

Also there is the practical issue of the location of these bodies as to finding people willing to stand who are also willing to travel and stay over.

Engage is easy to say but there are real barriers to it just by the nature of the organisations.

Maggot wrote:
You do not have to compete to be part of a club that practices a specific discipline in any event, but it will help you with a clear reason to hold.

This. Its a clear and easy way for the public to understand/us to 'justify' owning guns. The fact is, (IMO) as soon as self-defence was no longer considered a good reason for owning guns we've been fighting a losing battle.

There are three main reasons governments around the world recognise (or not) to own a gun; self-defence, food provision/protection and sport. And the weight each carries when risk assessing the public being in possession of guns is vastly different and I've listed them in weight order, which is not linear/proportionate.

The 'risk' is the gun is misused and people are either seriously injured or killed. With self-defence, the benefit is someone may save their or others lives. With food provision/protection the benefit is pretty self-explanitory but some people would say that does not balance against the risk (and without opening a can of worms, farming has pretty much utterly supersceded hunter-gatherering, but obviously pest control plays a part in farming). With sport/target shooting you're basically trying to balance possible loss of life against a recreational activity. Recognised competitive recreational activity carries more weight in the eyes of most of the public and certainly with TPTB than simple ownership 'rights'.

I disagree, recreational shooting does not have to be competitive, it is target shooting.

My FAC reflects that as there is no mention of competitive target shooting on it anywhere, just target shooting, shooting for testing, demonstration and research purposes and live quarry shooting.

I suspect that the great unwashed British public don't differentiate 'tween target shooting and competitive target shooting when it comes to legal gun ownership, the reason for owning guns is trumped by the current popular view that all guns are bad and evil and need to be done away with so they can have a greater illusion of safety.

Reasoned argument and fact/evidence based policy making is not how the legislative process in the UK works, just look at the current issue and the meaningless impositions firearms certification departments are inflicting on legal firearms owners.

Policy is made by the baying of the mob.