Law Commission recommends total overhaul of firearms laws

[IsleShoot]

You are all worrying far to much, its a CONSULTATION on the SCOPE of a review.

What 'e sed.

Let's take our time, we've got until September. I'm more worried that everyone's now going to spam the Law Commission and drown out the serious responses from the licensed firearms community.

I couldn't agree more. Don't panic and go off half cock and please proof read any emails/letters you do send to the Law Commission...

As I said before, I feel this is as much an opportunity as a threat. As a community we've all bemoaned the quality of the legislation and we all have our own individual ideas of how it could be improved, the one constant has always been that the '68 Act and its Amendments are tripe.

My plan is to write in the first instance to my discipline rep at the NRA to find out what input the NRA has had to date, I'll do the same to the Chairman and BSSC rep of the UKPSA and to the Sportsman Association. All these groups will have had some input already most likely through their positions on the BSSC hence why they weren't named in the report.

In addition I'm going to write to my MP to make him aware of the consultation and to let him know my concerns but also the opportunity this possible reform presents. Remember ultimately your MP will vote on any new bill/law that goes before Parliament, so the earlier we include them the better. Your MP may be an Anti now but helping them understand the difference between criminals and us can and only will, be done by us.

In the meantime its a case of read & digest the consultation document selecting out any parts I take issue with or indeed feel are positive and there are some. Formulate responses to the specific questions that the LC have asked and finally try and promote the idea that it is the individual that should be licensed and not the firearm. Calibre, rate of fire and capability for concealment etc etc... are irrelevant.

[Dougan]

Blackstuff: From the comments on Gaz's link to the questions.

Must have been that yardley fellow or that n francis that used to frequent here.

I don't think it's fair to keep having a pop at Neil Francis; especially grouping him in with Yardley...

...you may not agree with his opinions, but unlike Yardley, he does not, and never has, gone out of his way to put down any form of shooting...on this forum he was asked his opinion; then when he gave an honest one, was totally slated...it was rude and embarrassing...

...what he does go out of his way to do is promote Gallery Rifle shooting; which he's very good at.

[dromia]

Francis was prepared to shaft other gun owners for his own interest (if you aren't shooting competitively you shouldn't have guns) sounds just like yardley to me.

Also someone with francis's bigoted view on firearms ownership having a position in a discipline and the NRA make him even more dangerous and divisive than yardley.

[Sim G]

Blackstuff: From the comments on Gaz's link to the questions.

Must have been that yardley fellow or that n francis that used to frequent here.

I don't think it's fair to keep having a pop at Neil Francis; especially grouping him in with Yardley...

...you may not agree with his opinions, but unlike Yardley, he does not, and never has, gone out of his way to put down any form of shooting...on this forum he was asked his opinion; then when he gave an honest one, was totally slated...it was rude and embarrassing...

...what he does go out of his way to do is promote Gallery Rifle shooting; which he's very good at.

Francis is exactly of the same ilk as Yardley. He chose to berate and ridicule any other aspect of legal gun ownership that didn't conform to his very strict parameters. He's the same blowhard he was during the pistol days. He never learned from that. He's not on this forum anymore as he didn't like the challenges which were too close to home. His ego took a battering when his "Jesus Syndrome" from GR didn't cross over to other gun owners and shooters...

I sincerely hope he has no input at all with the Law Conmissions action.

[Sim G]

Back on topic.

Does anyone remember the Home Affairs Committee consultation on firearms law? This consultation, with only 4000 replies, turned out to be the largest response, by a huge margin, of any consultation ever undertaken. Result? It was shelved.

What to do with this consultation needs to be very much the same. Pick say three of the proposals and write a comprehensive, but concise response to them, then send it. If you want, choose another couple and do the same. Offer alternatives to the proposals, but don't look to make a long shot. Whatever you do, don't ramble! You'll not come across well.

This thread has reached 12 pages in short order. Some have had plenty to say. Don't contribute again to the thread till you've at least responded to the conmission with the same amount of words as you've already typed preaching to the converted....

And really, you need to be pragmatic about this. Stuff is going to change and it's going to change during this parliament, I reckon. But this is an opportunity non the less. the last piece of major firearms legislation has been on statute books for nearly 50 years. The next piece could be for 50 more...

[DaveFirearmsUK]

I'm working on my response just now(personal one) our secretary is preparing a response for our organisation.

I am also going to try and prepare a template with all the proposals and consultation questions so that people get the gist only need to fill in their answers.

Hopefully that will increase the numbers. Ill post here and on our webpage/facebook when it is prepared.

[Sixshot6]

I'm working on my response just now(personal one) our secretary is preparing a response for our organisation.

I am also going to try and prepare a template with all the proposals and consultation questions so that people get the gist only need to fill in their answers.

Hopefully that will increase the numbers. Ill post here and on our webpage/facebook when it is prepared.

Can you tell me when you do it? I might want to have a go sending in. I want to make my thoughts clear on how there is no such thing as a dangerous firearm in the context I believe they are trying to make out (none is more dangerous than the other, it is just misuse to me). But I gather your template will allow guidance on how best to articulate those thoughts?

[A.J.P.]

Would stocks be included in that definition I wonder?

This is something that also concerns me, and which I intend to query in my response. I noted in the provisional proposal (Section 3.54, Page 29), that the FCC’s modified list of component parts should be enshrined in law. Section 2 of which states:

"the frame, body or receivers upper and lower where present in the complete firearm"

I would like clarity on what exactly is a "body", and what constitutes an upper/lower receiver. As zanes notes: would a stock and/or chassis system fall under the definition of body?

There are multiple approaches detailed in the report which relate to the classification of component parts, the current Home Office Guide is mentioned and the report details three methods of classification:

(1) Create a list of items that would be deemed to be component parts (Sections 3.29 - 3.41, Pages 24-26)

(2) “Pressure bearing” part (Sections 3.42 - 3.46, Page 27)

(3) A part without which the thing could not operate as a lethal barrelled weapon (Sections 3.47 - 3.48, Page 28)

It is possible to infer from the wording of the solutions, the reference to Northern Ireland's system (Section 3.36), and the ambiguity of some terminology, that the scope of what are to be considered controlled parts is to be expanded dramatically, and to potentially include: magazines, stocks/chassis systems, furniture and more.

Furthermore, the need to show evidence of appropriate use is mentioned in several instances:

3.39 Those items not on the list, so-called “sub-components”, would not be deemed to be firearms for the purposes of the legislation. Their acquisition could, however, be made contingent upon the production of a firearm certificate, if this were deemed to be appropriate.

3.43 The FCC reiterated that it was not suggesting there be an obligation for “sub-components” to be entered onto a firearm certificate. It was recommended, however, that subcomponents should only be sold upon production of a valid firearm certificate.

The huge scope of this review is clear, and I would urge all members of this forum to respond to the consultation with their arguments and objections at the earliest opportunity. A great number of the community rallied in 2012 when the last large-scale consultation in England was held, and I believe we made or voices heard loud and clear. We need to do so again, with both clarity, and with vigour.

[Racalman]

"We are equally eager to know whether consultees have any examples of unnecessary costs incurred that are attributable to the deficiencies with the current legislative regime."

Here's my proposal then.

It should not be necessary for a fit and proper person to justify the acquisition of each individual firearm prior to purchase. Therefore an FAC should permit the holder to acquire a specified number of firearms of a calibre and action appropriate to their reason for holding. Let's say that number is five for target shooting. They can buy and sell as often as they like to a maximum holding of five, with transactions recorded on the FAC and the licensing authority notified after the event. Only if they want to hold more than the permitted number do they need to apply for a variation.

That would reduce unneccesary costs

[DaveFirearmsUK]

"We are equally eager to know whether consultees have any examples of unnecessary costs incurred that are attributable to the deficiencies with the current legislative regime."

Here's my proposal then.

It should not be necessary for a fit and proper person to justify the acquisition of each individual firearm prior to purchase. Therefore an FAC should permit the holder to acquire a specified number of firearms of a calibre and action appropriate to their reason for holding. Let's say that number is five for target shooting. They can buy and sell as often as they like to a maximum holding of five, with transactions recorded on the FAC and the licensing authority notified after the event. Only if they want to hold more than the permitted number do they need to apply for a variation.

That would reduce unneccesary costs

Great suggestion, Racalman I believe that's how it works in some European countries(Italy is one IIRC)

Better still simply make it like section 2.


Sixshot6- Apologies the template I was referring to would just be their proposals and questions so that people don't need to read through it all. We likely will share our own organisations response too that people may take ideas from.