Law Commission recommends total overhaul of firearms laws

[breacher]

I am sure I recall "barrel" in the lethal definition - that would rule out vehicles and golf balls

[joe]

Just be thankful that labour and the SNP are not in power !

[Blackstuff]

Especially considering the lunatic who appears to be about to take over the Labour asylum

[Blackstuff]

So its Friday and i'm bored and i've actually started to read this and start drafting a response. I'm only a few pages in and i'm already tearing what little hair i have left out.

They seem to define 'lethality' of a projectile as merely being able to pierce a vulnerable part of the body, with the eye being most frequently referred to. Now for me the word 'lethal' suggests 'able and/or likely to induce death'. Having an eye put out is certainly a horrible injury, but in no way 'lethal'. A lethal injury surely has to include full penetration of the eyeball, eye socket and still have enough energy to inflict damage on brian tissue either to sever a major blood vessel or destroy enough brain matter to shut down a vital organ??

The second gem that stands out for me so far is; For example, it is unlawful to possess a single component part of a rifle without a firearm certificate. This would be an offence under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. Additionally, component parts of weapons prohibited under section 5(1)(a),1 5(1)(aba)2 and 5(1A)(a)3 are also prohibited and therefore unlawful to possess without the authority of the Secretary of State.

Ummm, well i have a letter from the Home Office that disputes this..... They have said they consider components of a S5 firearm to be S1 on their own and only S5 once in a complete firearm. This opinion, IMO, is entirely reasonable as say a 12" barrel could potentially be added to the remainder of a gun and be S1 or S5 depending on the length of receiver/body it was attached to....

I think doing this is going to take years off my life......

[Gaz]

So its Friday and i'm bored and i've actually started to read this and start drafting a response. I'm only a few pages in and i'm already tearing what little hair i have left out.

They seem to define 'lethality' of a projectile as merely being able to pierce a vulnerable part of the body, with the eye being most frequently referred to. Now for me the word 'lethal' suggests 'able and/or likely to induce death'. Having an eye put out is certainly a horrible injury, but in no way 'lethal'. A lethal injury surely has to include full penetration of the eyeball, eye socket and still have enough energy to inflict damage on brian tissue either to sever a major blood vessel or destroy enough brain matter to shut down a vital organ??

The second gem that stands out for me so far is; For example, it is unlawful to possess a single component part of a rifle without a firearm certificate. This would be an offence under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. Additionally, component parts of weapons prohibited under section 5(1)(a),1 5(1)(aba)2 and 5(1A)(a)3 are also prohibited and therefore unlawful to possess without the authority of the Secretary of State.

Ummm, well i have a letter from the Home Office that disputes this..... They have said they consider components of a S5 firearm to be S1 on their own and only S5 once in a complete firearm. This opinion, IMO, is entirely reasonable as say a 12" barrel could potentially be added to the remainder of a gun and be S1 or S5 depending on the length of receiver/body it was attached to....

I think doing this is going to take years off my life......

Bear in mind that the consultation as set out was about 60% drafted by the police, who presented themselves as the experts on the law as it stands to the Law Commission. I've spotted other outright falsehoods in there and contacted the LC about them. They themselves (reading between the lines) just refer to the police, who tell them what they think the law ought to be and present that as what it actually says. Because lawyers aren't used to dealing with people who tell them deliberate lies about the law (as opposed to disputes of fact!), this stuff is getting through the net.

Don't despair - we're actually in a very good place, in that the Law Commission is more than willing to listen to us. If we can prove enough of the police case is wrong, we can get some of their dangerously misguided ideas rejected outright. Discovering that NABIS openly lied to the Commission was a highlight, as was finding that the police seemingly ignore parts of the Firearms Act itself because it's more convenient for them.

[DaveFirearmsUK]

Fingers crossed that we (as a community) can have some influence and see some positive changes here. If we can simplify the law without increasing restrictions that is a good thing. If we can actually ease some restrictions even better.

[bradaz11]

The second gem that stands out for me so far is; For example, it is unlawful to possess a single component part of a rifle without a firearm certificate. This would be an offence under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. Additionally, component parts of weapons prohibited under section 5(1)(a),1 5(1)(aba)2 and 5(1A)(a)3 are also prohibited and therefore unlawful to possess without the authority of the Secretary of State.

totally agree on the lethality part. being blinded is not a risk to life.

but on the above, I think (think...) that the bold was amended as the part before says rifle so that is just adding on that it is anything sec1, 2 or 5. So you can't say of a pistol part, "well its not a rifle"

[Chuck]

Maybe we should overhaul the Law Commission and its associates instead .