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

For those not wanting to use Dropbox,

Mr Chris Stevenson

Reference: TRO/0007235/18 11 June 2018


Dear Mr Stevenson

Thank you for your letter of 22 May to Minister Hurd about the Government’s intention to ban certain large calibre rifles. Your letter has been passed to the Firearms Policy Team and I have been asked to reply.

As you are aware, the Government announced plans on 8 April to introduce new legislative measures in an Offensive Weapons Bill as part of a strategy for tackling the recent increases in the levels of serious violence.

A link to the strategy is attached:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... e-strategy.

The case for banning high muzzle energy rifles is based on the risk that that these types of firearms could cause significant loss of life if they were to get into the hands of a terrorist or a person intent on causing a major public shooting. They can shoot over long distances, are powerful enough to cause significant damage and any incident would be uniquely difficult for the police to control.

The information provided by your Association and through the British Shooting Sports Council about the legitimate use of .50 calibre target rifles, the ammunition used and the possibility of putting in place additional safety measures were all carefully considered but the risk remains that they could be stolen from current owners or otherwise acquired by those intent on committing harm. There was a case of one of these firearms being stolen – fortunately it was quickly recovered.

The Government recognises that the vast majority of people in lawful possession of firearms use them responsibly. However, the Government has a clear duty to protect the public which is why it was decided that these particular types of firearm should be more strictly controlled.

I understand that a meeting is currently being planned for 13 April at 4pm with representatives of BASC and the BSSC to discuss how any legislative changes are best defined to avoid any unintended consequences.

The Government will be publishing a summary of the responses to the consultation shortly.

Yours sincerely

M Young
Tackling Crime UnitEmail: Public.Enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

So in civil service terms "thank you for your contribution, it has been most helpful, now feck off!"

Our response to the above letter.

Dear Ms or Mr Young,

Your ref: TRO/0007235/18

Thank you for your response of 11 June 2018 regarding “the Government’s intention to ban certain large calibre rifles”.

I note that you state that “The case for banning high muzzle energy rifles is based on the risk that that these types of firearms could cause significant loss of life if they were to get into the hands of a terrorist or a person intent on causing a major public shooting. They can shoot over long distances, are powerful enough to cause significant damage and any incident would be uniquely difficult for the police to control”.

I would be grateful if you would forward the evidence base underpinning this assertion, its source and what evidence was presented to the Minister (including a copy of any written submissions and verbal communications on this issue).

I should add that I am not seeking solely the source of this assertion but also the detail of the evidence underpinning it.

I should further add that I make this request both as a direct enquiry and as an enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition, can you explain why section 5 security is deemed adequate for those persons dealing in/transporting/demonstrating/test firing of the most dangerous types of firearms and weaponry (such as machine guns, rocket launchers), and yet this level of security is apparently not being considered for holders of .50 calibre bolt action rifles - this would surely be a simple fix to this perceived problem?

Please confirm receipt by return and advise on the timescale in which I can expect a comprehensive response.

Kind regards,

Chris Stevenson

Chairman, FCSA (UK)

www.fcsa.co.uk

Nothing is a 'done deal' yet. It has to be put through Parliament and at that time it could be put through, rejected or put aside for more debate/discussion/consultation.

They have also failed to publish any results of the consultation (yet) and that in itself is open to challenges, legal or otherwise.

Jim DiGriz wrote:

HH1 wrote:The info relates to 50 cal. The gist of it is:

We have carefully considered your proposals and we acknowledge that owners are responsible people ........ However the Government has a clear duty to protect the Public.... so we have decided that these firearms should be more strictly controlled.

This is just one of 3 varients of form letters sent out by the assistants of M.P.s who cannot be bothered to read our members letters, we are recieving quite a lot of these.

That would explain the anomalous reference to the "planned" 13th April BASC and the BSSC meeting.

Thank you for posting the reply Jim DiGriz

One interesting thing is that every MP that has actually read the paperwork has come out in support of us, as there is no evidence of risk.

A.J.P. wrote:

Jim DiGriz wrote:

HH1 wrote:The info relates to 50 cal. The gist of it is:

We have carefully considered your proposals and we acknowledge that owners are responsible people ........ However the Government has a clear duty to protect the Public.... so we have decided that these firearms should be more strictly controlled.

This is just one of 3 varients of form letters sent out by the assistants of M.P.s who cannot be bothered to read our members letters, we are recieving quite a lot of these.

That would explain the anomalous reference to the "planned" 13th April BASC and the BSSC meeting.

This response was to a letter from Chris and is not one of the 3 cut and paste jobs.

The 13th of April was a typo, the meeting was the 13th of June.

Jim DiGriz wrote:One interesting thing is that every MP that has actually read the paperwork has come out in support of us, as there is no evidence of risk.

I've forwarded my MP the FCSA paperwork and I'm meeting with her next week to discuss things face to face.
If anyone has any ideas for snappy bullet points (ie easy to remember) that I could also put to her that would be a great help.
Also any good points not to move MARS rifles to sec 5?

At the recent NABIS conference , ACC for Durham , Dave Orford stated in his opening address ,

"The Home Office had made it clear that there was no oppertunity for new firearms legislation . To keep maters in perspective , only 0.025% of legally owned firearms and shotguns had gone missing in 2017 . A tiny percentage of these was used in crime ."