Sportsmans associations letter to the home office

[Hunter87]

Emailed to me by the sportsman association.

Dear All,
We are speaking to the Home Office, as a matter of extreme urgency

Mike Wells
General Secretary
Sportsman's Association
Seldens
Bell Lane
Birdham PO20 7HY
01243931517

Draft 1

British Shooting Sports Council:

Proposed changes to the EU Directive on Weapons Control: Brief to the Home Office.

“You cannot stop terrorism by restricting legal gun ownership”

A. This paper does not address the implementation of the new deactivation regulations, although the BSSC is aware that major, and possibly insurmountable, technical problems will arise in the event of a requirement to upgrade some types of current UK specification, already very effective, to the new EU specification.

B. It is our understanding that the meeting of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on 7th December is to introduce to MEPs the proposal that will be voted on in the European Parliament in January, and that the intention within the Commission is to have a revised Directive in place by July 2016.

C. The BSSC is fully supportive of the fight against terrorism, but only where the measures proposed are relevant, cost-effective and practicable.

D. The Council is, however, very concerned that some of the proposed measures may have seriously adverse consequences (in some cases unintended) on the shooting sports and collecting. It is equally concerned that the proposals would have minimal effect on terrorism, and amount to no more than gesture politics. They would use up resources that would be better expended on direct interventions aimed at reducing the pool of stockpiled small arms, sometimes inadequately secured, from which we understand many terrorist arms are sourced. The BSSC would recommend that, rather than concerning itself with measures to license or ban properly deactivated small arms, which are of no interest to terrorists, and to ban or further control some semi-automatic rifles made for hunting, species control and target shooting, the EU should be:

• Encouraging states to apply UN CASA ISACS recommendations to stockpile management, which would greatly reduce pilferage.
• Making aid packages to states contingent upon a programme for destruction of surplus small arms held in government stockpiles.
• Identifying, purchasing and destroying holdings of unwanted or obsolete military small arms.
• Requiring that contracts for the sale of new military small arms incorporate requirements regarding the safe disposal of the small arms being replaced.

E. The BSSC makes the following nine specific points in order of priority, followed by four unprioritised points where additional information would be needed to make a judgement :

1. ‘Proposed ban on (some) semi-automatic rifles. The appearance of a firearm does not make it any more lethal. .22 rim-fire rifles are widely and safely used for ‘Practical’ and ‘Gallery’ rifle courses of fire and for species control, particularly rabbits. As is the case with all rifles, .22 rim-fire semi-automatics are very rarely criminally misused and we see no good case for prohibiting them. Nor is their appearance immutable, since many popular types may be fitted with after-market furniture. BSSC does not support a ban on semi-automatic rifles of military appearance or large magazine capacity. This is our first priority.
2. ‘Collectors’ are not defined in either the Directive or the Regulations. So far as we are aware, no evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that the exclusion of collectors from the Directive has caused any problems, terrorism-related or not. We do not consider it proper to legislate merely on the possibility that collecting might cause a problem. If there is evidence we would wish to see it. Nor do the proposals define a ‘collector’ or specify what is being collected. We assume that antiques, however defined, would not be subjected to licensing and those who collect them would remain uncontrolled. We are unaware of any problems relating to the collecting of firearms subject to authorisation and this should be allowed to continue. The continuing exclusion of collectors from the Directive and the continuing ability to collect firearms subject to authorisation is our second priority.
3. Ban on possession of deactivated fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms placed in Category A by other than authorised museums. This is disproportionate and shows every sign of being a last-minute addition, since so much effort had been put into the new very rigorous regulations. We understand that the two so-called ‘deactivated’ rifles used at the time of the Charlie Hebdo shootings were not true deactivations but simple conversions of functional rifles into acoustic blank firers by placing two steel pins in the bore. That is not deactivation by any normal standard, is certainly insufficient basis for an EU wide ban and the real problem would seem to lie with Slovakian domestic legislation. The figures used at the recent English Law Commission symposium were that an estimated 230,000 firearms had been deactivated in the UK since 1988. Probably half of these are for full- or semi-automatic firearms in the hands of collectors, with no information as to where most of them are now. Would it be a good use of scarce police resources to attempt recovery of these non-functional, non-lethal objects? Deactivated firearms are now not much used in crime and it is very difficult to impossible to reactivate recent specification deactivated arms, so how serious is the problem? Any prohibition emanating from the Directive would trigger claims for substantial compensation, payable by the British Government. Our major museum arms collections will be rightly outraged by the proposals that their collections will have to be deactivated and they will be unable to add Category A firearms to their collections. These guidelines are devastating for the heritage and the EC seems to have taken its cultural cue from the Taliban and the Caliphate! To carry out their role and responsibility to future generations of researchers and the public, museums must be able to acquire ‘live’ small arms, or it will become impossible for researchers to study the technical aspects of firearms after ca.1920 or to display new small arms taken into service by our armed forces. The avoidance of a ban on the possession and acquisition of deactivated firearms is our third priority.
4. Certificates to be of a maximum five years duration. The argument for a ten year certificate and the benefits it can bring to the police has been well worked through, so this proposal should be unacceptable to all sides in Britain. We do understand, however that the duration of a license is a matter for national competence. The extension of maximum duration of certificates to ten years is our fourth priority.
5. Sound moderators. The proposal that sound moderators be controlled as an ‘essential component’ (Article 1 (a) 1b) is retrograde. As in GB, they would be ‘included in the category of the firearms on which they are, or are intended to be mounted.’ Presumably moderators for air weapons will remain uncontrolled, and the grey area of moderators usable on air weapons and .22 rim-fires will remain. The use of sound moderators should be encouraged for health & safety reasons and they should become uncontrolled. Working towards the removal of controls on sound moderators is our fifth priority.
6. Storage standards. There is no indication of to what is being referred here: is it stockpiles or the storage of privately possessed firearms? If the latter we will need to ensure that UK specification gun cabinets meet the criteria set by these standards. We have a good template for standards in the ‘Firearms Securiy Handbook 2005’which has recently been stress tested. We should watch out for attempts to mandate security requirements of doubtful value, such as the mandatory use of trigger locks when travelling (this would obviate the use of a steel cable securing the firearm to the vehicle). Ensuring the maintenance of current British secure storage standards is our sixth priority.
7. 15 day ‘cooling off’ period between purchase and possession, even if the purchaser already has a firearm. This is an obstructionist irritant to the vendor and purchaser (particularly as here the transaction has to be face-to-face) and of no value where licensing regimes are in place for all fireams. ‘Cool off’ from what? Grant of a license takes time in almost every jurisdiction, so instant acquisition of a firearm is not possible, except in those countries which still permit acquisition by declaration. What is the point if the purchaser already has a firearm? BSSC does not support this proposal. Removal of the proposed 15 day ‘cooling off’ period is our seventh priority.
8. Registration of deactivated firearms. Any attempt at registering deactivated firearms, the numbers and locations of which are unknown, is doomed to be at best partial and to consume already scarce firearms licensing resources on logging in an object which in English law is definitively not a firearm and is not lethal. Avoidance of registration of deactivated firearms is our eighth priority.
9. Disguised firearms. Most of these in the UK are Victorian walking stick shotguns. Where is the evidence of misuse of disguised firearms in the late 20th/early 21st centuries in Europe? If the evidence is minimal or non-existent, should disguised firearms be subjected to such rigorous controls? The avoidance of bans or further controls on disguised firearms is our nineth priority.
10. Standard medical test. More information is needed on the EU’s intentions, but we feel this would be better expressed as a ‘standard medical report’. It is our understanding that the content of a ‘standard medical report’ would fall within national competence. Further explanation needed.
11. Records to be kept until the firearm is destroyed. This is probably unworkable (who keeps the record? Everybody in the chain of possession from maker to end user, or just the national licensing authority? What about dealers’ stocks? Who will need to be told of the firearm’s destruction?) and a huge task of doubtful value in cost-benefit terms, since this information is only likely to be sought after something has gone wrong. Will records on old formats remain readable in view of rapidly evolving technology? Further information needed.
12. ‘Agreed approach’ to the classification of hunting and sport firearms. This could be helpful by making EFPs simpler to use. We are concerned, however, that in practice it would be used only to move arms into a more restrictive category. Further information needed.
13. Marking and tracing The proposals probably require that dealers’ registers be not only computerised but linked to NFLMS or its successor, and that deactivated firearms may be subject to some level of registration, again presumably on NFLMS. It will require marking of moderators in future, presumably by manufacturers. There is an issue over the retrospective marking of collectors’ firearms if they are to cross borders, since this affects their value. Further information needed.
14. Illegal manufacture of firearms. Is there any evidence of illegal manufacture, other than the cottage industry conversion of blank firers? Similarly, is there evidence of illicit conversion of semi-automatic firearms to full-automatic? Or full-automatic to semi? How many instances of reactivation of deactivated firearms is there evidence? Further information needed.
15. Competency checks for dealers, including ‘private and professional integrity’ checks. Further information needed.

DJP 28/11/2015




• Proposed ban on some semi-auto rifles, large mag capacity or removable magazine and military resemblance (NB Matt’s point about after sales military type furniture). Any mention of shotguns?-no significant full-auto shotguns?
• Standard medical test. More information is needed.
• Max five year certs (popular move for 10 in GB)
• New deact specs and some form of licensing AND ban on full auto/semi auto deacts. GB is likely to be compliant already on specs.
• Competency checks for dealers, plus ‘private and professional integrity’ checks.
• Collectors within Directive (Presumably not collectors of antiques (? Pre 1900 only).
• Records to be kept until the firearm is destroyed.
• 15 day ‘cooling off’ period between purchase and possession, even if purchaser already has a firearm.
• ‘Agreed approach’ to the classification of hunting and sport firearms. This could be helpful or harmful.







We are going to be compliant, or probably compliant, on the following:
• Five year cert.
• Control of sound moderators (which we seek to be removed from controls)
• Regulating blank firers and replicas (non-firing). Definitional problem with ‘replica’.
• Ban on Cat. A (except in regard to deacts and .22 rim-fires)
• Distance sales of firearms, but NBcomponents.
• Marking and tracing BUT the proposals probably require that dealers’ registers be not only computerised but linked to NFLMS or its successor. One good point in the proposals is that only the frame or receiver should be marked.
• Deact standards.
• Storage standards.







Major GB difficulties lie with:
• Full auto and semi-auto deacts possession by collectors. At least some museums will kick up a big fuss, ICOMAM is on the case. Museums would not be able to add to their collections.
• Deact registration.
• Disguised firearms (but many will be pre-1900 so we might get them re-classified as antiques).
• Whether our SGC meets the EU concept of ‘authorisation’. Article 5 para 1talks in terms of ‘persons who have good cause’. Not seen as a problem when discussed on 26/11/15.
• Article 1 (d)’s definition of a dealer manufacture, trade, exchange, hiring out, repair or conversion of firearms’. This does not cover journalists, expert witnesses, cataloguers, etc. Not seen as a problem when discussed on 26/11/15.






Incorrect interpretation of the proposals:
• FACE states ‘Introduction of a minimum age of 18 for the possession any firearm, without any possibility of a derogation for hunting and sport shooting. The new article 5 1 (a) clearly gives such a derogation.



Is there any evidence any of the following as a significant problem:
• Collectors as a source of illegally trafficked firearms.
• Collectors being outwith the Directive.
• Reactivation of deactivated, as opposed to blank-firing, weapons.
• Misuse of fully-automatic arms converted to semi-auto
• Illegal manufacture of firearms, other than conversion of blank firers.

Next step: In principle all Member States are to prepare their fiches (preliminary comments on the document) so it would be an idea to find out who writes these fiches-probably Graham Widdecombe and/or Dan Greaves.
High level political decision for a short or a long procedure: the former dispenses with further consultation and an impact assessment if deemed urgent and important enough

[Sandgroper]

Not actually from the Sportmans Association, as such, but appears to be a 1st draft from the British Shooting Sports Council - maybe not meant for general publication? Some interesting notes at the bottom...

[Chuck]

All good points - BTW, over here a medical /phsychological EXAM is a requirement..as is fingerprinting and mug shot at the local nick!.

Our exisiting rules cover a LOT of that and of couyrse w ehave a multitude of laws covering just about everything. Cooling off: after a wait for a new slot etc I woud imagine that itself is enough. AFIK you cannot just "decide to buy a gun in the spur of the moment" - unless it's a S2 shotgun WITH an SGC.

There's also talk of a sample fired round for the records, something that's unworkable in reality.

[Sixshot6]

All good points - BTW, over here a medical /phsychological EXAM is a requirement..as is fingerprinting and mug shot at the local nick!.

Our exisiting rules cover a LOT of that and of couyrse w ehave a multitude of laws covering just about everything. Cooling off: after a wait for a new slot etc I woud imagine that itself is enough. AFIK you cannot just "decide to buy a gun in the spur of the moment" - unless it's a S2 shotgun WITH an SGC.

There's also talk of a sample fired round for the records, something that's unworkable in reality.

They tried the sample rounds in Maryland for 15 years, 5 million dollars later, it solved not one crime.