Gun Control

gouda

Combined Cadet Forces is a school based rifle shooting discipline using .22 rifles and competitions are held between schools and also in participating schools. I am not too clear on details but below are a sample of letters GCN in the UK are encouraging people to write promoting the banning of all shooting disciplines.GCN claim the UK Handgun Ban as their finest victory to date.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/



WE SUGGEST YOU HANDWRITE YOUR LETTER AND MAKE IT AS PERSONAL AS YOU CAN

TO COUNCILLOR (NAME)

Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs...............

Gun Control/ Combined Cadet Forces

I am writing to express my support for further gun controls and to urge the council to take what action it can to reduce the opportunities for shooting in [your area].

I very much hope that the Education Committee will take the view that the introduction of CCFs in state schools is entirely unacceptable for the following reasons;

Guns are dangerous weapons and have no place in educational establishments; children should be protected from guns not encouraged to develop an interest in them.

Arsenals of guns pose a quite unnecessary risk to the safety of children and teachers. They are susceptible to criminal attack and require a level of security that is inappropriate to a school.

If the Ministry of Defence has public money to spend on encouraging discipline and teamwork in children and young people then it should transfer that money to schools to be used for more suitable extra curricular activities e.g. outward bound courses or community/environmental service.

This is an issue about which parents all over the country feel very deeply. Guns are made for killing and do not belong in schools.

Yours sincerely



Your signature

Print name

---

"This council welcomed the decisive action taken by the government in November 1997 to ban all handguns but notes that the large majority of the law-abiding public wish the government to go further. In particular, we urge the government to introduce a minimum age limit of 18 for all guns, and to introduce a ban on all “lookalike” weapons, be they toys or replicas.

All councillors are urged to pledge themselves not to sign applications for firearms certificates."

---

WE SUGGEST YOU HANDWRITE YOUR LETTER AND MAKE IT AS PERSONAL AS YOU CAN



Dear Mr/Mrs/ Ms
or
Dear Member of Parliament



Control of Guns



I write to express my growing concern about the number of ‘look-alike’ guns that are currently flooding the market. Some of them are sold as toys, such as BB guns which shoot pellets, and others as non-functional replicas manufactured under an agreement with the companies who make the real guns such as Colt and Smith & Wesson.



These look-alikes are all freely available in toy shops, camping shops, markets and other high street outlets; they are not certified and can be owned by anyone including children. Since they cannot be distinguished from the real thing they pose a significant threat to the general public, to shop workers and bank clerks, to the police and to the owner himself who may mistakenly be thought to be carrying a real gun.



The government took brave and farsighted action in November 1997 to introduce a complete ban on handguns but this measure is now being undermined by the proliferation of weapons which look exactly like a real handgun. Public safety is being threatened by these guns which have no sporting purpose and which should be removed from circulation.



I urge you to bring the matter up with the relevant government minister and request that a ban on ‘look-alikes’ is introduced as soon as possible.



Yours sincerely





Your signature

Print name

Pull!theother1

And some councils are also making it a condition of tennancy that the occupiers do not keep firearms in their homes.

civdef

Apparently, GCN has a membership in very low double digits, but they seem to get an awful lot of press coverage nonetheless.

Sparks

GCN's low membership tends to be all wives of important politicians though, if scuttlebutt is to be believed. Thing is, MAG now outweight them in the UK, and MAG and BASC recently started sitting on the same boards and issueing joint press releases, so it would appear that the moderates are winning out. GCN may find itself relegated to the same degree of political status as the hunt sabs...

gouda

civdef wrote:

Apparently, GCN has a membership in very low double digits, but they seem to get an awful lot of press coverage nonetheless.

Vociferous minority wins over silent majority all the time and remember if GCN were fully responsible (with Government help,of course)for the Handgun Ban, that is a lot of power for a small group.

Sparks

They were certainly a contributing factor gouda, but if you believe they were able to bring it about on their own, you're believing their own spin a bit too much! The Handgun Ban came about because of two things; Labour wanting to be elected and Dunblane happening so close to an election. GCN, MAG, and all of the ancillary related factions were pretty much just window dressing compared to that.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

GCN's low membership tends to be all wives of important politicians though, if scuttlebutt is to be believed. Thing is, MAG now outweight them in the UK, and MAG and BASC recently started sitting on the same boards and issueing joint press releases, so it would appear that the moderates are winning out. GCN may find itself relegated to the same degree of political status as the hunt sabs...

Is this one of the meetings you refer to?SPORTSMAN’S ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER
AUGUST 2004

Written by Richard V. Malbon on 26th July 2004

I have written this Newsletter rather later than usual because I wanted to include my experiences from the CLA Game Fair. The Game Fair was held over the weekend from 23rd to 25th July and was, by all accounts, attended by a record number of people – at least, I was told by the CLA’s Steward that some 50,000 people had attended on Friday alone and it seemed to me that subsequent days were just as crowded.

I was there with the Countryside Party – my other primary occupation! A decision had been made by the Sportsman’s Association Council not to attend the Game Fair this year as it was felt that the cost of renting a Stand there – about £1,000 – was just too high to justify it. We had hoped that the CLA organisers would recognise that we were a significant part of the fight against restrictions on shooting and offer us a place at much reduced cost, or even free, in consideration of that. This did not happen – a pity, as we really should be working together.

I was told, by one of the visitors to our Stand, that he (he was a member of most of the major organisations) had noticed that the Sportsman’s Association was not present and that he thought that this was a mistake on our part. From a Public Relations point of view, I believe that he was right and his comments will be relayed to our Council.

Interestingly, Michael Howard, the current Leader of the Opposition and the former Home Secretary who so enthusiastically piloted the Firearms (Amendment) Bill through the Parliamentary procedures until it became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, visited the Game Fair on the Friday and took part in some photo-opportunities. We did not actually see him near our stand!
It must be remembered that the Tories, in the interests, they thought, of securing a further term in office, enacted legislation that banned our full bore pistols and specified onerous conditions for clubs to meet if they wished to be recognised as ‘Licensed Clubs’ to enable them to continue using small bore pistols. i.e. The Act effectively destroyed the sport of target shooting with pistols no matter what the Tory party may claim today about how they had tried to preserve at least part of the sport. The subsequent Labour Government merely completed the task with their malicious ban on small bore pistols too.

The Tories have produced a Consultation Paper of their own, entitled: ‘A Fair Deal for Country Sports.’ The paper covers issues affecting shooting, fishing and horses and includes many points that we would most certainly support. (The cynic in me asks: ‘Why now?) However, there is absolutely nothing in the paper about restoration of target pistol shooting which is a disappointment to us. The Tories have invited comments on their paper to be sent to them as soon as possible and, in any event, before the end of August this year, so that they can formulate their ideas in time for their Annual Party Conference in October.

The Sportsman’s Association will be making its submission very shortly (after all, we have already done most of the work with our response to the Home Office Consultation Paper) and we will be reminding them about the requirement, if they are to recover any credibility in the eyes of shooters, of working for the restoration of pistol shooting. Our intention is to push for full restoration – we are not all mesmerised by Olympic style shooting – but we recognise that we may have to approach the subject in graduated steps. We have no intention of supporting for any length of time any concept of an ‘elite group’ of top-level target shooters who are, somehow, deemed to be more ‘entitled’ to shoot than the rest of us.
Turning to the Home Office Consultation Paper on Controls on Firearms, although it is possible to download the document from the internet, I would like to encourage our members, and any other readers of this Newsletter, to write to the Home Office and ask them for a copy of the Home Office Consultation Paper on Controls on Firearms. That could create the impression that we are interested in the subject, especially if there is then an avalanche of incoming submissions from shooters!

Copies of the Consultation Paper may be obtained by writing to:

Firearms Controls Consultation
Home Office
5th Floor
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London
SW1H 9AT

The responses are required to be sent to the same address by the 31st August 2004. Please don’t leave it all to your organisations. Write your own comments too – they don’t have to be full of statistical ‘evidence’, just full of common sense and you have plenty of that! The statistical type of ‘scholarship’ is what we have our National Bodies for and they will embody this in their own submissions. What is needed for our responses to be effective is for there to be significant numbers of submissions from shooters. I know that the Government’s previous performance shows that it seems to believe that it can safely ignore even huge public demonstrations, but we have no other legitimate method of communication with these people available to us right now. It doesn’t take much effort or involve much expense to send a simple letter containing your views on firearms controls – if anyone wants any help with this, please get in touch with our Head Office.

Governments, and politicians generally, are more receptive to the views of the electorate when a General Election is due and their own ‘comfort zones’ are threatened. (That was our problem in March 1996 when the politicians responded to the largely artificial furore against guns created by an irresponsible news media. We made a serious tactical mistake back then in believing that democratic principles would protect minority interests – ours.) A General Election is due within the next year or so and it will do no harm for the Government – and the Opposition - to be told that the subject of firearms laws – as well as the other interferences with individual freedom of choice - could have some electoral implications for them this time. In the fullness of time, we shall be producing a list of the marginal constituencies so that we can try to let people know where it may be appropriate to vote tactically. Note, we will never presume to try to tell people how they should vote. We will do our best to provide information for our members to use as they see fit.

We have now received the draft Minutes taken at the recent Gun Crime and Gun Law Conference, held on the 7th July 2004 in London. The conference was jointly organised by BASC and, most interestingly, Mothers Against Guns (MAG). The conference was attended by our Chairman, Joe Kelly.

The most important thing to emerge from the conference is the recognition, by MAG, that legitimate shooters are not the cause of the gun crime problem and that they are not against the legitimate shooting sports at all. The fact that we actually share common ground in that we, too, want to stamp out gun crime, is a vital stage in what we hope will be a meaningful co-operation. BASC are to be congratulated on arranging this conference with MAG and in putting our case very effectively. Hopefully, to quote Bill Harriman’s (BASC) comments made at the conference: ‘This event is a watershed and I hope it will herald a new era of grass roots co-operation between interested parties eager to play their part in stamping out gun crime’ We agree entirely and look forward to working with organisations such as MAG.I shall publish the Minutes of the conference on our website as soon as I have the final version.

Members of the Sportsman’s Association are asked to note that our insurance cover, which applies to all Members apart from Associate Members, is now arranged through R.K.Harrison Insurance Brokers Ltd. This change took place with effect from the 13th June 2004.

They may be contacted by post at:

R.K.Harrison Insurance Brokers Ltd
The Maltings
Lurke Street
Bedford
MK40 3HH

Telephone Number: 01234 311255, Fax: 01234 408676.

If any Members have any queries about the insurance cover are asked to contact either Mr Don Bewick or Mr Stuart Rootham at the above Company.

We would like to take this opportunity of thanking Shearwater Insurance Services Ltd, our previous brokers, for the service they have provided over recent years.

Please note that our postal address is:

The Sportsman’s Association,
Hartgrovehill Farm,
Musbury,

Sparks

That'd be the one I was thinking of gouda, yes.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

They were certainly a contributing factor gouda, but if you believe they were able to bring it about on their own, you're believing their own spin a bit too much! The Handgun Ban came about because of two things; Labour wanting to be elected and Dunblane happening so close to an election. GCN, MAG, and all of the ancillary related factions were pretty much just window dressing compared to that.

I thought it was because Thomas Hamilton shot about 16 people and both he and the copper who issued his licences (over ruling the local police officer's refusal) were both members of the funny handshake brigade( Masons).

civdef

Still, lessons to be learned from this bunch.

We need to bear in mind that as things currently stand, if the Government chose to introduce legislation to ban handguns permanently, it would receive no meaningful parlimentary opposition.

What shooters need to be doing is contacting their local representatives - principally TDs, and let them know about their concern that law abiding responsible sportspersons might be unfairly deprived of their sport. Highlight stuff like they arent banned for target shooting in NI or across Europe.

Don't be too choosy, ring all of your TD's, they don't know who you vote for anyway, and make encouragiug noises about bearing their help in mind come election time. One great thing about our parish pump electoral system is it gives us access to our TD's, we should make use of it.

A phone call followed up by a letter/fax is the best strategy, harder to be fobbed off on the phone, whereas the letter leaves a permanent record.

Sparks

gouda wrote:

I thought it was because Thomas Hamilton shot about 16 people and both he and the copper who issued his licences (over ruling the local police officer's refusal) were both members of the funny handshake brigade( Masons).

Nope. Hamilton was in breach of the Firearms Acts in the UK long before Dunblane (he lied on his FAC application about belonging to a gun club he'd been thrown out of, and he also threatened a woman with a gun after she complained that he had brought guns to her home to show her son); if the true concern that motivated the handgun ban was the actions of Hamilton, rather than the political gain that was there to be taken by being seen to be "doing something about it", then the response would have been to ensure the firearms acts were enforced thereafter; instead meaningless changes to the Acts were made which will not prevent the next Dunblane, anymore than similar changes made after Hungerford prevented Dunblane.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

Nope. Hamilton was in breach of the Firearms Acts in the UK long before Dunblane (he lied on his FAC application about belonging to a gun club he'd been thrown out of, and he also threatened a woman with a gun after she complained that he had brought guns to her home to show her son); if the true concern that motivated the handgun ban was the actions of Hamilton, rather than the political gain that was there to be taken by being seen to be "doing something about it", then the response would have been to ensure the firearms acts were enforced thereafter; instead meaningless changes to the Acts were made which will not prevent the next Dunblane, anymore than similar changes made after Hungerford prevented Dunblane.

His FAC application was turned down at local level and approved by a more senior officer who was a Mason. He was not a suitable person to have firearms under UK law but this was overturned because he was a Mason and used his contacts(Senior Police Officer).

civdef

gouda wrote:

His FAC application was turned down at local level and approved by a more senior officer who was a Mason. He was not a suitable person to have firearms under UK law but this was overturned because he was a Mason and used his contacts(Senior Police Officer).

Allegedly. Please don't forget to use that word, it turns a nasty potential libel-tyoe stuff into harmless speculation.

gouda

civdef wrote:

Allegedly. Please don't forget to use that word, it turns a nasty potential libel-tyoe stuff into harmless speculation.

Sorry