TAKE ACTION NOW agains the Ban on 50 Cal Rifles

Leica - Little things make big things better...

A1Decoy

Well-Known Member
PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MP NOW

if you want this by email ask me mark@a1decoy.co.uk Thanks


The “Offensive Weapons Bill” has its Second Reading on Wednesday 27 June 2018. This is the first occasion that the bill will be debated.

Within this Bill it is proposed to ban the civilian possession of “any rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged” .. i.e. anything with over 10,000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

Were this Bill to pass through Government it will be the greatest threat to shooting sports in the UK since the pistol ban of 1996.

It will end .50 Calibre target shooting in the UK.

Furthermore, it is a threat to all shooting sports as in would set a precedent for the Government to impose a ban on a recognised shooting discipline without the requirement for any evidence and regardless of whether a ban would enhance public safety.

This would undoubtedly lead to further prohibitions on shooting sports without any evidence base for need or efficacy in reducing risk to the public as the Government seeks to promote a perception of a hard stance on violent crime by limiting the legitimate activities of law abiding sports men and women.

Target shooters are already a marginalised group with few resources to argue against such politically driven prohibitions that lack any evidence base.

In order to have any chance of successfully having the Bill amended, politicians need to be persuaded that it lacks any of the evidence base that is required, that it is disproportionate and that it would not enhance public safety, to do this we must engage the politicians, in the first instance your MP.

I have attached a proforma letter you could send by email and modify as you see appropriate.

Please do so immediately, even if you have already done so before, as the second reading is on this Wednesday.

Could I ask that you forward this email to the secretaries of any shooting club or syndicate that you are a member of and ask them to distribute to all club members, all shooting sports are at risk if this Bill is passed.

Please also pass to anyone else you can think may be of assistance,

Your local MP’s contact details can be found at:

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

The Bill and purported evidence base can be found at:

https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/offensiveweapons.html

Please let me know how you get on,

Many thanks,

Mark Curtis
DRAFT LETTER TO SEND BELOW
[FONT=&quot]Dear [/FONT][FONT=&quot]RE: “Offensive Weapons Bill” due for Second Reading Wednesday 27[SUP]th[/SUP] June 2018[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I write urgently to ask you to respond to the above Bill, due for its second reading.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Within this Bill is stated intent to ban the civilian possession of “any rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged”. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This proposed prohibition will bring to an end the long established sport of .50 calibre rifle target shooting in the UK, a sport in which the UK participates and excels in annually in the World Championships held in the USA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This part of the proposed legislation is deeply flawed for the following reason:[/FONT]

  • The UK already has amongst the most robust firearms laws in the world.
  • The proposed prohibition has been put forward without any evidence base that the current civilian ownership of such target rifles presents any enhanced risk to the public.
  • No evidence is presented that the prohibition of such target rifles will enhance public safety, a fact now openly acknowledged by the Home Office.
  • Such legally held target rifles have never been used in criminal activity and are distantly unsuited given their size, cumbersome nature and difficulty of use.
  • Such unsuitable nature is supported by the fact that the sole one stolen in the UK was found to have been abandoned by the criminal element that had stolen it, rather than used for a criminal activity. To use such rifles requires considerable experience, training and skill.
  • To use such rifles in an “anti-material” role requires the use of specialist ammunition already prohibited for civilian ownership by current legislation.
  • Furthermore, current legislation already requires Chief Officers of police who grant firearms certificates to ensure “the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety …” This precludes those from legitimately acquiring such rifle who would be unsuitable to do so.
  • The data collected during the recent consultation on Offensive weapons has been ignored by the Government.
[FONT=&quot]It is thus evident that the Government is seeking to promote a perception of a hard stance on violent crime by unnecessarily limiting the legitimate activities of law abiding sports men and women. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I request that you question the evidence base for this proposed ban, whether it is required, would result in a proven enhancement of public safety or is instead disproportionate to any evidenced threat to public safety and should be abandoned, or amended to permit the continued use of such target rifles albeit under enhanced security arrangements.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I would be grateful for your urgent response to the above given the imminent Second Reading. I would be grateful if you would inform me of what steps you have taken in this regard.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Kind regards,

A special thanks to Chris Stephenson for all the above .[/FONT]
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
I cannot in any way support such a letter as it is written. Why?

To permit the continued use of such target rifles albeit under enhanced security arrangements
You've stated that there is no evidence proven basis to the proposed ban. Yet in the closing paragraph of letter you appear to "welcome" (shades of BASC I think) "enhanced security arrangements". Linking that to ONE such weapon having been stolen.

ON THE BASIS OF ONE OF THESE WEAPONS HAVING BEEN STOLEN

Be clear the Home Office will simply take that last paragraph of your letter to then say that X number or Y number of shooters wrote to their MPs and of these so many also expressed favourable views regarding the imposition of enhanced or further security arrangements on weapons (where the figures showed that such weapons were in past times stolen) that they believed should be permitted on s1 FACs.

The Home Office did this in 1988 people wrote to say that short barrel pump action shot guns were less dangerous than the revolver magazine Stryker type shotgun...so the Home Office just added these to the Bill in Parliament and those banned too. Your letter gives a concession where none is needed.

I cannot support it whilst that last paragraph remains as written.
 

Chasey

Well-Known Member
I spoke to somone in special branch about the 50cal issue, and the problem is the vast range of easily available ordinance you can fire through a 50cal. Like incendiary rounds, explosive rounds and anti vehicle armour piercing rounds.

The chances of them not being banned are miniscule so IMHO the enhanced security option, is the last possable chance of that being avoided.

And its still very unlikely

He also suggested the problem was specifically with the 50cal and not with other large calibre long range rifles

For me the problem here is people who have watched to many day of the Jackal type films with high tec precision attacks on X Y Z using sexy equipment

Yes I am sure a 50cal is capable of shooting down a helicopter but the skill set and investment required to make that happen is just not worth it when you can rent a van and fill it with fertilizer explosives or simply crash it into a crowd

If the aim of terrorists is to terrorise, then the van is far more scary to the average citizen than the 50cal.
 

Ray7756

Well-Known Member
I cannot in any way support such a letter as it is written. Why?

You've stated that there is no evidence proven basis to the proposed ban. Yet in the closing paragraph of letter you appear to "welcome" (shades of BASC I think) "enhanced security arrangements". Linking that to ONE such weapon having been stolen.

ON THE BASIS OF ONE OF THESE WEAPONS HAVING BEEN STOLEN

Be clear the Home Office will simply take that last paragraph of your letter to then say that X number or Y number of shooters wrote to their MPs and of these so many also expressed favourable views regarding the imposition of enhanced or further security arrangements on weapons (where the figures showed that such weapons were in past times stolen) that they believed should be permitted on s1 FACs.

The Home Office did this in 1988 people wrote to say that short barrel pump action shot guns were less dangerous than the revolver magazine Stryker type shotgun...so the Home Office just added these to the Bill in Parliament and those banned too. Your letter gives a concession where none is needed.

I cannot support it whilst that last paragraph remains as written.

Its fine moaning about the content not being exactly as YOU want,,,,,, Change it and send to your MP,,,, to do nothing is to agree with further restrictions,

i have ammended and also added that shooting brings in lots of jobs and money into this area
Cheers
Ray
 

Sylvanius

Well-Known Member
That's a very politician-like answer he gives! He seems to be saying that he agrees with the proposals but then accepts they won't make any difference to crime!
 

paul o'

Well-Known Member
I had a .50 far to many years ago now , then I also had real L1A1's :old: , I had many a good day out with it flashing and sending wild tracer at old tanks :D A waste of money Yes but hay ho it was mine to waste :stir: I agree there is ammo out there like flash AP and bla bla out there to obtain ? but if its the ammo that has them wishing to ban a firearm that has never been used to kill someone on mainland uk :zzz: So why not then just ban the sale by dealers of such ammo or bullets ?:doh: but its on the cards to go . I have sent a copy to my MP the known as the RH useless git ! even with all the little folks jumping up and down and procrastinating it will be done ? Sorry to say this but our views just mean Jack in the big house and the wigs get paid a lot of dosh not take our views into account ?after all what do we know :popcorn: :ban:it , it gets votes
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
When is the next update on this due?

The Home Office are waiting for a response from BASC about what level of welcome they'll give it. A cautious welcome, a guarded welcome or a warm welcome. They've yet to decide.

Not really. I hope! In truth Parliament is in recess. So nothing will now happen until the MPs are back at Westminster after the party conference season. And then it's watch this space.
 
Last edited:

gonzo

Well-Known Member
AP and explosive ammunition is already section 5.
So no changes required for that.
 

Woodsmoke

Well-Known Member
Had a response from my local MP . . . . She's basically saying 'I'll ignore any sensible advice and proceed on the premise that these guns are bad until someone proves otherwise'. She graduated in 2011 with a degree in, you guessed it, 'Politics'. Not impressed
 

Attachments

  • 15428270580723902763660320511455.jpg
    15428270580723902763660320511455.jpg
    201.9 KB · Views: 26

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
Looking back to Dunblane you will remember of course that the Cullen Enquiry rejected secure storage at home of handguns. Even with parts removed and kept at a secure club location as it claimed that there could be substitution of those vital parts. As I said in a similar thread I think that we are celebrating Christmas early..
 

Dickie

Well-Known Member
Had a response from my local MP . . . . She's basically saying 'I'll ignore any sensible advice and proceed on the premise that these guns are bad until someone proves otherwise'. She graduated in 2011 with a degree in, you guessed it, 'Politics'. Not impressed

I looked up your MP she didn't have the bottle to vote on BREXIT so is a fence sitter who jumps off when it suits, but then she got voted in
 
MARS 4 THERMAL SCOPE SERIES
Top