Hector Monroe had asked if disabled people, such as my late friend Clifford Owen wounded in Normandy in 1944, would be allowed to retain the right to use self-loading rifles to shoot deer. And he and many other could not shoot deer with a bolt action as they could no longer manipulate the bolt. The reply from the Chairman of the BDS sank that. And, as you say, as a deer welfare organisation what business was it of BDS as to what rifle was, or was not used, as long as of legal calibre. The reply chose not to maintain that position but went beyond to be condemnatory.
You clearly have a strong opinion on this, which you’re absolutely entitled to. However I believe you're being a little unfair on two grounds.
First, BDS was not responsible for the disabled losing the right to retain self-loading rifles. The debate at the time was not just about deer stalking, it covered all shooting disciplines, including both target shooting and practical rifle. The arguments against the exemption were extensively debated, which you can see by reviewing the comments at the time from both Houses.
For example the debate in the House of Commons here:
Grant of Co-Terminous Firearm and Shot Gun Certificates
It is also interesting reading the comments once the Bill moved to the House of Lords.
Lord Hailsham - himself disabled and who served in the desert campaign in the Second World War - said during the debate:
"Surely one has to balance this limited and restricted personal private hardship [the use of self loading rifles because of disability] against the greater public interest which demands that SLRs are too dangerous to be held by private individuals lest they should find their way by theft into the wrong hands.
Moreover, the amendment leads us into an almost incredible degree of absurdity because it says that before one can take advantage of the amendment one must be disabled to the extent that one cannot use any kind of authorisable weapon. In other words, one cannot even use a little pistol. One has to be as disabled as that. Then, when one can take advantage of the amendment the only advantage one gets is that one will have something one may not want; namely, a self-loading rifle. If one cannot even use the pistol one can get the advantage provided by the amendment, but the only sort of weapon one is then allowed to have, as of right, is a self-loading rifle. That seems to me to be an absurd assertion. "
Or the Earl of Radnor:
"I sincerely believe that, for the greater good, the very few people who have been mentioned who will be unable to use the bolt on a rifle and who need a four-shot automatic rifle of some sort must, like many of us, turn away from that pastime and sport. "
Or Baroness Philips:
"However, I seriously suggest that one should never try to introduce [disability] exemption clauses into such a serious Bill. The Government have had the courage to introduce the Bill—and it needs courage to bring in such legislation. If only a handful of disabled people are involved, for heaven's sake, let them take up some other sport that they will equally enjoy."
Or Lord Nelson:
"No one disputes that we all have sympathy for the disabled. Why, oh why do they have to be used in this way? There is no question but that some disabled people shoot. However, no one seems to have considered the other side of the argument. Many disabled people support the Bill. What is their reaction to their name or disability being used as a reason to keep self-loading rifles for a certain section of the public?"
Or Earl Ferrers:
"I ask your Lordships to consider that if the amendment were to be accepted one might well have people attending a shooting exercise where a disabled person can use a self-loading rifle but the next door person, who used to have a self-loading rifle, finds that he cannot. That person will say, "You, although you are disabled, can use this. I, although I am fully able, cannot use it."
The argument stands logic on its head. I do not believe that the point is sustainable. If such weapons are in the hands of disabled people, others will borrow them and others will steal them. The weapons will be in circulation. The whole point of this part of the legislation is to put such weapons out of circulation. For a number of reasons I do not believe that one can make a blanket exemption for disabled or handicapped shooters."
I could go on, and on, the point being that the arguments against the disabled retaining the right to owning self-loading rifles were far broader than just deer stalking. Holding the BDS responsible is, in my view, flawed at best.
Second, the letter you refer to was in response to an amendment proposed by Sir Hector Monro (see
CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO THE POSSESSION OF SELF-LOADING RIFLES (Hansard, 23 May 1988)).
The amendment reads as follows (my underlining):
'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2) (ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—
- (a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and
- (b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and
- (c) is a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations, or
- (d) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability or participation in vermin control or deer-culling.'.—[Sir Hector Monro]
Note that the last point covers the use of self-loading rifles by those with a disability
OR their use for participation in vermin control or deer-culling. My own opinion is that conflating the two was very poor drafting, and almost inevitably led to the subsequent defeat.
At any rate, BDS was responding to Hector Monro on the question of the use of self-loading rifles for deer culling.
As Douglas Hogg said - again, my underlining - (
Prohibited Weapons And Ammunition - Wednesday 25 May 1988 - Hansard - UK Parliament):
The chairman of that [British Deer] society wrote to my hon. Friend the member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and dealt in some detail with my hon. Friend's assertion that a self-loading rifle is necessary for the killing of deer. He wrote:
"I have taken great trouble to find out the extent to which these rifles"— that is to say, self-loading rifles— "are used for deer management. I have spoken to the chairman of the Forestry Commission and the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, both of whom are happy with the British Deer Society position, which is that there is no heavyweight argument for these weapons to be used for deer management."
"As far as I can discover, it is simply not true that many roe stalkers throughout the United Kingdom use five shot, self-loading rifles. Even if they do the society would argue that the art of deer management is to stalk into the beast that you wish to kill and place one well-aimed shot to kill that animal immediately."
Whilst you may believe that use of a self-loading rifle has no bearing on deer welfare, which is the legitimate concern of the BDS, nowhere do I see in the above anything that implies whether "disabled people, such as my late friend Clifford Owen wounded in Normandy in 1944, would be allowed to retain the right to use self-loading rifles to shoot deer." I can't find any reference to BDS commenting on the use of self-loading rifles by the disabled - perhaps you can - but in my view that argument had been lost elsewhere.
I feel I should mention that there is an alternative, albeit cynical, reading of the way the amendment was drafted, and that is the possiblity that it was done deliberately. This was in fact raised by Douglas Hogg in the same debate, who said "The question about women and the disabled is a stalking horse for the eight-shot Garand". Hector Monro was pushing for the Garand to be included because it was "commonly used by the target shooting fraternity" (for source see my first link above). It was, at least in part, because of this inability to decide on the number of rounds that a self-loading rifle might be restricted to that led to the subsequent defeat.
Smarter drafting of the amendment may have resulted in a different outcome, but that is well and truly water under the bridge now.
