The National Rifle Association United Kingdom Founded 1860, Incorporated by Royal Charter 1890 and a Registered Charity Head Office: Bisley, National Shooting Centre, Brookwood, Surrey

Controls on Firearms A Consultation Paper Introduction by the Chairman The National Rifle Association is the national governing body for fullbore competitive target rifle and target pistol shooting. It is the oldest of the bodies which represent target shooting in the UK, with continuing Royal Patronage from our foundation in 1860. The Association offers and provides continuing support to the Armed Services for marksmanship and the development of improved performance. We lay special emphasis on cadets. However, we have always been an essentially civilian organisation. To distinguish these twin objectives we seek to demarcate clearly our role providing sport in the community. Our facilities and activities are supported by the Sports Councils. Competitive target shooting has always been about shooting at inanimate targets for recreational sport with firearms, safely and peacefully. The maxim of “A Father’s Advice” - “Never, never let your gun; pointed be at anyone” is rooted in our psyche. We enjoy a safety record which is one of the highest among sports owing to the self discipline and respect for safety and good behaviour with which we handle firearms. We believe that the Association provides the young, in particular, with responsible respect for firearms. In its own way this counteracts regular violent portrayal of guns in the visual media. Based on our world renowned Bisley range complex we enjoy world-wide recognition as leaders in fullbore target rifle shooting in the setting of rules and the conduct of shooting. As competitors, British fullbore target shooters have had medal successes in Commonwealth and World Games over many years. In the 2002 Commonwealth Games we accounted for two gold and one bronze medals in the rifle events and a bronze medal in fullbore pistol. Britain enjoys regular exchanges of GB and ‘goodwill’ touring teams with an increasing number of overseas countries engendering much friendship and considerable success. Great Britain is the current holder of the world long-range team championship (the Palma) having recorded three gold and one silver medal placing in the last four championships. The Association’s annual meeting over four weeks handles in the order of 4,000 competitors. Last year, shooting at distances ranging from 300 yards/metres to 1200 yards, we welcomed 461 overseas competitors from 28 countries in our core target shooting disciplines. The individual world championship was won by a young lady. We give support to at least nine shooting disciplines with different courses of competition and each has its own developing world-wide connections. Whilst providing challenge and achieving success at the highest levels, we also play our part, most importantly, at club level. Our foundation is based on community clubs of whom there are over 700 affiliated to us, accounting, we estimate, for over 40,000 members, not including those who participate through schools and cadets and others who are members of our affiliated associations. We believe that target marksmanship provides a well tried safe sport and recreational service to the community to which all have access. Fullbore rifle shooting is an ‘open’ sport in which men and women of all ages compete equally. We encourage participation of people with disabilities. We have recently embarked on a drive to encourage increased structured participation throughout the country. We seek to provide such recreation at all grades of ability and performance. Shooting, in all its disciplines, is one of the top three participation sports in the UK. The National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom is a member of the British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC). We have contributed to and support the response to the Consultation Paper of the BSSC. A broad number of detailed statements have been made by the BSSC, many of which impinge on fullbore target shooting. We do not propose to repeat these, but we are concerned to make our own recommendations and seek the support of the Home Office. We seek to support the Home Office in a process of rationalising legislation relating to our equipment and those who aspire to participate in our sport. Thereby, we hope that membership and participation in fullbore target shooting, which is our remit, can thrive in the UK as a healthy sport, providing public benefit, respect by the young, in particular, for firearms and increasingly gaining acceptance for the part we have to play. Abuse and violence with firearms is anathema to our ethos. At the National Rifle Association we claim to have a record, among our members, of almost total absence of injurious crime with firearms over many years. This submission is made with the endorsement of our Council.

John Jackman Chairman

A Response from the National Rifle Association to ‘Controls on Firearms – A Consultation Paper’ The National Rifle Association having considered the Consultation Paper is making a submission in four sections: • Summary of Response •

Modernisation of Firearms Legislation and Licensing

•

A Technical Reply to the ‘Controls on Firearms – a Consultation Paper’

•

Views and Concerns of NRA Members

Section 1 Summary of Response 1.1

As a governing body the National Rifle Association has been largely supportive of the intentions of both Government and Police in the past as they struggle with the issue of regulating firearms and fighting the criminal misuse of guns. As a regulating body we have tried to take the broad view, believing that at some stage the authorities would recognise that the threat of insurrection or criminal activity involving licensed shooters was unlikely and thus legislate accordingly.

1.2

Unfortunately, to date this has not been the case. The Association was hoping that there would be some radical, forward looking, proposals in the Consultation Paper. We should like to have seen the introduction of some real initiatives that licensed people appropriately effecting a major improvement in public safety terms. This could allow a less bureaucratic approach when dealing with firearms and ammunition.

1.3

Instead we are faced with a list of proposals that have been seen by many sports shooters as a further ‘tightening of the screw’ and another level of unnecessary bureaucracy. The Consultation Paper suggests the probability of increasing complexity in the lawful use of firearms for legitimate sport but no improvement in the control of crime. Consequently, many individual shooters view the activities of the authorities with deep suspicion.

1.4

Marksmanship is rooted in history, popular with a large section of the public and recognised as an international competitive sport with world competition and games for nearly 140 years.

1.5

We summarise the following points: 1.5.1

The Government has been unequivocal in its pursuit of medals in top level sport: the shooting Governing Bodies have provided and will continue to provide those medals: a) b)

1.6

if supported in the right way if allowed to train on an equal footing with other recognised UK sports.

1.5.2

Target shooting with firearms under the control and with the constructive, safe and responsible guidance of the Governing Bodies is seen widely as of benefit to the community for safe, challenging recreation.

1.5.3

The Governing Bodies for target shooting will continue to apply their own strict controls and approaches to training and safety and are well placed to support the Government so as to allow the Police to release resources to deal with crime on the street and the enforcing of current law.

1.5.4

No element of the proposals in the Home Office Consultation Paper will achieve the objective of reducing gun crime. Better to allow the Police to concentrate on that than saddle them and shooting sports with further complicated regulation.

1.5.5

The National Rifle Association proposes: a)

The setting up of a National Firearms Agency supervising accredited Governing Bodies in the management of firearms licensing.

b)

The introduction of a national firearms user/holder database.

c)

A change of emphasis to people licensing.

d)

The integration of proper training into the licensing process.

e)

The setting and maintaining of other minimum standards for suitability, security and insurance.

The National Rifle Association believes it is time to draw a line under what has gone before and wishes to have the opportunity to work with the other National Bodies, Police and Government on a real modernising agenda for Firearms Licensing.

Section 2 Modernisation of Firearms Legislation and Licensing 2.1

Introduction Firearms legislation from its inception in the early 20th Century has traditionally focussed upon the technicalities of firearms ownership and use. Each subsequent piece of legislation has been introduced to deal with gaps in the legislation or where circumstances have changed. In consequence the complexity has incrementally increased to the stage where the current Firearms Act and amendments no longer meet requirements.

2.2

The current legislation is so complex and creates such an administrative burden on the Police that what are seen as essential ingredients to ensuring public safety are no more than virtual reality, representing undeliverable ambitions.

2.3

The legislation and guidance is so ambiguous that often the Police and most certainly the certificate holders are not fully aware of the legal requirements, leading to misunderstanding and dispute.

2.4

In an effort to control the type of guns and ammunition someone may possess the law has become increasingly technical. Legislating using technical descriptions of firearms and ammunition has failed time and again to achieve the original aim. As legislators write, so gunsmiths are drawn to re-engineer.

2.5

The aim of firearms legislation should be to ensure public safety. The licensed firearms community accept the need for controls but the technical approach tends to exclusively impact upon law-abiding users, not on criminal misuse.

2.6

The current proposals in the Consultation Paper suggest that licensed shooters can expect more of the same.

2.7

The real answer to the problem would be to have a fundamental review of firearms legislation to make it less complex and more relevant to the public safety debate.

2.8

To have genuine impact and create safer communities, firearms legislation must focus primarily upon the person rather than the type of guns.

2.9

Licensing the Person Licensing a person to use a firearm should be treated much as licensing someone to drive a car, in that the individual undertakes a course of instruction that is tested to ensure the person is: a

Competent

b

Safe

c

Capable of complying with security requirements

d

Suitable

e

Insured

Only when someone has passed the course do they qualify to possess firearms. 2.10

Registered Firearms A qualified license holder should only be allowed to possess and use a firearm and ammunition that has type approval as recommended by one of the governing bodies, based upon: a

Safe Construction (fitness for purpose)

b

Public Safety Risk Assessment

Which should take account of: i

Sporting purpose

ii

Work purpose

iii

Historical significance

2.11

Probationary Use of Firearms Young people and newcomers to shooting should be given every opportunity to try the sport under the right conditions and supervision. This is essential whatever firearm type is being used so that they are taught correctly in terms of competence and safety.

2.12

If appropriately qualified individuals or organisations are allowed to promote and undertake introductory training at safe, approved locations, providing the firearms, more people would be attracted to shooting, while learning about appropriate behaviour, respect and their obligations to themselves and to others.

2.13

Young people in particular would have their interest in shooting satisfied in a correct environment, thus avoiding some of the low level crime and cruelty to animals that have a substantial effect on current statistics.

2.14

National Firearms Licensing A change in principles surrounding the licensing of firearms also demands a change in administration requirement.

2.15

The Police currently administer licensing, the MoD certify ranges for the moment, the Health and Safety Executive advise on the principles surrounding range safety, the National Bodies administer conduct, rules of shooting, probationary courses and insurance requirements, while the Home Office draft legislation to conflicting requirements from all the bodies concerned.

2.16

In the Police’s case the situation leads to tension because their primary responsibility is to fight crime. In their desperation to find a means to reduce the criminal use of firearms they wrongly assume that more and more draconian administrative measures will have a beneficial effect, and are encouraged to do so by external political pressures demanding an instant solution.

2.17

The responsibility for the administration of firearms should be removed from the Police, enabling them to concentrate their efforts on crime reduction. There is a need to create a National Firearms Agency to manage all safety and licensing requirements to ensure an efficient, co-ordinated and consistent approach nationally.

2.18

In line with other Government out-sourced activities that have security implications there would be necessary relationships and safeguards in place as well as defined budgetary and performance expectations. There would certainly need to be a regulatory authority to monitor standards and results.

2.19

The current National Bodies could potentially take on responsibility for creating the ‘Agency’ on the basis of negotiated requirement with Government, bringing their considerable experience in firearms licensing/legislation, ranges, coaching, instruction, accreditation and discipline to an informed and practicable framework of controls.

2.20

With a National Firearms Agency there would be the ability to: a

Be more commercial and efficient in approach

b

Accredit training in terms of safety and competence

c

Set security standards

d

Set suitability standards

e

Set levels of insurance cover

f

Oversee firearms type approval

g

Oversee range safety certification

h

i

Create a database to manage: i

Licensing of firearms users

ii

Identification and movement of firearms

iii

Firearms dealers

Collect license fees and administrative fines

This proposal is not definitive but identifies some of the key areas, which would allow a more integrated approach to dealing with firearms licensing issues. 2.21

The Pistol Debate Great Britain has some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world and yet, no matter what controls are imposed upon the legitimate shooter, the illegal use of firearms continues to rise unabated.

2.22

Statistics show that the number of Firearm and Shotgun Certificates issued over the last thirty-five years has declined to their lowest recorded level and yet, in contrast, armed crime has risen dramatically over the same period. In particular the criminal misuse of handguns has doubled since the ban in 1997.

2.23

In the last 10 years there have been major changes to firearms legislation in Great Britain, Canada and Australia and in all cases these have been ineffectual in combating armed crime and the criminal use of firearms. It can be argued, therefore, that gun laws hastily introduced in response to major failings in systems of alleged control have no measurable effect on crime.

2.24

The National Rifle Association view is that the Government, before bringing in further restrictions, should demonstrate that the problems of armed crime have a substantial link with licensed firearms and offer compelling reasons as to why their proposals will be the solution to the problem. The Association believes that the Government will be unable to substantiate any such link.

2.25

The NRA, as previously stated, remains convinced that the overriding principle should be always to license the person, not the firearm.

2.26

The Association believes that the current ban on target shooting pistols is unreasonable and has not been of any benefit to public safety. The Firearms (Amendment) Act, 1997, which was supposed to be a method of reducing armed crime by making it difficult if not impossible for small firearms to be obtained and used in crime, all but destroyed the sport of target pistol shooting in the United Kingdom. And yet we now see what the media and Government refer to as a “gun culture”, particularly amongst the young, ethnic groups and within the illegal drug trade - areas which were never represented in the world of registered firearms and legitimate certificate holders.

2.27

For decades British shooters have not only enjoyed personal success but also have been first class ambassadors in sporting spheres throughout the world. In the 2002 Commonwealth Games alone 25 medals, including eight gold, were won by United Kingdom shooters. In the 2000 Olympics, shooting delivered one gold and one silver medal from five quota place competitors. In any sport such successes are brought about only by extremely high levels of personal dedication; complicated in the case of United Kingdom pistol shooters by having go overseas to train. The lack of practice available to some shooters, due to the current restrictions, has undoubtedly had an adverse effect on the GB performance in Athens, as it began to do in the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

2.28

The future bid for the 2012 Olympics demands that our athletes and officials are allowed to practice and take part in competitions in the UK over the next eight years to ensure not only we are successful in terms of medals but that we can also demonstrate we still have the ability to manage such events.

2.29

More seriously, there are concerns about the future of British representation in pistol events if the young have no way of taking up the sport.

2.30

This organisation believes that the review of firearms laws presents an opportunity to re-examine the situation in an environment free from sentimentality and prejudice and for serious consideration to be given to pistols being reinstated.

2.31

Governments have a tradition of finding it difficult to acknowledge the failure of previously imposed legislation and to reverse policies which have demonstrably failed. The NRA recognises these difficulties, but believes that an honest and open approach to this issue could benefit United Kingdom sporting efforts with no risk to public safety. The situation today is not that which applied prior to the 1997 Act. Currently anyone wishing to own a firearm for ‘target shooting purposes’ must belong to at least one Home Office approved club. By doing so his or her background is checked by the Police and the club monitors activity. If not attending for a period of one year, the licensing authority is advised of the fact.

2.32

The NRA believes that with these controls in place target pistol shooting could return to pre 1997 status.

2.33

The NRA would suggest that there are options available to Government. Initially we would recommend the reinstatement of pistols/small firearms that come within the rules of the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) which would mean the reintroduction of pistols up to .32” or 8mm, non military calibre. This would allow athletes to train and compete in the UK to qualify to take part in Commonwealth, World and Olympic competitions (under the direct supervision of the NRA or NSRA).

2.34

Conclusion The National Rifle Association believes that by building upon the principles outlined in this proposal, firearms legislation could become the means by which public safety concerns surrounding the licensed community could be addressed once and for all.

2.35

By legislating in the correct way the process could be simplified, become less bureaucratic, more co-ordinated and consistent and offer real safeguards, which the current Acts and the Consultation Paper fail to deliver.

2.36

At the same time a change in direction would allow the Police to focus wholly on their strategic role of combating crime.

2.37

The re-introduction of pistols to sports target shooting may seem like a U-turn but on the basis of the evidence and the risk it is the just and fair thing to do to allow our sportsmen and women to compete on equal terms with the rest of the world.

Section 3 A Technical Reply to the ‘Controls on Firearms – A Consultation Paper’ 3.0.1

Introduction The National Rifle Association has already made clear its primary position in relation to the Consultation Paper, in that we believe the time has arrived for a fundamental review which improves the state of public safety while allowing the licensed shooting community to continue to safely undertake and develop their chosen sport.

3.0.2

The current proposals, which we are being asked to comment upon, are an unnecessary complication in an already complex world of firearms legislation. We shall thus try to keep our views short and to the point. We wish to acknowledge the assistance we have received from the other National Bodies in coming to our conclusions. In particular we need to thank the BSSC who have produced a more detailed response to the Consultation Paper, which is reflected in abridged form in this document.

Part 1 – Firearms 3.1.1

Classification of individual types of gun. Are all firearms subject to the right levels of control? British shooters have to comply with some the most rigorous conditions of ownership for firearms in the world. The classification of firearms has in some instances been decided not upon evidence or risk conditions but political imperative. The current proposals are wrongly targeted in that they appear to focus, as previously stated, on technical firearms arguments rather than dealing with the core problem of licensing the person.

3.1.2

If it is the intention of Government to maintain its present policy on firearms there is in the view of the National Rifle Association no requirement for further substantial legislation.

3.1.3

Should other types of gun be prohibited? The National Rifle Association has already given a view regarding pistols in our Stage 1 response, in that serious consideration should be given to allowing possession of those pistols that are used in competition under ISSF rules, thus permitting our athletes to train and compete in the UK.

3.1.4

As for other firearms at present there appears to be no real argument that requires further prohibition.

3.1.5

Flexibility of Law. Is the law able to respond quickly enough to changes in firearms technology? The National Rifle Association view on this issue is also addressed in our Stage 1 response. Legislators are fascinated it seems by foot-pounds, barrel lengths and magazine capacities. The real issues should be: is the person licensed; is the firearm safely constructed; and what risk is it to public safety? The licensing authority can then authorise or otherwise on the basis of type approval.

3.1.6

Firearms categories. Should we continue to use the present three categories? The following categories are suggested if we are only going to adjust current legislation: Category A Prohibited weapons for which the authority of the Secretary of State is required in addition to licensing as a firearms dealer or the holding of a Firearm Certificate. Most of those who are granted a Secretary of State’s authority will be licensed dealers rather than individual license holders. Category B Those firearms that now fall into the prohibited category, including those in Section 5(1A), but which may be held on a Firearm Certificate in certain circumstances. To these might be added other firearms thought to warrant the strictest control. There would be a need to establish a good reason for each firearm and for each exchange of a firearm. Prior authority would be required for all acquisitions and exchanges of this class of firearms. Guidance, or if need be a Statutory Instrument, could direct the licensing authority about the terms under which these firearms could be licensed. This could include for instance rimfire or centre-fire pistols up to .32”/8mm calibre as used in ISSF international competition. Category C Those firearms, typified by centre-fire sporting or target rifles, (such as those used in the shooting disciplines of the NRA) or large capacity magazine shotguns, where a good reason for each firearm would be established and prior authority would be required for each firearm, but for which the exchanging of one firearm for another more-or-less identical firearm used for the same purpose would be allowed without reference to the licensing authority but subject to notification of the transaction by both parties to it. Category D Those common and widely used firearms typified by rimfire rifles (up to .22” or other rimfire cartridges) used for vermin control or target shooting where, having established his good reason for the class of firearm, a certificate holder would be able to acquire a number of rifles (possibly without limit, possible subject to an upper limit but with facility to exceed the limit with authority) and to exchange rifles within the category without reference to the licensing authority but subject to notification of the transaction. Reproductions of muzzle loading rifles and pistols, which pose a very low risk to public safety, could also be included in this category. Category E A class typified by the ‘ordinary’ shotguns with no magazine or a magazine limited to two rounds and fulfilling a possibly modified definition of ‘shotgun’ under current legislation. Whilst that class would dominate, there may be other low risk weapons that could fall into this category. In this case, the existing reverse good reason would apply and shotguns could be bought and sold without limit as to numbers, very much in the manner of the existing Shotgun Certificate. There would be no authority to impose conditions other than statutory ones. Category F Would be a collector’s license (as appropriate to NRA Heritage Arms). Category G Would describe those firearms, such as low powered airguns, that required no license.

3.1.7

The NRA acknowledges that the ramifications of a change to such a system need to be considered and understood by a variety of parties and all parties need to be satisfied that there would be no diminution of public safety.

3.1.8

The system proposed seeks to concentrate firearms control efforts in the areas where they might be most useful. At the same time it reduces the burden on the Police or licensing authority. A useful by-product is that it achieves great compatibility with the European Directive.

3.1.9

The NRA recommends that the work of the Categories Working Party, established under the Firearms Consultative Committee be continued once the Firearms Advisory Committee is appointed.

3.1.10

Single gun license and/or procedures for firearms and shotguns. What would be the value and the difficulties? If imposed, a good reason requirement on Shotgun Certificates would impose a further administrative burden upon the Police Service and would have no significant effect on public safety.

3.1.11

Should shotgun owners be required to meet the more stringent standards of fitness required of Firearm Certificate holders? There has always been some confusion about ‘fitness’ and ‘good reason’ and the application of a ‘fitness’ test to applicants for a Shotgun Certificate and it is important that the distinction is maintained and, where necessary, enforced through guidance.

3.1.12

The NRA considers a Home Office Working Party should examine the issue of ‘fitness’ across the spectrum of ownership of firearms, in conjunction with other issues surrounding the bureaucracy of firearms licensing.

3.1.13

Certification Process. Can it be improved? This is dealt with in the National Rifle Association Stage 1 submission where we advocate testing and licensing the person.

3.1.14

Defining component parts. What would be gained and how might it be done? The current definition as included in the Home Office Guidance should be given statutory authority.

3.1.15

Responsibilities for issuing certificates. Should they continue as at present? Again this is dealt with in the NRA Stage 1 submission, which advocates creating a National Firearms Agency to take on the licensing responsibilities currently undertaken by the Police.

Part 2 – Unlicensed Guns 3.2.1

Airgun power levels for licensing. Are they at the right levels? The existing levels of muzzle energy for certification purposes and those used for the classification of toys seem to be perfectly reasonable.

3.2.2

Lethality. Should a limit be defined in law? Lethality is not an issue confined to airguns, although in practice it is in determining the lethal potential of low powered airguns that it is most problematic.

3.2.3

The Firearms Consultative Committee recommended that a statutory threshold of one-joule muzzle energy should be embodied in primary legislation on the basis that any airgun which exceeds this limit would be deemed to be a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Acts. The NRA supports this recommendation.

3.2.4

Definition of a firearm. Should it be changed and if so how? The current definition is set out in the Firearms Act 1968. It has been amended previously to meet with developments. The complexity of current and proposed changes to legislation and guidance mean that the definition no longer meets requirements.

3.2.5

For simplicity the NRA would recommend moving towards the EC Directive, which only has two classes of firearms.

3.2.6

The required changes would need to be considered by the Firearms Advisory Committee.

3.2.7

Readily convertible imitation firearms. Should “readily convertible” be further defined in law? Having regard to the millions of law abiding people who now own imitations, compared with the relatively small number who misuse them, a significant and retrospective change in definition could be unenforceable and counter-productive and might penalise large numbers of innocent people.

3.2.8

Imitation firearms that have been converted for use in crime are almost exclusively originally blank firing and are almost all imported. The simplest way to control this problem may be by restricting their import.

3.2.9

Licensing and restrictions on sales of imitations and airguns. Do you agree that there should be no changes? Licensing airguns or added restrictions on sale are not justified; would cause serious harm to trade: would bear on millions of law-abiding people; would damage sport, including international competition; would over-burden the Police and detract from the effort to control other firearms; and in every way be ineffective and counter-productive.

3.2.10

Licensing of deactivated firearms. Should this be done? What are the costs and gains? The term deactivated firearm seems to be generally understood to apply to those real firearms that, whilst keeping their original appearance, have been modified so that they will no longer fire a missile.

3.2.11

Licensing of deactivated firearms would be unachievable. The existing standards are sufficient and there is no justification for statutory standards, which would be more difficult to change in light of experience.

Part 3 – Young People and Guns 3.3.1

Principle of young people and guns. Should young people be able to possess guns and, if so, in what circumstances? Evidence suggests that those young people who embrace the responsibility required to shoot in a safe manner often carry it into other areas of their lives. Shooting requires considerable self-discipline and anything which encourages this desirable trait in young people ought to be encouraged.

3.3.2

Age limits. How might they be rationalised? The Home Office recognises this when in its Guidance to the Police it states, “It is in the interests of safety that a young person who is to handle firearms should be properly taught at a relatively early age”.

3.3.3

The Firearms Consultative Committee recommended the relevant ages should be 14 and 17, proposing the following: Under 14 Can use any firearm only when supervised on a one to one basis by a suitable person. May not be granted a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate. May not receive any firearm as a gift. Between 14 – 17 May be granted a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate if able to meet licensing criteria. The holder of a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate, may borrow firearms and use subject to conditions imposed by the Firearm or Shotgun Certificate. May receive any firearm as a gift. May not buy or hire any firearm or ammunition. If not the holder of a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate may use firearms under suitable supervision. 17 or over May obtain a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate and may buy or hire any firearm and its ammunition, subject to authority. Between 17 – 21 May not supervise a young person in the use of a firearm. Supervision The FCC also recommended that a person 21 or older who was the holder of a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate with three years relevant experience should be allowed to supervise young people. The exception being if a person under 21 has completed a recognised course in firearms instruction.

3.3.4

Airguns Although low powered airguns do not require certification, it is the view of the NRA that people purchasing and using this type of equipment should be encouraged to undertake formal training to improve competence and safety. It is felt particularly the young would benefit, thus reducing the incidence of criminal damage and animal cruelty.

3.3.5

The National Rifle Association recommends these proposals be adopted.

Part 4 – Trade 3.4.1

Registration criteria for Registered Firearms Dealers (RFDs). Are they the right ones? The law relating to firearms dealers is for the greater part that drafted in 1920. There have been amendments since that time, but there has been no overall review of the law. There are a number of areas in which the law could be made simpler and more easily understood. Equally importantly, there are a number of areas where compatibility with other aspects of firearms legislation can be achieved making the entire system of control more understandable.

3.4.2

The NRA feels there is a need to take an in-depth look at the overall issue of trade matters and this is best achieved by a Working Party of the to be formed Firearms Advisory Committee.

3.4.3

Places of RFD business. Are controls on where RFDs can trade correct? The place at which a firearms dealer keeps firearms and ammunition has long been subject to a requirement that it be a suitable place. Current law is less than clear, however, and there may be doubt about whether a place at which firearms are not for sale, but merely displayed, is a place of business.

3.4.4

Consideration should be given to a definition.

3.4.5

Gun Shops. Should gun shops be allowed to openly display what they are selling and should there be age restrictions on who can go in? The gun trade is a proper and responsible trade that has had its place on the High Streets of cities and towns for hundreds of years. Dealers are sensitive to public perception and have in recent years been careful about how they display firearms and airguns.

3.4.6

The industry is also alert to its security responsibilities both when the shop is open or closed. Traders are conscious of their obligations to minimise the chances of firearms inappropriately falling into the hands of the criminal fraternity.

3.4.7

The NRA would not recommend blacking out the windows of a legitimate trader or the exclusion of young people from stores.

3.4.8

Period of RFD registration. Is duration correct and should the same criteria apply as at registration? Under current law, a dealer is registered for as long as his name appears in a register held by the Police. The document that is renewed is a certificate of registration, which merely purports to show that his name is in the register. Renewal of that document is mandatory if application is made and the fee paid. Police action to prevent a person from dealing involves removing his name from the register, which need not be connected with renewal of the certificate of registration. The NRA would suggest that this system be changed to one of a licence as authority to deal since dealers are subject to close and virtually continuous supervision.

3.4.9

Additionally we would recommend that licensing for a person or body corporate to act as a firearms dealer should be valid until revoked, the regular inspections making the bureaucracy of periodic renewals unnecessary.

3.4.10

Removal of RFDs from the register. Is the current process satisfactory? The system is complex and difficult to understand and many issues are entirely unclear. If a dealer’s name is removed from the register, he may in some instances retain his certificate of registration and there is an open question about whether he can continue to trade.

3.4.11

The system should be replaced with a system of licensing and revocation of all forms of licence on grounds related to personal suitability.

3.4.12

RFD servants. Should this term be clarified in law? The absence of a definition of the word servant causes difficulties both to dealers and to the Police.

3.4.13

On the one hand there are suggestions that the exemption is misused, or that those who claim to be servants are often agents not subject to specific direction. On the other hand, a firearms dealer may find it essential to take on temporary staff at specific events or to use temporary staff for specific purposes.

3.4.14

The NRA would propose that a suitable definition might be: “A servant of a licensed firearms dealer is a person who is in the employ of the licensed firearms dealer and who, in relation to any of the activities in the definition of a firearms dealer is acting entirely on behalf of the firearms dealer under specific prior instructions given before any of the activities commenced”.

3.4.15

Internet sales. What is the nature and extent of the problem and what can be done to restrict abuse both for imports and domestic trade? There is a need for Government to produce proper evidence of misuse of the Internet before those in the legitimate trade can offer advice, opinions or remedies beyond those which already exist.

3.4.16

At that stage the shooting community would willingly play its part in eliminating any issue which might impact on the lawful certificate owner or registered firearm dealer.

3.4.17

Newspaper and telephone sales. What is the nature and extent of any problem and what should be done to restrict abuse? There is a need for Government to produce proper evidence of misuse of newspaper and telephone sales before those in the legitimate trade can offer advice, opinions or remedies beyond those which already exist.

3.4.18

At that stage the shooting community would willingly play its part in eliminating any issue which might impact on the lawful certificate owner or registered firearm dealer.

3.4.19

Mail order deliveries. What is the nature and extent of any problem and what might be done about it? There is a need for Government to produce proper evidence of misuse of mail order deliveries before those in the legitimate trade can offer advice, opinions or remedies beyond those which already exist.

3.4.20

At that stage the shooting community would willingly play its part in eliminating any issue which might impact on the lawful certificate owner or registered firearm dealer.

Part 5 – Ammunition 3.5.1

Shotgun cartridges. Should they be controlled on certificates? Proposals to impose numeric restrictions on shotgun cartridges are not supported by any research or any logical review clearly stating aims, costs and benefits.

3.5.2

Component parts of ammunition. Should primers be controlled on certificates? The imposition of certificate controls on primers would be a bureaucratic nightmare for legitimate users and an enormous burden on the Police.

3.5.3

Expanding ammunition. Should the present restrictions remain in place? The current ban has created a number of anomalies and has made a small inert piece of metal into ammunition in its own right. Only authorised carriers at greatly increased cost may now ship these. Post or ordinary carriers can ship other bullets as they have done for generations.

3.5.4

The ban has created an inconvenience for the shooter and added to the work burden imposed on the supplying dealer, who must record expanding ammunition separately from other types, and on the administrative burden on the Police in an area which has never produced any problems. It has increased administrative costs for the Police and for dealers quite significantly.

3.5.5

The NRA believes that there is no logical basis for the prohibitions of expanding ammunition and the law should revert to the pre1997 provision in conformity with the EC Directive.

Part 6 – Other Issues 3.6.1

Miniature rifle ranges. Should this exemption be abolished? Section 11 (4) of the Firearms Act 1968 provides that a person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range (whether for a rifle club or otherwise) or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than airguns or miniature rifles not exceeding .23 inch calibre may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, such miniature rifles and ammunition suitable there for; and that any person may, without holding a certificate, use any such rifle and ammunition at such a range or gallery.

3.6.2

Traditionally, this exemption has been used by proprietors of fairground sideshows under the auspices of the Showman’s Guild, and by schools and colleges under the auspices of the NSRA. Ranges have also been affiliated to shooting clubs and small tunnel ranges to some public houses. All of these have generally operated without incident.

3.6.3

The NRA considers that, in the absence of any evidence of danger to public safety, the exemption for miniature rifle ranges should continue.

3.6.4

Exemptions for borrowing firearms on private premises. Should they be retained and if so, should they be rationalised? The exemptions from the need to possess Firearm or Shotgun Certificates whilst borrowing firearms is a major source of introduction to shooting sports, whether it be the use of a friend’s gun in a suitable, lawful situation or a lesson at a shooting ground. The exemptions are very important in enabling newcomers to shooting and those who do not regularly shoot to participate in the sport.

3.6.5

The NRA concludes that, provided any conditions attached to the certificate are complied with, certificate holders should be permitted to lend shotguns or firearms and ammunition to another person in the certificate holder’s presence on private land including, for the avoidance of doubt, approved ranges.

3.6.6

Target shooting clubs. Should any changes be made to the present arrangements? In the NRA’s opinion in the absence of evidence of misuse or abuse there is no reason for further restrictions in the existing arrangements for ‘approved’ clubs. We recommend that there is room for further simplification in line with our recommendations for licensing.

3.6.7

Target shooting locations. Should target shooting only be allowed at Home Office approved clubs? This confuses organisations with locations. Lots of clubs exist without premises. The fact that the range they use is run as a commercial or military concern is irrelevant to the soundness or otherwise of the club.

3.6.8

Target shooting disciplines. Should there be a list of accepted target shooting disciplines? The NRA do not think that shooting disciplines should be prescribed by legislation. We recommend that the criteria should be that: a b c

the user is licensed the activity is regulated by an accredited governing body the range is safe for the purpose

3.6.9

Appeals process against licensing decisions. Are any changes needed to existing appeals procedures? The NRA is conscious that the threat of an appeal may influence chief officers’ decisions and that there is a perception that the evidence on which a chief officer has to rely when revoking or refusing a certificate is onerous. The nature of the existing adversarial arrangements mean they work to the disadvantage of all parties.

3.6.10

As an alternative the Association would suggest that there might be scope for a voluntary code, which would not require legislation but would achieve some of the stated objectives. A system akin to arbitration, or to other forms of alternative dispute resolution procedures already in operation today, would be worthy of examination.

3.6.11

The NRA acknowledges that any system would not remove the right of appeal to the courts as a final stage but would hope to resolve disputes without such a measure being necessary.

3.6.12

British Visitor’s Permits. Are the present arrangements satisfactory? The NRA would recommend that an Interdepartmental Committee, which must necessarily include representatives of the shooting community and the enforcement agencies, be established, as a matter of some priority, to examine the effectiveness of the existing arrangements, to examine the situation in other European member states and to report to the Home Secretary.

Section 4 Views and Concerns of NRA Members 4.1

Target Shooting The sport of target shooting is highly regulated by legislation, Home Office guidance, and the rules issued by Governing Bodies, clubs and ranges to ensure appropriate levels of conduct, safety and security.

4.2

Members are thus confused and justifiably frustrated at what they see as further attempts to regulate their sport to a level that makes it increasingly difficult and expensive to undertake.

4.3

Target shooting is basically a sport where shooters fire at inanimate bull’s eye style paper targets or clay tiles (pigeons). Depending upon how close to the centre of the target one gets or how many clays are hit one achieves a high or low score. The sport is varied only by the distance shot, type of firearm being used, sequence and number of rounds fired or whether the firearm has additional equipment fitted to assist the shooter.

4.4

The firearm can only be fired from the firing point down the range at the target. Before a shooter removes themselves from the firing point they must show that the firearm is not loaded thus ensuring an accident does not happen.

4.5

As a result shooting is an inherently safe sport, due to self and organisational regulation. Infringement of safety, range or conduct rules will result in Governing Bodies or clubs punishing those concerned by way of reprimands, fines, suspensions or banning. On the rare occasion an infringement is sufficiently serious the Police are informed.

4.6

Target shooting does not discriminate on race, religion, age, sex or disability, allowing all to compete on equal terms. It is truly an inclusive sport. In the 2004 National meeting at Bisley, 14 year old school children shot next to 80+ year old veterans. Foreign shooters, including those from Kenya, Canada, Malaysia, South Africa, Australia, Trinidad, France, Belgium and Germany, competed with contestants from the Home Nations.

4.7

Shooting is a sport that allows individuals to be involved all their lives. As infirmities develop shooting disciplines have developed using telescopic sights, supports and other equipment that allow us to continue in our chosen sport.

4.8

Young people in particular benefit more than any other group from being involved in shooting, in that they learn about the value of belonging, teamwork, safety, rules, behaving appropriately and responsibility. Using firearms in a sporting capacity teaches the young that rules and discipline are necessary, which is not always the case in other sports or society in general.

4.9

Success in Sport Great Britain has been very successful internationally, in European, Commonwealth, World and Olympic Championships in pistol, rifle and shotgun disciplines. Despite apparently being held in low esteem at home, the representatives of our international teams are highly regarded abroad.

4.10

Shooting is one of the few remaining sports that is still largely amateur. It receives low levels of funding from Government but still achieves good results. Unfortunately, either due to a mistaken perception of a lack of popularity, or some policy, shooting rarely features highly with the media, which prefers to persist with coverage of football, athletics, swimming and the higher optic sports. For example the 2002 Commonwealth Games produced three gold medals from our best pistol shot, yet (through suspected political interference) failed to feature at all on the television and the 15 year old girl gold medal winner in the clays was featured for just two minutes.

4.11

Our pistol shooting team, which has some world class individuals in it, are forced to train abroad (which is unfair with cost restricting the sport to purely the better off), due to the ban on pistols in GB. At present GB can still compete on the world stage. However, it is difficult for young people to pistol shoot, leading to reducing participation within a controlled environment. The lack of practice available to British competitors has almost inevitably led to the lack of representation in the current Olympics in rifle and pistol disciplines. In the future, if London was successful in its bid for the 2012 Olympics we could find a situation where a Government dispensation is given to allow pistol competition but no British competitors can qualify to shoot.

4.12

It is, therefore, not surprising that many of the so-called proposals and requests for wide ranging views in the Consultation Paper are regarded with deep cynicism and suspicion among the legitimate sport shooting population. There is a fundamental concern that once again the politicians are targeting the wrong group with the wrong proposals. Little in the Paper will address the issue of gun crime on the streets; most of the Paper’s contents will simply add to the massive burdens placed on one of the most law-abiding and controlled sports of all.

4.13

Criminal Misuse of Firearms Target shooters are as concerned as the rest of society about the criminal misuse of firearms. In the past, members have both formally and informally expressed their concerns about inappropriate activities within the shooting community to the authorities. Fortunately, criminal activity amongst certified firearms users is extremely rare.

4.14

Unfortunately this is not the impression that the general public is given. Due to the two high profile cases against licensed shooters and the Government reaction, particularly in 1997, with the banning of pistols, the public has been directed into a disproportionate fear of those who use firearms in their sport.

4.15

This misrepresentation of licensed shooters has resulted in shooting becoming an almost secret sport by default. All shooting organisations feel as though they have been disenfranchised in that not only is their sport misunderstood, they seem largely powerless to combat the misinformation.

4.16

The Government by its continued drive to restrict licensed firearms use by draconian means reinforces the misguided impression held in wider society. When asked in Parliament to provide detailed statistics regarding the criminal misuse of licensed firearms, the Government regularly claims the data is not collected. The licensed community is convinced that were statistics available they would prove there is no evident link between themselves and crime. In some quarters the lack of statistics is seen as convenient to Government as it appears to seek to reduce the legitimate use of firearms.

4.17

It is felt that the media follows the Government’s lead and in consequence the legitimate shooting community are not able to represent their views or promote shooting as a sport.

4.18

Shooters feel as though they have been unfairly demonised which has resulted in a nervousness, particularly at club level. Clubs are reticent to reveal their location or contacts for fear of abuse or reprisals.

4.19

Firearms Licensing and the Police The experience of shooters when involved with the Police is variable. Although there may be legislation and Home Office guidance, interpretation is the key. There is a lack of consistency between Police Forces. Some Forces are liberal in their interpretation; others are difficult and perceived as anti-shooter.

4.20

In the perception of most Forces shooters do not pose a crime or disorder problem and there is a fair degree of understanding. The attitude of the rest is often coloured by their current crime and disorder problems where licensed shooters are seen as part of the problem, when in reality they are not. In an effort to reduce the risk posed by the illegal use of firearms, those wishing to take part in licensed sport are thus discouraged. It is seen as a ‘result’ for the Police if a club closes or a license holder gives up the sport due to bureaucratic obstruction.

4.21

It appears to the wider shooting community that the Forces that currently have a more obstructive approach to firearms licensing currently are more in accord with unspoken Government policy than those that deal with license holders on the basis of the low risk they pose to public safety.

4.22

The bureaucratic burden placed upon the Police by Home Office guidelines is difficult for them to manage. It is a fact that a lot of the additional safeguards, such as the requirement to provide references and returns by clubs, are questionable in value. They give the illusion of providing greater security but the administrative burden is such that the Police are often unable to carry out the necessary checks for it to be effective.

4.23

Legislation, Home Office Guidance and the Police’s interpretation has led to the licensed community in the UK having to cope with one of the most restrictive firearms regimes in the world.

4.24

Conclusion Those involved in sports shooting were appalled by the tragedies at Dunblane and Hungerford. At the same time legitimate target shooters object to being held to blame collectively for what happened. Also members ask why they are being held accountable for street crime involving firearms, when the vast majority of those involved illegally import their guns and have never been license holders.

4.25

They believe the way they have been treated is unfair in that they have been tried, convicted and punished for something that in reality was a failure by the authorities.

4.26

Unfortunately it appears to the shooting community that the Government intends to continue to punish them for the current increase in the criminal use of firearms, when there is no link.

4.27

The shooting community believe that both the Police and Government are using them as an easy option target simply to show they are doing something, when they are in fact failing to tackle the real problem.

4.28

Licensed firearms users are becoming convinced that it is the intention of this Government to end all sports firearms use in Great Britain.

4.29

They support this argument by pointing out:

4.30

a

The reduction of funding for sports shooting

b

The absence of any link between crime and licensed firearms use

c

The removal of pistols in 1997

d

The difficulties recently in being able to book MoD Ranges

e

The large increases in MoD charges to shooters

f

The difficulties in getting approval for new and existing ranges

The Consultation Paper raises additional issues that are designed in the view of the target shooter to destroy or inhibit the sport. a

Clay pigeon target shooting is a growth sport. Moves to make it harder to own a shotgun are seen as counter productive.

b

Increased frequency in terms of renewal of a Firearm Certificate are seen as intended to increase a shooter’s costs, not to improve public safety.

c

Ambiguous comments in the document hint at the intention to extend the types of firearms prohibited.

d

Ex-pistol users have had to re-invent themselves since 1997, developing a new discipline of target shooting called Gallery Rifle. At a stage where this is developing into an international discipline, proposals in the paper are seen as a direct attack on a growing sport.

e

Other proposals are seen as a threat to attracting young people into the sport.

4.31

Members of the National Rifle Association were hoping to get positive signs from the Government that the political climate relating to the licensed use of firearms for sport was changing for the better. They were expecting the Consultation Paper to outline a complete change in philosophy focusing legislation away from technical issues onto measures that would allow the sport to flourish while improving upon public safety.

4.32

The document does contain some innovative thinking which gives hope for a future change in policy, but most of the paper seems to suggest amendments to current legislation which has been flawed from its original inception.