Firearms Controls: Response to Home Office
August 2004
Introduction
The National Gamekeepers' Organisation (NGO) was pleased to be consulted by Home Office officials working on the review of firearms legislation. The use of firearms is of great importance to our members and we would hope to be included in any round table discussions subsequent to the written consultation exercise.
For the record, the NGO was founded in 1997 and now has over 8,000 members. It represents the gamekeeping profession in England and Wales. More details about the organisation can be found on our website: http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/
General Points:
1. Gamekeeping is one of very few professions actually dependent on the use of firearms. For us they are not mere leisure items, they are the tools of our job. What we say is therefore important and we hope it will be given due weight when the Home Office assesses all the responses to its consultation paper.
2. The Government has pledged in its manifesto and in many subsequent statements by the Prime Minister and by other Ministers not to restrict shooting in any way.
3. The Home Secretary, in his introduction to the current consultation, has said that he too wants to minimise bureaucracy and ‘not impose unnecessary burdens on lawful gun users'. The Home Office has also said on its website that the main aim in this review of firearms legislation is to reduce gun crime.
4. Yet virtually the whole consultation paper and the suggestions made in it are about restricting legitimate gun users, not about stopping gun crime. There is clearly a serious breakdown in logic here and it must be put right before any of these proposals go any further.
5. The mis-match of good intentions and muddled thinking is not new. Every time the Government tries to tackle gun crime it penalizes legitimate gun users instead. We are fed up with this approach. It is manifestly unfair and it doesn't work: just look at how hand-gun crime has risen since the post-Dunblane ban.
6. The UK already has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Legitimate gun users already find it hard enough to get the relevant certificates and approvals. The Government should be simplifying the law, reducing bureaucracy and freeing up police time so that officers can go out and catch armed criminals, instead of strangling themselves, and law abiding gun users, in more red tape.
7. The overwhelming evidence is that legitimately held guns are invariably properly used; accidents are very rare indeed; deliberate misuse is even rarer.
Specific Comments
The National Gamekeepers' Organisation makes the following specific comments on the areas mentioned in the Home Office consultation document. They appear here in the same order that they are covered in the Home Office document and the sub-heading quoted are those used in the consultation paper. Where a sub-head in the document has been left out below, it can be assumed we have no comment to make on that aspect of the consultation.
_ Classification of individual types of gun. Are all firearms subject to the right levels of control?
We believe that they are. There is no evidence of a significant security problem with legitimately held guns of any type. There is no need for a major overhaul of the law. There are minor improvements that could be made and we come on to these later but the main thrust to combating armed crime should be improved policing, not further restriction of the legitimate gun-owning community.
_ Should other types of gun be prohibited?
No. We oppose especially the suggestions in the consultation that pump-action shot-guns, self loading shot-guns and self-loading .22 rimfire rifles should be banned. Most gamekeepers and many landowners, farmers and pest controllers use these types of firearm in the essential reduction of pest birds such as crows, rooks and pigeons. They are also used for controlling the rabbit population. Where is the evidence that legitimate ownership and use of such guns is creating a security problem? If they were to be banned, not only would important pest management practices suffer, there would also be a massive compensation bill for the Government to pay. The failure of the post-Dunblane pistol ban should be sufficient warning to leave well alone.
_ Flexibility of law. Is the law able to respond quickly enough to changes in firearms technology?
We believe that it is. The recent ban on Brocock weapons in response to a specific problem is an example of the flexibility of the current system. The Home Secretary has the power to ban especially dangerous (new) types of guns. He has never had to use it but the power is already there. We would add, however, that these special powers never seem to be used in favour of legitimate gun use. For example, the advent of the new .17 rimfire rifle, which is proving its worth in pest control, has not been followed by its being added to the exemption allowing possession of the larger .22 automatic rimfire. It would be logical for the Home Secretary to do this.
_ Firearms categories. Should we continue to use the present three categories?
Yes. There are good reasons why the current law differentiates between different types of weapons on the basis of the relative danger of their potential misuse. Nothing has changed. The current system works, so why alter it?
There would be major logistical problems and additional costs if, for example, shotguns were to have the same level of licensing as Part 1 firearms. The added, bureaucracy and cost of carrying out health checks on 610,000 shotgun certificate holders would be quite unjustified because there is no evidence of a problem.
Putting shot-guns on to Part 1 certificates would mean applicants having to show ‘good reason' for each and every gun. This would be a massive increase in bureaucracy, justified by what? Your own consultation document states, "At present the police can only assess whether the shot gun certificate applicant is a danger to the public or subject to statutory prohibitions." Is that not precisely the point? Why do anything more?
This section of the consultation document also suggests putting restrictive conditions on shot-gun certificates. Again, this would be a flagrant breach of the Government's pledges not to restrict shooting in any way. It would create massive bureaucracy, inconvenience and cost for law abiding shooters. There is no evidence given in the consultation paper to justify such a move, nor does any such evidence exist.
The consultation also asks for views on mandatory testing and probationary periods for those who have guns for purposes such as deer stalking and vermin control. This would be another huge imposition on legitimate gun owners, and on gamekeepers in particular, when there is no evidence that it would improve public safety at all.
_ Single gun licence and/or procedures for firearms and shot guns. What would be the value and the difficulties?
It might be possible to make the licensing arrangements less bureaucratic but we are dead against combining the categories of guns in order to do this (see above).
We would, however, welcome increased simplicity in the way certificates are issued and used. Even though shotguns and firearms rightly have different levels of certification, there is no reason why the certificate itself should not be a single document, issued to a fit person, and relating to both types of gun (just as the driving licence lists categories of vehicles which the holder is entitled to drive).
Furthermore, we believe the Government should investigate the possibility of an electronic smart firearms certificate that could hold data on every gun possessed by the holder, could be swiped in a gun-shop whenever a gun was bought or sold, could include a running total of ammunition possessed, be linked to the police computer (so the police actually know when a gun is at the holders address or in for repair), and so on. Such a certificate would have many advantages as well as simplifying administration and freeing up police time. It certainly merits consideration.
_ Certification process. Can it be improved?
We suggest the Government considers issuing firearms and shot-gun certificates for longer periods, perhaps 25 years or even life. If a holder was then to commit a crime or to become unsuitable in some other way, his certificate and guns could be removed, just as happens now. Increasing the certification period would reduce costs and bureaucracy but would not decrease public safety in any way. The smart card certification we have suggested above would increase the speed with which the police could check whether an offender was a holder of guns.
_ Defining component parts. What would be gained and how might it be done?
Defining component parts of a firearm as ‘those elements necessary to the action of the gun' as you suggest is probably OK. If this is to be done, the opportunity should be taken to take sound moderators off the list of component parts. The gun can function without them and they are only metal tubes. It is absurd that the same sound moderator can be freely held by the owner of an air rifle but has to be listed on the licence if it is to be used on a firearm. We also think it is a nonsense that under the Proof Acts (dti authority) a rifle has to go for expensive and time consuming re-proofing before it can be used with a sound moderator. Gunsmiths say there is no increased safety risk where a moderator is used. The need for separate listing on certificates, and the re-proofing requirement, both act as disincentives to the use of sound moderators when from a health and safety standpoint their use is one of the best contributors to reducing hearing damage in the shooting community.
_ Regulating component parts for shot guns and prohibited weapons that are not
firearms. Is this necessary and how might it be done?
We do not think that component parts of shot-guns should be identified nor controlled. At the moment shooters can remove the fore end, for example, and carry it separately in transit to make the transport of the gun safer. If the fore end became subject to controls, this would cause problems. Overall gun safety would be disadvantaged by such a change. Things are best left as they are.
_ Responsibilities for issuing certificates. Should they continue as at present?
This is an administrative point. As users we would simply say the system has to be one that works. There is considerable advantage in using the police as they often have local knowledge of individuals and places when dealing with applicants. This might be lost in a more impersonal national system.
_ Air gun power levels for licensing. Are they at the right levels?
We think they are. An air rifle needs to be powerful enough to kill pests cleanly. The current level of 12 foot pounds is about right and has stood the test of time. The 6 foot pound limit for air pistols is also correct. If the legitimate limits were to be any lower, there would be consequences for animal welfare.
_ Definition of a firearm. Should it be changed and if so how?
No. The current definition is working.
_ Licensing and restrictions on sales of imitations and all air guns. Do you agree that there should be no changes?
Yes
_ Principle of young people and guns. Should young people be able to possess guns and, if so, in what circumstances?
Very much so. Good gun safety, as with all learning, is best carried out young when individuals are impressionable and are guided more naturally by their elders. We believe the supervised use of guns from childhood has been a major contributor to the exemplary record of good practice and safety in UK sporting shooting. It would be disastrous to lose this.
For young gamekeepers (age 14+) the use of firearms on private land, with permission but without supervision, is essential to their training and their jobs. Please leave this as it is. There is no evidence of a problem.
_ Age limits. How might they be rationalised?
The current difference in age limits is illogical and it has come about because of the recent raising of the air gun limits without justification. We must not fall into the trap of rationalizing the shotgun age limit up to that of air guns. Instead the misguided air gun age limit should be brought back down. There is no evidence of any problem whatsoever with the current shot-gun and firearm age limits. Within reason, the earlier people can learn about safe, legitimate gun use, the better.
_ 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?
Where on earth did this absurd idea come from? What better way to imply that there is something wrong or secretive about legitimate gun ownership and use. Of course gun shops should be secure, but blackened windows and the like will do nothing whatever for public safety and could well create a macho image of gun ownership.
_ Mail order deliveries. What is the nature and extent of any problem and what might be done about it?
Whilst not related strictly to sales and transfer, we are somewhat concerned about the ease with which a fully assembled gun can be mailed through the post when sent in for repair. We suggest the Government looks at requiring separate posting of the gun and the bolt/fore-end in these circumstances.
_ Shot gun cartridges. Should they be controlled on certificates?
No. The numbers of cartridges involved and the regularity with which they are purchased makes shot-gun cartridges a very different issue from firearms ammunition. The bureaucracy involved would be enormous. Where is the evidence of any problem requiring such a move?
_ Component parts of ammunition. Should primers be controlled on certificates?
No. But if they were to be it should be limited to simple production of a certificate and there should be no numerical limit on purchase or possession. Primers are often sold only in large batches (5000+) and usually have to be collected in person. Limiting the numbers an individual could hold would therefore be problematic. It would not contribute materially to public safety.
_ Expanding ammunition. Should the present restrictions remain in place?
Yes. There should certainly not be any further restriction. Ammunition management would be aided considerably by the type of smart card certification we have suggested above. If the smart certificate had to be swiped in the gun shop whenever ammunition was purchased, the police could quickly investigate anyone who seemed to be buying an unusually large amount.
_ Exemptions for borrowing firearms on private premises. Should they be retained and, if so, should they be rationalised?
It is very important for sporting shooting that the exemptions for borrowing are retained. Both shotguns and rifles are commonly borrowed, within the current law, on sporting estates. Borrowing allows people to try out the sport and to be taught under appropriate supervision prior to deciding whether to apply for a certificate. It reduces the need for guns to travel (eg with overseas sportsmen). There is no evidence that the borrowing rules create any public safety problems.
We agree, however, that it would be helpful to clarify that the term ‘occupier' includes the holder of the shooting rights, his employed gamekeeper or stalker, and a person who has purchased the shooting for that day (for example the captain of a roving shooting syndicate). It also needs to be confirmed that the term ‘in the presence of' means within sight or hearing.
There is need for an additional exemption to allow an estate or a gamekeeper to hold someone else's firearms or shot guns for more than 72 hours. For example, an overseas sportsman may find it more convenient (and certainly safer) to leave his guns at the shoot between visits. Likewise a regular Saturday shooter may prefer to leave his guns with the gamekeeper rather than carry them down every weekend from London. Some keepers are asked to look after their employers guns and several police forces are now requiring everyone with access to a gun cabinet to have every gun within it listed on their own certificate, regardless of ownership. This is nonsense as it creates extra paperwork, skews the statistics and is even encouraging some estates to register as firearms dealers to overcome the problem. Please can this be addressed.
_ Target shooting clubs. Should any changes be made to the present arrangements?
It is vital that target rifle shooting remains legal on private estates. It is essential for ensuring that visiting stalkers are accurate and that gun sights are properly zeroed. Again, where is the evidence of any problem with the current arrangements?
_ British Visitors' Permits. Are the present arrangements satisfactory?
It would simplify matters if the UK Government could accept the European Firearms Pass as legitimizing the entry of a European national to this country along with any of the guns listed on his pass. The UK version of the pass is accepted elsewhere in Europe when we travel abroad but at present separate paperwork (a Visitors Permit) has to be prepared when overseas shooters from the rest of Europe come here. This is expensive and unnecessary. The current arrangement would of course need to remain in place for non-EU visitors.
We have one final point: there are still a lot of differing standards between police forces in the way the existing Act is administered. The Home Office guidance issued in 2002 has helped but matters such as the issue of open and close Firearms Licences, the restrictions placed on calibers for different types of pest control still differ widely from force to force. We would favour one clear, practical national standard based on the existing Home Office guidance on these matters.
Conclusion
The law on firearms, as on all other things, will be respected and followed most closely if it is seen to be sensible, proportionate and as simple as possible.
The Government must think again on firearms controls. The need to cut armed crime is obvious. The link between doing that and further restricting legitimate gun users has not been made, nor is it justified by the evidence.
Sensible, proportionate improvements will be welcomed by the shooting community. The current proposals for unjustified root and branch restrictions would cause understandable anger and dissent, particularly in the context of a manifesto commitment not to restrict shooting. More importantly, they would do nothing to improve public safety.