Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why does this idea matter?

It removes the potential for significant miscarriages of justice, without removing the ability for real firearms offenders to be properly punished.  I could also save the State and the individual from significant outlay of time and expense whilst the 'unreasonable' sentence is being debated.

It also eliminates the possibility of 'Nanny State' headlines if a particularly pointless case went to court.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Paul Case says:

    Yes I do fully support if not least approve of this idea of our to restore our right to bare arms, I see it has a lot of ground to it because it also say’s in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689, in one of the provisions of the document(s); states that, no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defense as suitable to their class and as allowed by law and was (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II). I would like people around who want to defend reasonably, I would everyone to start a vast but positive campaign by educating people on firearms, what they are, and how they should be used and bring a positive message eventually. The five year mandatory sentence is can be repealed because it’s a statute requiring the consent of the people or being it’s portrayed in the corporate who presstitute media disguising it legal, namely law. No they are wrong statute with consent is law not the other way wrong and namely contractual agreement 1215 and 1229. Also Edward Coke and Justice of the Common Pleas Sir William Blackstone
    conveyed that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *