Legalise sex with animals

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Freedom for caged Chickens

Currently, over fifty percent of eggs come from battery chickens.  These chickens are kept in cages around the same size as a piece of A4 paper.  These cages will be illegal as of 2012, however ‘enriched cages’ will be allowed.  These new cages, however, offer little improvement.  Cages prevent chickens from behaving naturally.  It’s about time we began to move to eradicating all manner of cages for chickens.  Studies frequently site free-range eggs as being significantly healthier.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, over fifty percent of eggs come from battery chickens.  These chickens are kept in cages around the same size as a piece of A4 paper.  These cages will be illegal as of 2012, however ‘enriched cages’ will be allowed.  These new cages, however, offer little improvement.  Cages prevent chickens from behaving naturally.  It’s about time we began to move to eradicating all manner of cages for chickens.  Studies frequently site free-range eggs as being significantly healthier.

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Why is this idea important?

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Animal Rights Activists – let the punishment fit the crime!

I would like to see animal rights activists treated in the same way  as the rest of society.  There are 3 prisoners who pleaded guilty to harrassment who are currently serving 12 years for conducting a 3 year harrassment campaign.  A previous tory parliamentary candidate (Ian Oakley) also conducted a very similar harrassment campaign over a similar period of time against a prospective lib dem candidate.  He was given 16 weeks suspended.  The discrepancy in these punishments for very similar crimes with very different motives is very disturbing in a democratic society.

There are other animal rights prisoners who have been found guilty of "conspiracy to blackmail" serving 11  and 9 years.  They were responsible for running a  (legal) campaign to protest against a major vivisection laboratory.   This kind of sentencing is on a par with those given to murderers and rapists.  It is outrageous that in this day and age sentecing is so out of touch with the action to which it is related.

I would also like to see the repeal of sections 145 – 149 of the SOCPA act. 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see animal rights activists treated in the same way  as the rest of society.  There are 3 prisoners who pleaded guilty to harrassment who are currently serving 12 years for conducting a 3 year harrassment campaign.  A previous tory parliamentary candidate (Ian Oakley) also conducted a very similar harrassment campaign over a similar period of time against a prospective lib dem candidate.  He was given 16 weeks suspended.  The discrepancy in these punishments for very similar crimes with very different motives is very disturbing in a democratic society.

There are other animal rights prisoners who have been found guilty of "conspiracy to blackmail" serving 11  and 9 years.  They were responsible for running a  (legal) campaign to protest against a major vivisection laboratory.   This kind of sentencing is on a par with those given to murderers and rapists.  It is outrageous that in this day and age sentecing is so out of touch with the action to which it is related.

I would also like to see the repeal of sections 145 – 149 of the SOCPA act. 

Repeal the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

 I appeal to the current Government to repeal part 5 of the SOCPA (2005) "Protection of activities of certain organisations" with immediate effect.

 


The section can be viewed here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_14

Why is this idea important?

 I appeal to the current Government to repeal part 5 of the SOCPA (2005) "Protection of activities of certain organisations" with immediate effect.

 


The section can be viewed here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_14

replica fire arms

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Why is this idea important?

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

New Firearms Licensing system

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Part 5 “Protection of activities of certain organisations” of the SOCPA 2005 be repealed.

 

To repeal Part 5 of the 2005 SOCPA , which states that an animal rights activist can go to jail for 5 years for writing a letter, or particpating in protest.

Why is this idea important?

 

To repeal Part 5 of the 2005 SOCPA , which states that an animal rights activist can go to jail for 5 years for writing a letter, or particpating in protest.

with the comming of the 2012 Olympics and the hand gun ban

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Why is this idea important?

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Review of UK Firearms Law

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

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 is this idea important?

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.  

Ban Guns and knifes!!!!!!!

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Why is this idea important?

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

DO NOT REPEAL THE HUNTING BAN

MR CLEGG;when the hunting ban was brought in by the previous government, it was with the support of the parliamentary and public majority. this long-overdue piece of legislation was overwhelmingly supported by all concerned animal welfare organisations who submitted compelling and irrefutable research that the practice of hunting with hounds is, undeniably, cruel in the extreme. what, pray tell, mr clegg(doing dodgy dave's dirty work), has changed in the intervening years?has new research emerged to show that foxes enjoy the,"thrill of the chase"? or maybe a new breed of masochistic fox has evolved that relishes the prospect of being ripped limb from limb? somehow, i doubt it; more likely is that you,(Mr Clegg), have sacrificed the principles of the party for whom(you claim), to have stood, for a little bit of power, in order to satisfy the bloodlust of dodgy dave's mates. how very sad that those who lead our country, are shallower than a puddle in the street. i fear that the die is already cast and this ridiculous website is no more than smoke and mirrors but, if you retain a shred of decency, principle and a sense of what is morally and ethically right, then please, grow some male genitalia and use any influence you may have to do the right thing.

Why is this idea important?

MR CLEGG;when the hunting ban was brought in by the previous government, it was with the support of the parliamentary and public majority. this long-overdue piece of legislation was overwhelmingly supported by all concerned animal welfare organisations who submitted compelling and irrefutable research that the practice of hunting with hounds is, undeniably, cruel in the extreme. what, pray tell, mr clegg(doing dodgy dave's dirty work), has changed in the intervening years?has new research emerged to show that foxes enjoy the,"thrill of the chase"? or maybe a new breed of masochistic fox has evolved that relishes the prospect of being ripped limb from limb? somehow, i doubt it; more likely is that you,(Mr Clegg), have sacrificed the principles of the party for whom(you claim), to have stood, for a little bit of power, in order to satisfy the bloodlust of dodgy dave's mates. how very sad that those who lead our country, are shallower than a puddle in the street. i fear that the die is already cast and this ridiculous website is no more than smoke and mirrors but, if you retain a shred of decency, principle and a sense of what is morally and ethically right, then please, grow some male genitalia and use any influence you may have to do the right thing.

Repeal the Firearms Act 1968 and amendments

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Why is this idea important?

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Hunting with dogs and other ‘animal rights’ measures

The lawmakers should accept that humans are the pinnacle of the planet. We have rights because we have responsibilities, animals have neither. That is why all laws that are put in place for the benefit of animals should be scrapped. If the hunter wants to hunt he should, if the gypsy wants to engage in cock fighting he should and if the farmer wants to keep chickens in a battery cage he should. In Korea they skin cats and dogs alive and in China they farm bears to extract their bile. These people are truly free.

Why is this idea important?

The lawmakers should accept that humans are the pinnacle of the planet. We have rights because we have responsibilities, animals have neither. That is why all laws that are put in place for the benefit of animals should be scrapped. If the hunter wants to hunt he should, if the gypsy wants to engage in cock fighting he should and if the farmer wants to keep chickens in a battery cage he should. In Korea they skin cats and dogs alive and in China they farm bears to extract their bile. These people are truly free.

Repeal the five year mandatory minimum sentence for firearms possession

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Amend Firearms Laws.

The current laws governing firearms ownership in the UK are overly restrictive. Both the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment)(No2) Act 1997 were passed at times of significant outcry against firearms ownership. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that a ban on handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre would be "panic legislation". A report by the Center of Defence Studies, (Imperial College, London), revealed that the Handgun bans had no effect on the criminal use of illegally held Firearms in Britain. The private ownership of handguns was effectively banned in Great Britain in 1997. All registered handguns were collected by the police and destroyed. Since then, there have been an average of between 4,000 and 5,000 recorded firearm offences involving handguns every year. Criminals who want to use handguns don't seem to have too much difficulty in obtaining them, but they aren't stealing them from licensed gun owners. Whoever forms the new Government after May's Election must face up to the fact the majority of firearms crime is carried out with illegally held firearms, and that restricting the rights of law-abiding people can have little impact on this.

Why is this idea important?

The current laws governing firearms ownership in the UK are overly restrictive. Both the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment)(No2) Act 1997 were passed at times of significant outcry against firearms ownership. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that a ban on handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre would be "panic legislation". A report by the Center of Defence Studies, (Imperial College, London), revealed that the Handgun bans had no effect on the criminal use of illegally held Firearms in Britain. The private ownership of handguns was effectively banned in Great Britain in 1997. All registered handguns were collected by the police and destroyed. Since then, there have been an average of between 4,000 and 5,000 recorded firearm offences involving handguns every year. Criminals who want to use handguns don't seem to have too much difficulty in obtaining them, but they aren't stealing them from licensed gun owners. Whoever forms the new Government after May's Election must face up to the fact the majority of firearms crime is carried out with illegally held firearms, and that restricting the rights of law-abiding people can have little impact on this.