Whoever made guns was a really stupid person.
Everyone wants a gun or dangerous weapon because simply put, everyone else seems to have one.
Get the army out of your stupid war and make them work in your own country. Make them raid every single house and collect every single weapon and melt them all down or send them into space and incinerate them on the Sun. And the same with drugs. All the armys should do that in their own countries.
Why is this idea important?
Whoever made guns was a really stupid person.
Everyone wants a gun or dangerous weapon because simply put, everyone else seems to have one.
Get the army out of your stupid war and make them work in your own country. Make them raid every single house and collect every single weapon and melt them all down or send them into space and incinerate them on the Sun. And the same with drugs. All the armys should do that in their own countries.
Amend the Gun Barrel proofing Act to remove the requirement for proof houses to re-proof barrels modified in certain specified circumstances. To address this I would suggest the Act is amended to reflect the following:
Any new rifle required to be tested individually by the proof house from new for full chamber / bolt testing etc.
Thereafter, the fitting of any accessories, which do not affect the chamber or bolt (ie a moderator / screw-cutting or muzzle break), should be tested with an overload (specified by % in law, eg 20% over usual max load). That testing is to be carried out and certified by the armourer undertaking the modification.
The same can apply for moderators etc. (for example, a 20% increase in initial load test) then each trader can stamp with his personal mark.
This suggestion would provide a small reduction in the burden of regulation and concerns the provisions relating to the proofing of rifles. In summary, at present all gun barrels (or substantially modified barrels) have to be proofed by either of the two UK proof houses or, if imported, with a recognised proof mark from another recognised body in another Member State.
Why is this idea important?
Amend the Gun Barrel proofing Act to remove the requirement for proof houses to re-proof barrels modified in certain specified circumstances. To address this I would suggest the Act is amended to reflect the following:
Any new rifle required to be tested individually by the proof house from new for full chamber / bolt testing etc.
Thereafter, the fitting of any accessories, which do not affect the chamber or bolt (ie a moderator / screw-cutting or muzzle break), should be tested with an overload (specified by % in law, eg 20% over usual max load). That testing is to be carried out and certified by the armourer undertaking the modification.
The same can apply for moderators etc. (for example, a 20% increase in initial load test) then each trader can stamp with his personal mark.
This suggestion would provide a small reduction in the burden of regulation and concerns the provisions relating to the proofing of rifles. In summary, at present all gun barrels (or substantially modified barrels) have to be proofed by either of the two UK proof houses or, if imported, with a recognised proof mark from another recognised body in another Member State.
Under the Violent Crime Reduction (VCR) Act the last government saw fit to harm the interests of the lawful majority by banning (amongst other things) the sale of blank firing weapons. The thinking behind this is absurd and this section of the law should be rescinded.
Why is this idea important?
Under the Violent Crime Reduction (VCR) Act the last government saw fit to harm the interests of the lawful majority by banning (amongst other things) the sale of blank firing weapons. The thinking behind this is absurd and this section of the law should be rescinded.
This ridiculous law should be overturned to give law abiiding citzens the right to pursue and enjoy the previously popular sport of handgun target shooting under ISSF rules.
As most of our major cities seem to be awash with illegal handguns this law has not made one jot of a difference to handgun crime. At the time of the ban a campaign was run stating that " If handguns are outlawed then only outlaws will have handguns". How true this has become.
Our Olympic shooters are not allowed to train in their own country and must travel to Switzerland to train, at great cost. I also understand that not allowing people to pursue an Olympic sport in their own country is against the Oylmpic charter and as such the UK should not be allowed to host the 2012 games.
The government is spending over 4 million pounds of your money to build an Olympic shooting venue that will have no legacy – yes it will be pulled down after the event.
Its time to look at this law again and begin to give back the "Freedom" and civil liberties of law abiding Handgun shooters
Why is this idea important?
This ridiculous law should be overturned to give law abiiding citzens the right to pursue and enjoy the previously popular sport of handgun target shooting under ISSF rules.
As most of our major cities seem to be awash with illegal handguns this law has not made one jot of a difference to handgun crime. At the time of the ban a campaign was run stating that " If handguns are outlawed then only outlaws will have handguns". How true this has become.
Our Olympic shooters are not allowed to train in their own country and must travel to Switzerland to train, at great cost. I also understand that not allowing people to pursue an Olympic sport in their own country is against the Oylmpic charter and as such the UK should not be allowed to host the 2012 games.
The government is spending over 4 million pounds of your money to build an Olympic shooting venue that will have no legacy – yes it will be pulled down after the event.
Its time to look at this law again and begin to give back the "Freedom" and civil liberties of law abiding Handgun shooters
Ownership of 2mm pinfire revolvers should be allowed for display or plinking (informal target shooting) use, they offer the user the experience of a real firearm (which they are) although they they are of far lower caliber and power than most legal to own air pistols.
Why is this idea important?
Ownership of 2mm pinfire revolvers should be allowed for display or plinking (informal target shooting) use, they offer the user the experience of a real firearm (which they are) although they they are of far lower caliber and power than most legal to own air pistols.
Currently the maximum prison term for cultivation of cannabis is 14 years. The maximum term fro Unregistered, illegal, gun ownership is 5 years.
Something is very wrong with our society.
Illegal guns kill people, growing cannabis doesn't. How on Earth is the law to be taken seriously if it continues to employ such obviously unjust powers? How on Earth is it remotely justifiable to imprison someone guilty of a victimless crime for a greater term than those convicted of owning a weapon that has such terrible consequences for society?
Repeal the law that allows a prison term to be served by cannabis cultivation.
Why is this idea important?
Currently the maximum prison term for cultivation of cannabis is 14 years. The maximum term fro Unregistered, illegal, gun ownership is 5 years.
Something is very wrong with our society.
Illegal guns kill people, growing cannabis doesn't. How on Earth is the law to be taken seriously if it continues to employ such obviously unjust powers? How on Earth is it remotely justifiable to imprison someone guilty of a victimless crime for a greater term than those convicted of owning a weapon that has such terrible consequences for society?
Repeal the law that allows a prison term to be served by cannabis cultivation.
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.
Allow responsible licensed gun clubs to hold hand guns on their own secure premises for their licenced members to practice with.
Why is this idea important?
Allow responsible licensed gun clubs to hold hand guns on their own secure premises for their licenced members to practice with.
Repeal the provisions of the 1997 Firearms Act prohibiting legal private ownership of handguns
Why is this idea important?
Repeal the provisions of the 1997 Firearms Act prohibiting legal private ownership of handguns
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;
-
A single certificate rather than the current two
-
Provision to licence people not the firearms
-
Introduction of statutory accredited training courses in order to support applications
-
Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
-
Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
-
Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
-
To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
-
Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
-
To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
-
The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
-
Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
-
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.
-
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;
-
A single certificate rather than the current two
-
Provision to licence people not the firearms
-
Introduction of statutory accredited training courses in order to support applications
-
Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
-
Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
-
Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
-
To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
-
Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
-
To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
-
The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
-
Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
-
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.
-
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.
I think that it is time for a re-think of a blanket ban on handguns. Law abiding shooters who have never even dreamt of hurting anyone in their wildest dreams were penalised by this draconian measure. Yes, there are a very very small minority of legal gun owners who are actually unsuitable to hold a firearms license, but these people would vent their anger in another equally dangerous manner if they had no access to firearms at all.
Criminals have access to handguns, which is all to evident by the firearms crime figures published recently. Why penalise the law abiding when those who have contempt for the law carry on regardless
Why is this idea important?
I think that it is time for a re-think of a blanket ban on handguns. Law abiding shooters who have never even dreamt of hurting anyone in their wildest dreams were penalised by this draconian measure. Yes, there are a very very small minority of legal gun owners who are actually unsuitable to hold a firearms license, but these people would vent their anger in another equally dangerous manner if they had no access to firearms at all.
Criminals have access to handguns, which is all to evident by the firearms crime figures published recently. Why penalise the law abiding when those who have contempt for the law carry on regardless
As the title says – give us back our independence and freedom. Stop spying on us with CCTV, form-filling etc. Repealing the European Community Act 1972 would go a long way towards it!
Time was that we could do what we liked as long as it wasn't against the law; now, increasingly, we can only do what we are told we can do.
Restore licenced gun holding – we've seen over and over that banning guns doesn't ban either crime or the possibility of people running amok. The Swiss have got it right, their citizens have compulsory militia service then are subsequently required to maintain a gun at home, safely, and attend regular traing/practise update sessions.
Why is this idea important?
As the title says – give us back our independence and freedom. Stop spying on us with CCTV, form-filling etc. Repealing the European Community Act 1972 would go a long way towards it!
Time was that we could do what we liked as long as it wasn't against the law; now, increasingly, we can only do what we are told we can do.
Restore licenced gun holding – we've seen over and over that banning guns doesn't ban either crime or the possibility of people running amok. The Swiss have got it right, their citizens have compulsory militia service then are subsequently required to maintain a gun at home, safely, and attend regular traing/practise update sessions.
It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.
It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.
Why is this idea important?
It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.
It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.
Tony Blair used this ban to gain publicity at the start of his first government. All it did was to make it de-rigueur for every criminal to want access to a handgun and to stop all law abiding citizens who had safely and happily followed an international sport from continuing with their often lifelong hobby of target pistol shooting. Armed crime figures went through the roof as a result meaning that everyone was in more danger not less. The only losers in all this were the honest reponsible private gun owners and the businesses that supplied them.
Restore the pre-ban status quo.
Meddling around the edges with special squads and other hair-brained ideas just creates an even messier situation and does nothing for the competitive sport. Anything is dangerous in the wrong hands. Demonising inanimate objects is for the imbeciles in our society.
Why is this idea important?
Tony Blair used this ban to gain publicity at the start of his first government. All it did was to make it de-rigueur for every criminal to want access to a handgun and to stop all law abiding citizens who had safely and happily followed an international sport from continuing with their often lifelong hobby of target pistol shooting. Armed crime figures went through the roof as a result meaning that everyone was in more danger not less. The only losers in all this were the honest reponsible private gun owners and the businesses that supplied them.
Restore the pre-ban status quo.
Meddling around the edges with special squads and other hair-brained ideas just creates an even messier situation and does nothing for the competitive sport. Anything is dangerous in the wrong hands. Demonising inanimate objects is for the imbeciles in our society.
Anyone who has witnessed wildlife that has been persecuted since the ban on hunting with dogs will want a repeal of this wildlife unfriendly act. The amount of animals which are now persecuted with a snare, poison and poor shooting practices is dreadful. Hunting with dogs is the most natural method to control vermin. Those people who wish to hunt should do so without interference from those who do not understand the countryside and its methods. Laws which have eroded civil liberties are wrong.
Why is this idea important?
Anyone who has witnessed wildlife that has been persecuted since the ban on hunting with dogs will want a repeal of this wildlife unfriendly act. The amount of animals which are now persecuted with a snare, poison and poor shooting practices is dreadful. Hunting with dogs is the most natural method to control vermin. Those people who wish to hunt should do so without interference from those who do not understand the countryside and its methods. Laws which have eroded civil liberties are wrong.
Hunting Law has proved unworkable and is completely biased in its intent. Has not achieved its aim of preventing "cruelty" to animals.
Handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate and preventable incident. Its intent to take legally held firearms from law-abiding shooting sportspersons has achieved only to dramatically increase the number of illegal firearms in circulation and rising crime levels associated with their use. The ban has served only to prevent the legitimate shooting public from their "civil liberty" to participate in their chosen sport.
Why is this idea important?
Hunting Law has proved unworkable and is completely biased in its intent. Has not achieved its aim of preventing "cruelty" to animals.
Handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate and preventable incident. Its intent to take legally held firearms from law-abiding shooting sportspersons has achieved only to dramatically increase the number of illegal firearms in circulation and rising crime levels associated with their use. The ban has served only to prevent the legitimate shooting public from their "civil liberty" to participate in their chosen sport.
Repeal the laws on buying Realistic Imitation Firearms.
The Violent Crime Reduction Act was yet again another knee-jerk reaction law brought in basically beause the previous government knew how to tackle gun crime amongst youths but are too afraid to admit it (yes, dishing out much harsher sentences for committing crimes involving guns/imitation guns). Instead they did what they always do. Bring in rushed legislation to make it look as though they are doing something about the problem. They thought that by curbing the sale and import of replica firearms, they would cut gun related crime. They can never seem ot realise that whatever laws they bring in, people intent on owning a gun, be it real or imitation, will get hold of one. Instead, they have just made it more difficult for non-criminal airsoft players to get hold of the tools with which they play their game.
I agree that if you don’t play airsoft, then you have no real need to buy one. But the law is so complicated at the monent for players that it needs to be addressed so that they can go into a registered RIF dealer/airsoft supplies shop and buy a new gun. This should be coupled with full details including the serial number of the gun, full details of the buyer, and details of their most regular site for playing airsoft.
Bottom line is, that the VCRA has not stopped imitation firearms getting into circulation, and no amount of legislation will.
The knee-jerk laws brought in after Dunblaine failed to cut gun crime and failed to stop any further such horrific incidents. Even an outright ban on firearms would not stop maniacal killing sprees as we have seen recently in Cumbria.
Why is this idea important?
Repeal the laws on buying Realistic Imitation Firearms.
The Violent Crime Reduction Act was yet again another knee-jerk reaction law brought in basically beause the previous government knew how to tackle gun crime amongst youths but are too afraid to admit it (yes, dishing out much harsher sentences for committing crimes involving guns/imitation guns). Instead they did what they always do. Bring in rushed legislation to make it look as though they are doing something about the problem. They thought that by curbing the sale and import of replica firearms, they would cut gun related crime. They can never seem ot realise that whatever laws they bring in, people intent on owning a gun, be it real or imitation, will get hold of one. Instead, they have just made it more difficult for non-criminal airsoft players to get hold of the tools with which they play their game.
I agree that if you don’t play airsoft, then you have no real need to buy one. But the law is so complicated at the monent for players that it needs to be addressed so that they can go into a registered RIF dealer/airsoft supplies shop and buy a new gun. This should be coupled with full details including the serial number of the gun, full details of the buyer, and details of their most regular site for playing airsoft.
Bottom line is, that the VCRA has not stopped imitation firearms getting into circulation, and no amount of legislation will.
The knee-jerk laws brought in after Dunblaine failed to cut gun crime and failed to stop any further such horrific incidents. Even an outright ban on firearms would not stop maniacal killing sprees as we have seen recently in Cumbria.
Repeal the knee-jerk 1988 Firearms Act and the two Firearnms Acts passed in 1997. Streamline the system for issuing certificates to one agency (currently issued by 50+ constabularies at vast expense) in order to save money and to have a national database making trend watching easier. Make regulatory infringements by certificate holders into fixed penalty notices instead of the current court processes – saving another fortune.
Why is this idea important?
Repeal the knee-jerk 1988 Firearms Act and the two Firearnms Acts passed in 1997. Streamline the system for issuing certificates to one agency (currently issued by 50+ constabularies at vast expense) in order to save money and to have a national database making trend watching easier. Make regulatory infringements by certificate holders into fixed penalty notices instead of the current court processes – saving another fortune.
Remove smoothbore muskets and pistols from current firearms laws and have a seperate one for all muzzle loaders.
A seperate licence is required already to aquire powder to load and to keep powder requires visits from various agencies.
Why is this idea important?
Remove smoothbore muskets and pistols from current firearms laws and have a seperate one for all muzzle loaders.
A seperate licence is required already to aquire powder to load and to keep powder requires visits from various agencies.
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.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 banned ownership and use of small-bore (0.22") pistols by the target shooting community, resulting in the loss of their sport by tiousands of law-abiding and responsible citizens, and causing the relegation of British pistol shooting reputations on the international stage from leadership status to an also-ran position.
The presumed public safety benefit justification of this knee-jerk legislation is demonstrably absent; gun crime using illegally-held firearms continues to soar; the firearms used were banned in previous legislation.
Why is this idea important?
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 banned ownership and use of small-bore (0.22") pistols by the target shooting community, resulting in the loss of their sport by tiousands of law-abiding and responsible citizens, and causing the relegation of British pistol shooting reputations on the international stage from leadership status to an also-ran position.
The presumed public safety benefit justification of this knee-jerk legislation is demonstrably absent; gun crime using illegally-held firearms continues to soar; the firearms used were banned in previous legislation.
Reform the firearm laws to allow british citizens to bear arms, and this is to include handguns.
Why is this idea important?
Reform the firearm laws to allow british citizens to bear arms, and this is to include handguns.