HMIC report highlights failing police forces.

There have been over the past years several high profile shootings by owners of legally held firearms, from the Hungerford shooting onwards. Firearms regulations were tightened after this event, there were few who railed against the basic proposition, although the magazine restriction, even now, can lead to lively debate. With a whole host of measures employed to control the ownership of firearms by the civilian populace, Things settled down until Dunblane; where, after this most heinous of crimes, even further restrictions were applied. In 1997 the government of the day banned the possession of all handguns by all but a very few. More recently, the shooting in Cumbria, brought the calls for even more restrictions to be placed on legitimate firearms owners.

The recent release of a report by Her Majesties Inspector of Constabularies, HMIC, states that the country faces an ever increasing risk of mass shootings if their recommendations are not given serious consideration, and preferably implemented. The interesting thing is though, whilst most agree that the current system is at best disjointed, the current guidelines cover all aspects of ownership rather well. Therefore if you take the time to read the report HMIC Report you will be at a loss to see why the current guidelines are a cause for concern. The report uses the examples given earlier to illustrate that the current system is broken and needs drastic action to resolve the problem. The only trouble is that throughout the report the failings are not that of the guidelines, the shooting industry or the vast majority of shooters.

Time after time in the report attention is drawn to a number of constabularies, who for whatever reason, have failed to implement the current guidelines. The reports response to resolve these inadequacies and failure to follow the rules, apply more rules, and give the police powers unseen in this country for many years. In yet another attempt to push forward an agenda mentioned in previous post, HMIC propose the police have a statutory right of entry into firearms owners’ property. At present an appointment needs to made at a mutually convenient time, or, if there is evidence of a crime or domestic unrest, a warrant is required, which gives the police a right of entry. The NPCC proposed this, along with the “shop a gun owner” phone line. It cannot be a coincidence that both Stephen Otter and Andy Marsh have put forward near identical proposals to resolve what they perceive as problems with the current system.

Speaking as an owner of firearms and other lethal items, and answerable to a vehemently anti-gun police authority, who appear to employ firearms enquiry officers who only know and understand firearms from the authorities dictate, it is not surprising that the failures highlighted in HMIC report occur. Thankfully they are few and far between, and the over 1.5 million owners in the country use their firearms in a responsible manner. We as firearms owners have to prove a use or need to possess our firearms, yes even the shotguns, this was debated, politely, on the last time my application was granted, a typical case of an ill-informed FEO. So, why don’t we have FEO’s that are conversant with the guidelines, who understand firearms in a context outside of the criminal perspective usually proffered by the police?

Before the police are given, which hopefully they never will be, powers to enter properties without a warrant they should get their own house in order, ensure that the guidelines are followed by all their constabularies and officers. When, and only when they have succeeded in doing this, will we be able to tell if the current system is a defective as HMIC seem to think it is. Personally, I think they protest too much, and are trying to deflect as much criticism as possible onto those who are less able to defend themselves.

The name of a rose.

If a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Then A.C.P.O. by any other name would still be as divisive. Under the instructions of the Home Secretary, Theresa May M.P, A.C.P.O was disbanded, and rebranded as the “National Police Chiefs Council” or N.P.C.C. new name, but the same old faces, doing the same old thing. A good example of this is Andy Marsh, and his pet project to get the public to complain about gun owners. In a previous incarnation, the Crime-stoppers hotline was removed after much public outcry from shooters, B.A.S.C., and Countryside Alliance members, as well as many others.

In its new guise as the N.P.C.C. Mr. Marsh has again put forward a, shop-a-gun owner-hotline, which he has re-named as the “Gun Safety Security Hotline”. So not only does ACPO have a new name, so it would appear do their failed projects. For those of you who follow the never ending struggle of civilian firearms ownership, against those who would for personal reasons, or for political gain, like to remove all firearms from private hands, the new wording is not new. As with all the recent moves by these groups or individuals, they try to sell their agenda under the “safety” banner, this is despite all evidence to the contrary which clearly shows that shooting and shooters are exceedingly safety conscious, and fully aware of their responsibilities when they own any form of firearms.

This link will take you to the minutes of the NPCCmeeting do please read all of it, there are some very interesting items within it that have nothing to do with the hotline. For example the Scottish police were already under full steam, prior to the general election, with their proposals on air gun licensing in Scotland. Other items that will soon be published are an updated security handbook, issued by the Home Office. So do not be surprised to see at some point that a 5 gun cabinet will not be allowed to have 6 six or more guns in it. It is ten pages long, but is an insight into the aspirations of a group of unelected officials to pursue a personal agenda.

So once again I implore you to join an organisation that will help fight for shooting in all its forms. Our friends in the US have a saying, “if you are not pulling the cart, you’re getting a free ride”, and with around 750,000 license holders, shotgun, firearms or both, in the UK, and the largest organisation membership being BASC with around 24,000 members, there would appear to be an awful lot of shooters sitting back and enjoying their sport without actively trying to protect it. Bearing in mind that for every license holder there are about another 6 people who shoot, without possessing a license, on a regular basis, that makes around 4,500,000 people shooting.

Air rifles to be licensed!

Oh how I hate it when someone says “I told you so.” It is now less than 100 days, in fact it’s less than 50 days, since the general election, and north of the border the SNP made pretty much a clean sweep of the available seats. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I would like to draw your attention to the Wednesday 18^th, January 2012 item titled “Age limit, NO!” in this piece I opine that should the SNP get into a position of power in Scotland there are a number of things that they will pursue. I’m no prophet, but I like to think I’m fairly perceptive when it comes to anti-shooting and anti-hunting organisations propaganda and their ultimate aims.

Released today, and with coverage given by the BBC(click here), the Scottish parliament will have bill put to it to license all types of air guns. As previously stated here the bill is being wrapped in a public safety blanket. A Scottish government spokesman said: "At the very heart of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill is this government's aim to support and encourage legitimate businesses whilst protecting public health and safety and empowering our communities. Additional wrapping is provided by aligning the use of air weapons with the illegal sex trade, and illegal scrap metal dealers, whilst it purports to help protect legitimate businesses in these fields.

With not 50 days yet passed, it remains to be seen how things will progress in the remainder of the term of this parliament for the Scottish shooting sports and countryside. I would love to be proved wrong in the other opinions passed back in 2012 but with vehement political extremism, as practised by the SNP, I fear that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. I finished back in 2012 by saying “it’s not if, but when.” Well I’m afraid to say now is when.

Unforeseen consequences.

Many years ago my Father needed a large calibre rifle to undertake work in the management of a wooded estate which had a profusion of deer. Having already in his possession a number of shotguns and a couple of .22’s his only requirement was the burden of proof of somewhere to shoot. The permission to shoot over the estate was obtained in writing, sent off with the official paperwork and fee; ten days or so later the amended certificate was delivered with permission to purchase one larger calibre rifle.

Moving on a few years now, it was my turn to get a large calibre rifle. Again I had a number of shotguns with a smattering of .22’s (.17HMR not having been invented). I filled out the required paperwork, showed proof of land permissions, and sent it all off with the required fee. In the intervening years, police policy had changed, and the issuing police authority now demanded that before a rifle would be forthcoming, a deer stalking certificate, level 1, must be obtained. Despite many years of hunting with my Father, using what is termed an “estate rifle”, the police insisted that the DSC1 was obtained or no rifle. I contacted one of the shooting organisations, and after many months of letter writing, my amended certificate arrived.

Currently I am assisting an individual who has been shooting for many, many years, and is now trying to obtain a large calibre rifle. This individual has been to a renowned college and studied for three years at the highest level, game keeping, wildlife management, and conservation. They have achieved full qualifications and recognised diplomas and certificates, including their DSC1. In the years that have passed since my encounter with the issuing authority, things have moved on. Now it is not sufficient to have a DSC1, they are demanding that courses in rifle safety are attended, evidence of previous hunting trips be provided, and should you be granted your rifle, you will need to be accompanied by a “mentor” until such time as they decide you are safe to proceed on your own. The removal of the “mentor” is not at the mentor’s discretion, but that of the issuing authority. I have heard tales of shooters trying to get this condition removed from their certificate three years and more after having had their certificate granted.

The unforeseen circumstances are that whilst the shooting organisations are doing a fantastic job in trying to protect shooters rights, and educate new and existing shooters. Many of the police issuing authorities have seen this education of the shooting population as a means to inhibit or prevent existing shooters or new shooters from obtaining the tools to progress in their chosen area of the shooting sports. There are many guidelines, they are not laws or rules, which is the problem, and these guidelines are interpreted by every authority to suit the leanings of the chief constable.

The guidelines, however you read them, do not require any of the present day’s issuing authorities conditions to be applied for you to obtain your certificate and rifle. Experience is deemed to be transferable between quarries of all kinds. Existing shooters know this, but that’s not to say that obtaining further education is to be ignored, and additional information that can be learned should be grasped with both hands. A new shooter with no previous shooting experience wishing to obtain a large calibre rifle is so rare as to be almost unheard of; but the guidelines do address this scenario and even then they recommend that the shooter should obtain education and training from a suitable qualified individual or organisation. In reality, if someone is looking to obtain a large rifle they will have been shooting for a number of years already, and are now looking to a new challenge.

Too many people have been accepting of these conditions applied to their certificate in the past, either through ignorance; after all they are the police, they should know what they’re talking about. But from my experience it is more from fear, fear of challenging the police, and the possible consequences of doing so. Their rationale being better to have a certificate with restrictions, than no certificate at all. Joining organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) or the Countryside Alliance (CA) is a must, even if you only have an air rifle. Both of these, and other organisations, have fantastic firearms legal departments who are more than willing to assist you in all matters to do with firearms ownership. So before you accept a condition on your certificate, have a word with the people that know, it’s in your interest to do so.

Just A Good Shooting Story

A story lifted from our good friends at The Shooting Wire.

Editor's Note: Several months ago, we told you a story that was set at the Fittleworth Rifle Club (actually the Mounteney Jephson Rifle Club in Fittleworth) in the United Kingdom. Fittleworth's John Gilbertson, shortly before his 90th birthday had put one of his regular drubbings on all the small-bore shooters. Not just at Fittleworth, but across the entire country. We struck up distant friendships through that story, and today, we're sharing another story from Fittleworth. Because of the concern over firearms ownership, we aren't using last names, but we thank Sean for allowing us to share the story of how shooting has restored hope for his dad. It's the kind of story many of us know, but few of us share. That's unfortunate, because it proves shooters are regular people- no matter how others try to demonize or marginalize us.

Yesterday I went clay shooting with my father. There's nothing unique in that I hear you say. But I'd disagree.

Just over twelve years ago, my father suffered a massive and near fatal heart attack, and whilst recovering from this trauma further complications ensued, double pneumonia, M.R.S.A, and finally a series of major strokes.

The strokes took the heaviest toll.

My father, for all of his life, an outdoorsman, had been hunting shooting or fishing right from a boy. The last stoke robbed him of his sight, leaving him initially totally blind.

He was in a really bad way, so much so, that he demanded that all his guns and rifles were got rid of, and that he would never shoot again. He was in a very dark place, and over the months that followed my mother nursed him back to health.

During this time the wonder that is the human body, slowly started to repair itself. Two years down the line he had regained a small amount of vision in his right eye, but his left eye was, at best, a blurred mass of light.

One day, about five years ago he asked about his gun collection, we told him that it was right where he had left it, and was just waiting for him to say the word and we could go shooting together again.

This was the first sign of interest, and in the ensuing years we gently dropped hints that maybe he could give his shooting another go.

About two months ago a family friend, put one of their friends in touch with Dad. This person was interested in shooting, had brought all he gear, gun included, but was not having any success.

He had been to over a dozen places and everyone had told him different things, and now he was totally confused.

Dad was hesitant to take it any further, being as how he was now registered as blind.

Mum and I pushed the matter, after all he been recommended by their friend, and he had been until his illness a good shot at clays and game, had taught clay shooting, both trap and skeet, at a local private school and had shot for a living.

In the end he caved in to the pressure, and said that he would try to help this person, provided that he was able to shoot and hit what he was aiming at; that's the deal!

So last Sunday, twelve years after his illness, aged 80 years old, my Dad picked up his shotgun and went clay shooting.

I walked with him to the first stand, right up until he got into the cage I could tell he was a little nervous. He placed two cartridges in the shotgun, raised the stock to meet the barrels, pulled the gun close into his body, assumed his distinctive shooting posture, and called pull. A small black disc came spinning straight toward him, about 20 yards out and 25 feet in the air. A loud report was heard and the disc broke into a dozen or more pieces. At the sound of the shot, another disc appeared from behind a hedge rising into the bright clear blue sky. This was on Dad's completely blind left side, he knew roughly were it was coming from, and after some searching managed to acquire sight of the target, which by now had climbed to around 60 feet and was about 10 yards in front, another report bellowed from his gun, and again the target broke into many pieces. The grin that appeared on his face was priceless, he was two for two. He broke the gun and continued to shoot the required targets for the stand.

Two hours later, with the course completed, we went back to the club house to see how well he had done.

His score for the round 19 ex 40, and as he said "not bad for an old blind guy." When we arrived Dad was a little apprehensive, not sure if he was still able to shoot. When we left I could see a side of him that I'd not seen for a long time, and already asking when we could go again.

It took a long time to get Dad back, but with patience and support, shooting truly is a sport for all regardless of age or infirmity.