Dorking & District Rifle Club



Home Office “consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons”

Synopsis of concerns regarding accuracy and validity.

Overview

The Home Office has published a consultation document within which is expressed an intent to move all .50 calibre rifles to section 5 of the firearms act. This would essentially prohibit the civilian ownership of such rifles.

The consultation document can be found here:



The “impact assessment” document, which includes the “evidence base” can be found here:



Officials from the FCSA having met with the Home Office, it would appear that the intent is to move beyond placing not only .50 calibre rifles under section 5, but to also include ALL firearms with the muzzle energy of greater than 10,000 ft/lbs.

It is unclear whether legislation based upon a consultation on one specific issue (i.e .50 calibre rifles) can legally be implemented on another issue (namely firearms over 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy).

Review of the Home Office guidelines on “consultation principles 2016” indicates that consultation should “give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business or the voluntary sector”.

It is further indicated that “consultation should be targeted. Consider the full range of people, business and voluntary bodies affected by the policy, and whether representative groups exist”.

At first sight it would appear that were the Home Office to pursue legislation effectively banning firearms with an excess of 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy on the basis of the current consultation document, then such “consultation principles” would not have been met.

To move forward with legislation prohibiting firearms with the muzzle energy in excess of 10,000 ft/lbs clearly includes a wide range of calibres, not simply .50 which are used for long-range target shooting, but also several smaller calibres and a number of rifles which can be considered as historic firearms of the collectable nature.

We understand that the Home Office is already drafting legislation to put forward to Parliament and that it is highly unlikely that they will not pursue some change to firearms legislation.

Were this legislation to be passed not only would it affect current and future target shooters utilising such calibres but would, no matter what the official line may be, be the “thin end of the wedge” with regard to the legal ownership of other calibres used in other disciplines, both sporting and target, which would potentially become subject to such legislative changes.

By way of example, as in other countries, consideration could potentially be given to calibres of a military nature such as .223, .303 and .308 under the pretext of being particularly dangerous as armour piercing ammunition (although already restricted under section 5 for civilian ownership) has been manufactured in such calibres.

This Home Office proposal is thus one which may in due course potentially affect the wider shooting community and should most strongly be resisted.

Specific Points

The following points are to hopefully better inform you of the detail of the consultation document, its flaws and highlighting specific issues therein.

1. The consultation document refers to .50 calibre rifles, however we have been led to understand that the Home Office proposes to ban all firearms over 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy.

2. It is stated within the “evidence base” with regard to .50 calibre rifles that “… the ownership by civilians creates a risk of these weapons getting into the hands of either criminals or terrorists”.

It would appear that rifles in general are rarely used in criminal activities other than poaching, which the .50 calibre rifles do not lend themselves to, and this appeared to be accepted by the Home Office.

There has been no evidence to suggest that such civilian owned rifles as the Home Office is considering banning have been used in any criminal activities in the United Kingdom.

It would also appear that other than isolated use by the IRA in the 1990’s .50 calibre rifles have not been used in terrorist activities.

50 calibre rifles are in the main very heavy, difficult to transport and conceal due to their size.

There appears to be very little evidence from the United States to suggest that in a country in which these firearms are largely unregulated they have been used to any significant extent in either criminal or terrorist activities.

3. It is further stated within the “evidence base” that “these rifles were originally designed for military use to allow for firing over long distances in a manner capable of damaging vehicles and other physical capital (referred to in military terms as “materiel”). They are also designed to be able to penetrate armour worn by soldiers. If these rifles were used any criminal capacity it would allow for the penetration of police body armour and defensive protections than would not be possible with lower calibres”.

There are various issues with this statement.

A. While the .50 calibre round was developed in 1918 as a machine-gun round, the development of rifles chambered for this round was primarily driven by civilians in the early 1980s who led the developments in this field, the American military only adopting this calibre for use in a rifle in 1991.

B. The original rifles were designed for target shooting rather than to be “capable of damaging vehicles and other physical capital”.

C. They were not designed specifically to penetrate armour worn by soldiers.

D. Some smaller calibres have more penetrative capabilities than .50 rifles particularly if using armour piercing ammunition that is already considered section 5.

The “anti-material” capability does not relate to the rifle but to the ammunition used. “Anti-material” ammunition such as armour piercing, incendiary or explosive is already prohibited for civilian ownership and use.

It is also of note that other calibres of greater than 10,000ft/lbs, for example .460, have not been developed for any anti-material role but primarily for long-range target shooting and the projectiles for such calibres have not been commercially produced for an anti-material purpose.

The ammunition and projectiles currently available for civilian use in .50 rifles does not meet the requirements to be considered as armour piercing for military purposes. Stanag 4383  12.7x99 ammunition: “AP projectiles must completely perforate Armour plate 22mm thick in 321/375 Brinell at 100 meters.” 

Further to the .50 calibre issues, the concept that all firearms over 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy are especially dangerous would appear to have no particular ballistic evidence base. It would appear that the “10,000 ft/lb” muzzle energy proposed limit merely represents a good soundbite rather than being evidence-based in a scientific manner.

4. The “evidence base” does not appear to consider that .50 calibre rifles are used simply as target rifles. Members of the FCSA shoot competitively both in the United Kingdom and abroad. Members of the FCSA regularly compete internationally in the World Championships of this calibre representing Britain and have had considerable success over the years.

5. It is stated in the “evidence base” with regard to the .50 calibre rifle that “this firearm can deliver a projectile over several miles which can pose a danger to public safety should it be used any criminal capacity”.

While a projectile fired at an elevation may theoretically travel some 7000 yards this is potentially only 30% further than a .30 projectile and less distance than many other rounds.

The statement, however, can be read as suggesting that the rifle has an elevated degree of accuracy at such a range which is completely inaccurate. This statement is made without any evidence base.

The maximum potential effective range of the .50 rifle is in the region of 2000 yards while that of a .308 could be considered in the region of 1500 yards.

To shoot at such distances, however, would require considerable training and skill not only with regard to shooting but also interpretation of environmental conditions beyond that would be reasonable to consider within the abilities of most criminals and terrorists.

It is also noteworthy that other calibres have far better ballistic capabilities at longer ranges than the .50 rifle.

6. In estimating the costs to the government associated with the prohibition of such rifles, only the banning of .50 calibre and more rapid firing rifles has been considered.

There has therefore been a considerable underestimate in the potential costs. Firstly it is stated “industry experts have advised that the value of these is likely to range from £3000-£5000”.

This is clearly wrong as AI rifles retail for just shy of £8000 and the most recent equivalent of the AMSD rifle was 17,000 Swiss francs which would mean the kit used by one of our members would be just shy of around £18,000 including spare barrels. This would be before consideration was given to recompensing for reloading items only usable for .50 calibre rifles including dies, cases and projectiles.

By way of example .50 Amax branded target projectiles currently retail at over £4 each.

Financial consideration has also not been given in the “evidence base” to the impact of a 10,000 ft/lb ban to the government and upon firearms dealers.

The FCSA have requested an indication from members and others of how much their .50 rifle and associated specific tools and components would require compensation for, and the same information from those who have other firearms that are capable of generating in excess of 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy, this would potentially be of use in quantifying the cost to the government.

7. In quantifying the “benefits” it is alleged that “the size of calibre or the fire rate of these rifles is likely to mean that were used in a crime there is a significant risk of more deaths or serious injuries than if more conventional types of weapon were used”.

This statement is made without any evidence base.

It is stated “under the high cost scenarios the policy would need to prevent three homicides over the next 10 years to break even; in the midpoint the policy would need to prevent two homicides, and one in the low estimate”.

As detailed earlier there are considerable issues with regard to the accuracy of even the high cost scenario.

It is also noteworthy that no evidence is presented to indicate that any homicides would be prevented by this legislation with regard to either .50 firearms or those of over 10,000ft/lbs muzzle energy. Were this to be the case this would nullify the potential financial benefits of prohibition of such firearms.

8. On the financial issue it would appear also not to have included the loss of income to the MOD/landmark. The FCSA currently pays £36,000 in range fees.

We understand that other clubs would also pay considerable fees to the MOD/landmark. To have a better understanding of such fees and whether range bookings would reduce or cease where there to be to be a ban on .50 rifles or those of over 10,000 ft/lbs would be useful.

9. We understand that many individuals who target shoot on field firing ranges stay in remote rural communities to attend such shoots providing income to local communities, restaurants, inns, B&Bs that will see a decline in use were such prohibitions to be brought into legislation.

This financial cost does not appear to have been considered in the “evidence base”.

10. The Home Office in its impact assessment is stated under the heading of “what policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify the preferred option” effectively only two options.

The two options they appear to have considered are to “do nothing” or to “prohibit” the civilian ownership of .50 rifles and, by implication from their stated aim, the ownership of any firearm of over 10,000 ft/lbs.

This does not appear to have given due consideration to “any alternatives to regulation” as it would appear to have been their obligation.

It has been difficult to definitively determine what has driven this proposed legislative change at the specific point in time.

It has been indicated that it has come about as a result of the theft of a .50 calibre rifle that was subsequently recovered. It has also been indicated that there are concerns (unattributed) that some terrorist organisation may seek to acquire such a rifle from a civilian source be that their home or en route to a shoot.

While we have concerns about the viability of the misuse of such firearms by either criminal or terrorist organisations it would be appropriate to give consideration to addressing potential storage and transport security issues.

Various suggestions have been made and we consider the following is potentially appropriate and may possibly assuage the concern of the Home Office that such firearms may fall into the “wrong hands” and preclude requirement for a complete ban on .50 rifles or those over 10,000 ft/lbs.

A. A requirement for the bolt to be stored separately from the receiver in a separate safe.

B. That the residential premises in which a .50 or over 10,000 ft/lb rifle is stored has a monitored alarm system.

C. When the firearm is being transported that the bolt remains with the individual at all times and separated from the rifle.

Other suggestions have included the removal of the firing pin, the attachment of a trigger lock and the attachment of the GPS tracking device to the firearm.

Such enhanced security could be included in the Home Office Guidance to the police and included as a condition on the individual’s firearm certificate.

To take this line of enhanced security would reduce the perceived risks of such firearms falling into the “wrong hands”, avoid the requirement for legislative proposals and action being taken to negate them, reduce the costs to the government while permitting the continued participation of target shooters in a legitimate sporting activity.

Conclusion

We would be grateful if you give consideration to the above and should you wish any clarification on any of the points raised please revert to me.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download