The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Number of submissions to the Offensive Weapons Committee = 196 (maybe a couple more, if they will get added now?)

Across the multitude of UK shooting forums, social media groups, clubs & individuals, that is the measly total.

It's a staggeringly low figure. Some 150,000 FAC holders (OK, some won't see their activities being curtailed ~ I'm alright Jack!), assume it will be 200 submissions by the end of the day = 0.13% response.

That is despairingly poor.

No more input into Committee = Bill will go before the House at some stage in the near future = maybe less than a few weeks? Get off your backsides & write to your MP, attend one of their surgeries, give them your opinion!! NB include any abuse and they simply do not forward it to the committee.

SCRUTINY@parliament.uk

Inaction now will lose 50cal, Mars & possibly LR too, next time they will go for 338, 300WM etc & something else - reloading or 22 semi auto. It only takes 5 mins to construct a simple email argument that these firearm types pose no threat to society & the police case is based on hypothetical issues only.

I shoot NRA Target Rifle & have done my bit for this. So why dont you do yours today & post 'Done' below................

My response doesn't appear on the list, and I have heard that many others have the responses omitted from the list.

Is this because the list is not everyone or because some responses are ignored?

There are many who do not realise that submissions at the consultation stage are not the same as those at the current (scrutiny) stage as such there will be large numbers who have made submissions just not at this point, plus contact with mp’s will not be seen here but was evident in the comments made by mp’s at the consultation.
But it should be remembered a majority of shooters will have no idea about the current proposed legislation, of those that do there will have been lots of ill informed grumbling in clubrooms, some will have done a bit of background reading tried to correct some of the innacuracies but given up in the face of the “club experts”. Even fewer will have written in to the consultation and mps, and then there are the dedicated individuals who have really tried to make the issue known and explained whats proposed and how it happens.
The government have used a divide and conquer tactic which initially affects very few , yet has thrown up a multitude of “areas of concern” in the form of the rejected amendments. The bill as it stands still has a way to go and mp’s are the people to express views to from now on.
There is a very anti firearm agenda within parts of parliament , ignorance both there and amongst the general public combined with the relatively small firearm community in the uk means its easy to spread misinformation and show legal firearm ownership in a bad light, especially when they can link legally held firearms to crime. Which fortunately they are having great difficulty doing so instead having to rely on the “even a small number is too many” and the great “but what if ......” arguments.

Disqualified drivers ( effectively convicted criminals) account for around 120deaths on the roads each year, mobile phone users another 15 , then you have the additional injuries and damage. If you were looking at protecting the population perhaps these would be areas that need looking at. But as any measures would be expensive and unpopular it’ll not happen.

Just about every criminal or terrorist enterprise will rely on the ability to communicate securely amongst themselves and their conspirators, to have such a system that is unreadable or traceable by the authorities would be a bonus, for this system to be cheap, easily available to the extent of being disposable is even better. Again you’d think as such such a thing would be controlled at at least the most basic level. But no we have mobile phones , sim cards, secure encrypted apps on which there are no controls whatsoever.
Surely it is not too much to ask that every number is linked to a verified bank account and used on a monthly account basisand that there would be an offence committed if your phone was linked to crime/terrorism.
Firearms are an easy target that makes it look as though the government are protecting the country, plus its electorally safe ground and relatively inexpensive.

So it needs lots of noise from firearm owners as often as possible, but as above at best most will make a single submission and sit back thinking they have done their bit.

I'd also add to Artiglio's points with an observation from yesterday's proceedings. At the start, Louise Haigh (Labour MP) said:

"I say to those watching the Committee’s proceedings that if they wish to persuade politicians of the merits of their holding firearms and firearms licences and the genuine, legitimate uses for which they use those firearms, they should stay away from veiled threats and aggressive language and should genuinely seek to persuade us."

I don't know where these "veiled threats" or "aggressive language" came from or what they actually said, but judging by some comments I've seen on social media sites connected with shooting, I'm not surprised by her comments.

If you are writing to the committee or your MP, keep this in mind.

hitchphil wrote:Number of submissions to the Offensive Weapons Committee = 196 (maybe a couple more, if they will get added now?)

Across the multitude of UK shooting forums, social media groups, clubs & individuals, that is the measly total.

It's a staggeringly low figure. Some 150,000 FAC holders (OK, some won't see their activities being curtailed ~ I'm alright Jack!), assume it will be 200 submissions by the end of the day = 0.13% response.

That is despairingly poor.

No more input into Committee = Bill will go before the House at some stage in the near future = maybe less than a few weeks? Get off your backsides & write to your MP, attend one of their surgeries, give them your opinion!! NB include any abuse and they simply do not forward it to the committee.

SCRUTINY@parliament.uk

Inaction now will lose 50cal, Mars & possibly LR too, next time they will go for 338, 300WM etc & something else - reloading or 22 semi auto. It only takes 5 mins to construct a simple email argument that these firearm types pose no threat to society & the police case is based on hypothetical issues only.

I shoot NRA Target Rifle & have done my bit for this. So why dont you do yours today & post 'Done' below................

Done..... Many months ago.

There are still people who genuinely don't know that it'll illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving (according to Derbyshire Police's twitter feed).

On the various Facebook shooting groups we constantly get asked about doctors charging for certificate renewals etc. That's been going on for at least two years now.

I mentioned the 50 cal thing to some of my club members and not a single one of them had heard about it.

Its incredibly difficult to get word out there these days - even more so if you don't use the internet or listen to anything other than music radio.

I have replied to the scrutiny committee and copied it to my local MP who I know is not anti-gun.
I just hope that more people do the same.

I do not own a 50 cal or MARS rifle, but I know that if these go my guns could be the next in line.

Even if you are not affected this time around you could well be next time!

SAY YOUR PIECE don't leave it to others.

ukrifleman.

JSC wrote:...At the start, Louise Haigh (Labour MP) said:

"I say to those watching the Committee’s proceedings that if they wish to persuade politicians of the merits of their holding firearms and firearms licences and the genuine, legitimate uses for which they use those firearms, they should stay away from veiled threats and aggressive language and should genuinely seek to persuade us." ...

If I were a politician that was anti-shooting but couldn't point to any meaningful figures as to why certain firearms and activities should be curtailed I might just take the opportunity to poison the well by using clever language to suggest some unsavoury messages had been received with a built in escape route if called to elaborate.

'I didn't say people had sent veiled threats - just that if you want to be persuasive then don't resort to them.'

Dark Skies wrote:

JSC wrote:...At the start, Louise Haigh (Labour MP) said:

"I say to those watching the Committee’s proceedings that if they wish to persuade politicians of the merits of their holding firearms and firearms licences and the genuine, legitimate uses for which they use those firearms, they should stay away from veiled threats and aggressive language and should genuinely seek to persuade us." ...

If I were a politician that was anti-shooting but couldn't point to any meaningful figures as to why certain firearms and activities should be curtailed I might just take the opportunity to poison the well by using clever language to suggest some unsavoury messages had been received with a built in escape route if called to elaborate.

'I didn't say people had sent veiled threats - just that if you want to be persuasive then don't resort to them.'

First thing I thought to be honest. And a 'threat' could be something as innocuous as "if you vote for this I won't vote for you/your party come next election"

According to South Yorkshire police any comment that someone deems offensive or hurts their feelings should be repoted to them and they'll investigate - be warrned!

In effect "supporting gun ownership" is offensive to someone, somewhere - seriously, the world's gone mad!

No matter what reprsentations you make, their minds are probably already made up.