Letters and Articles
From the Director.
I
am pleased to say that 2009 was a most successful show
season in which we picked up a goodly number of new members and
renewed many connections in the shooting world. In
particular we were welcomed by show organizers who were
delighted to have us at their shows. Two questions were
raised by members we met at these events:
Number one: “Where does the association
stand regarding Bisley and the Olympic Games 2012”?
The unequivocal answer to that
question is that we stand by our principles without
deviation, unlike certain other shooting associations, in
that there can be only one place for the 2012 Olympic
Shooting events to take place and that place is Bisley.
After all, it is the National Shooting Centre.
The second question that was raised was “Where
does your association stand regarding the granting of a
special section 5 dispensation to an elite team of shooters”?
The crucial point here is that this
is contrary to the Olympic Charter which states: “Every
individual must have the possibility of practicing sport,
without discrimination of any kind”.
Mainland
U.K. pistol shooters are being discriminated against
when an elite group are to be granted special dispensation.
It is the intention of this Association to fight with every
means at our disposal the 1997 Act that banned the private
ownership of pistols. To us this is a political matter
and it can only be changed by political action. Petitions
have thus far proven to be ineffectual.
The
National Shooting Association fights for all forms and types
of shooting.
Join us now!
E-mail to the
Jeremy Vine Show, B.B.C. Radio 2, concerning the misuse of
air guns - much in the news recently:
Another tragic incident and the
inevitable clamour for "tighter airgun control". Bearing in
mind there are numerous firearm laws currently in place,
it's clear existing legislation doesn't prevent misuse. We
can't legislate against idiots! However, what would prevent
misuse and subsequent tragedies is education and responsible
adults.
The law dictates the ages at which persons can own, acquire
and use all firearms - including air rifles and pistols,
which are used safely by many in competitions and pest
control. Behind these newsworthy events is usually an
irresponsible adult who did not keep young, inquisitive
persons separate from what is a firearm under UK law. So,
rather than condemn all those who properly use airguns I
hope the person owning the air rifle in this recent incident
will be called to account.
Check the
NSRA, BASC,
and
ATEO organisations
that help educate those who wish to shoot airguns safely.
Cheers!
Rod Newnham
E-mail to Sally
Keeble MP on the subject of handgun legislation:-
Dear Sally
I have attached a copy of a mail from a respected friend
and member of my rifle club at Bisley.
I hope that you will read what he reports and take note of
the information collected in the United States regarding
the use of firearms for self-defence. I await with
interest your comments.
Whilst I am not advocating that we should necessarily
adopt the American approach to the defence of our
property, I think that the figures quoted in the American
survey, which is very large, shows that there was no
justification to the banning of handguns on the Mainland
of the United kingdom Whilst allowing the public to own
and shoot them in the
Channel
Islands, The
Isle of Man,
and
Northern
Ireland..
The 1997 act denies mainland pistol shooters the right to
practice an Olympic sport within their own country whilst
allowing competitors from abroad to compete and practice a
sport. This is contrary to the
Olympic
Charter. If you do not have access to that
charter I can provide the URL so that you can check on
what I have said above. There are abstracts of the Olympic
Charter included on the Web Page of the National
Shooting Association
nationalshootingassociation.org.
Frank Gear
Director, National Shooting Association
And the reply to it:
Thanks for this. The United States is no model to follow
in relation to firearms legislation.
There are issues that people rightly raise about the need
to be able to practice an Olympic sport, and these have
been raised with Government, and I am sure will continue
to be raised with Government, especially in the run-up to
2012. However, I doubt that there is any desire in any
political party, or among any substantial section of the
public for revoking or substantially revising the law on
handguns. The ban, while it raises problems for the
pursuit of legitimate sport, probably does reflect public
opinion on possession of handguns. Any relaxation would
give a completely wrong impression of the priority that
all law enforcement agencies in the UK give to tackling
the appalling consequences of gun crime.
Best regards
Sally Keeble MP
Northampton North
ONE OF OUR MEMBERS WROTE TO THE HOME OFFICE TO ENQUIRE HOW
POTENTIAL COMPETITORS FOR TARGET PISTOL SHOOTING WERE
SUPPOSED TO PRACTICE FOR 2012 WHEN THE 1997 FIREARMS ACT
PROHIBITS THEM FROM PRACTICING IN THIS COUNTRY. TO READ THE
HOME OFFICE RESPONSE TO THAT ENQUIRY
letter 1 click
here
letter 2 click here
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE RECENT E-MAIL PETITION CONCERNING
ARRANGEMENTS FOR TARGET PISTOL SHOOTING IN THE RUN UP TO THE
2012 OLYMPICS TO BE HELD IN LONDON.
click here to read
EVALUATING BRITAIN'S HANDGUN BAN
- by Colin Greenwood.
First published in Australian Shooter, June 2008
click
here to read
Read Richard Munday's
letter to the Times in
The Times Online:
"In Britain we have come a long way
from our forebears who believed that guns were a great
deterrence: from the days of the Rev Brontë (father of the
sisters), who used to fasten his watch and pocket his pistol
every morning; or the Yorkshire hotel guests once
encountered by Beatrix Potter, all but one of whom were
routinely carrying revolvers. "
Richard Munday
Also read Derek Bernard's
report on the British blind faith in gun control:
"This link will take you to a
report on the development of the British "faith"
in strict gun control, from the latter part of the 19th
century through to the present day. That faith has been so
strong for so long that it now flourishes despite a total
absence of any evidence of social benefit and lots of
evidence of high costs and many perverse effects. Indeed, it
has reached the point where to even question its usefulness,
or to ask for evidence of cost-effectiveness, will be
regarded by many as a clear indication of social
irresponsibility."
Derek Bernard
|
