Please use the comment section at the end to tell me what you think!

The Home Office came up with a largely excellent bill to improve public protection by targeting restricting sales of some knives and corrosive substances, as used as weapons by criminals to maim and kill.

The Home Office then unfortunately added additional restrictions upon those with legally-held target rifles, not for mis-use, but because of what they see as perceived risk of theft, and the consequent mis-use as offensive weapons. The longest-range target rifles (.50 Cal, etc) were initially included, and were removed from prohibition, (pending further consultation on these and air guns), but now are again restored, whilst still seeking to prohibit target rifles used largely by disabled shooters who struggle and fail to use a bolt action target rifle. For many disabled people of all ages, this is perhaps the only competitive sport which they can undertake. In 1997, following the Cullen report, some 50,000 shooters lost their pistols without the expected reduction in street use of firearms - this is heading the same way!

The futility of such bans is recognised by the facts that though motor vehicles kill nearly 2,000 people a year, we don't seek to ban the vehicles, only the drivers. Over 100 cyclists are killed every year, but we don't ban cycles. 144 People were killed in industry, and over 70,000 injured, but we don't ban factories. People kill themselves in so-called adventure sports, and on fairground rides and the like, but once fixed, we don't ban them either! Surely, we should not demonise and weaponise target rifles, but we should apply the same logic here!

The Home Office claim that target rifles which use propellant gas for extraction and ejection are "rapid-fire" rifles, and therefore more desirable for criminal use, and could cause more havoc, which we say is wrong.

The Home Office say that we should stick with the short-range (max 100 yards) small-bore .22LR semi-auto rifles, and others (i.e. full-bore, out to 600 or 1200 yards) with "suitable modifications", whilst now wanting to disallow this very mechanism which has already been suitably modified to achieve this for disabled shooters. When challenged as to an alternative answer, they are mute.

Their argument is based upon their duty to ensure public safety. We say that this is a highly commendable objective. So, why are they not concentrating their limited resources on illegally-held weapons, and illegal use of these?

The grounds given are:

1. These "MARS" & "Lever-Release" rifles which use propellant gas to extract spent rounds are so called "rapid-file" rifles which can fire faster than others, even though evidence is that almost any bolt action rifle can fire as fast, if not faster; and they produce no evidence to the contrary, just scaremongering; Their alleged concern is the higher risk if stolen, but provide no evidence of this, just someone's risk perception. So, this is untrue.

2. That these are at a higher risk of being stolen, even though not one has. Those few people who do hold them have enhanced security which would massively delay even the most determined attack; and where the key working parts are separated, even re-assembly requires significant skill. In any event, when other guns are being illegally imported in bulk, or even mass manufactured illegally in UK, why should anyone want to try to steal just one of these, which are very unsuitable for criminal purposes? So, this is untrue.

3. That these rifles can readily be converted to semi-automatic with a faster rate of fire, even though they are specially designed and built for the UK market with suitable interrupter systems, and parts are not interchangeable with similar others (i.e. automatics) sold elsewhere around the world which can fire faster. They have hitherto been approved by the Home Office and verified by the statutory independent Proof House testing. So, this is untrue.

4. We say that protection of the public is best served by enforcement of regulations which should properly be directed against the unlawful importers, manufacturers and back-street traders who provide some 99% of the firearms which are used illegally.

In short, whilst rifles are used in less than 1% of firearms crimes, not only are these measures failing to address the 99% of crimes where illegal handguns, illegal automatic rifles and shotguns are used, but they seek to impose limitations, not on the perpetrators of crimes, but upon the most extensively vetted and dependable law-abiding members of the community! Are not these the people whose support they most need, and do not need to alienate?

There is no evidence that such bans will deliver any benefit. Indeed, since fully controlled legal ownership of handguns has been banned, use of handguns in crime has gone up! Could this be because the highly regulated clubs provided a legal outlet for those who were determined to find out for themselves what it was like to fire a handgun, but can now only do so illegally? Crazy though it may seem, handgun ownership remains permitted in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands! Guess who has the lower hand-gun crime rate than mainland UK? Could it be that there are some legislators within the British Isles who have taken a logical rather than emotional look at what represents the best in public protection? We currently have the situation where only some 24 members of the British Olympic Pistol team are allowed to shoot pistol in UK, on specified ranges. Yet those who would aspire to reach that standard are not allowed even to practice in UK, and have to do so overseas!

So, what is the point of the Home Office misleading MPS, as they have done? They say "threat perception"; we say scaremongering, without hard evidence.

So, not only do the relevant clauses breach the Equality Act by failing to make reasonable provision for the disabled, but also, they misguidedly target honest people whilst having no detrimental effect upon the criminal fraternity! This has not even been considered at the Committee stage of the Commons, even though it was in the written evidence submitted. This therefore would be very bad law, if enacted.

So, let's stop being over-emotive - a weapon is any implement used to gain an advantage (whether material, mental, strategic or tactical) over an adversary or enemy, or used with intent to maim or to kill, or indeed in self-defence. It matters not what it is - what matters is the intent to do harm! Even so, I am addressing only their use by target shooters, not other lawful uses such as for culling vermin, for hunting food, or for humane despatch. A gun isn’t going to fire on its own. It will have to have had some intervention at some point in order to go off (Yes, even a dropped gun had to be loaded by someone). Thus, the gun itself is never at fault and is morally neutral.

The Home Secretary, who whilst promising to listen, has evidently failed so to do.

Nick Hurd MP, the current Minister for Policing, and evidently the lead minster after the Home Secretary, says on his website:

" My job is to help my constituents, to stand up for the interests of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and to help parliament make better laws." I wish he would!

The Home Office having promised a full consultation on firearms legislation, still wants to push this ban through regardless, in the interim.

Meanwhile, the shooting community have proposed a simple practical solution - that the bolt / working parts of the rifle are always securely stored, locked away and transported away from the body of the matching rifle, therefore requiring 3 distinct steps to activate - two accesses and then assembly which cannot be done by an untrained person. This is additional to holding any ammunition in an entirely separate safe. Why is this not adequate and a proper proportional response to the perceived threat?

Even if you are not keen on target shooting, please recognise that:

* making laws without proper evidence is wrong;

* targeting the disabled and veterans is wrong, and

* failing to address the core problem of criminally held weapons is a gross mis-direction of resources!

* Seeking to ban ownership is wrong, even counter-productive - especially when enhanced security is a viable solution.

This has already passed the Committee stage in the Commons and the Second Reading in the Lords, so time is very short before it otherwise becomes law. Please act now to preserve our rule of proper law. Please tell your MP so, and support my stand for making good, evidence-based law. Otherwise, what might they ban next? Cars, motorcycles, scooters, even bicycles! After all, they are also responsible for many more otherwise avoidable deaths!

Please see my video at:

www.gunroom.tv/2019/01/04/why-the-mars-vz58-is-so-important/

or at:

https://youtu.be/Yxjja0MJrMQ

What is the crowdfunding and direct backing money situation?

To give everyone full confidence, we are arranging a designated funds bank account to be held by the disability and mobility charity, Freedom Powerchairs (of which I am a Trustee). All funds received will be placed in, and dispensed from that account, giving a clear audit trail. Any excess funds left over at the end of the process will be either returned pro-rata to sponsors or donated to charity.

Phase One is get proper advice and prepare, including formal issue.

Clearly, we hope that having completed Phase One, the Home Office will have been brought round to our viewpoint. Negotiations with the Home Office and Ministers continues, and will remain so, until we can reach agreement.

Phase Two is if we have to actually proceed in Court. Some say this could cost c £250k; we have reasons to think that it would be nearer £50k in our case.

Please see my video: www.gunroom.tv/2019/01/04/why-the-mars-vz58-is-so-important/ or at: https://youtu.be/Yxjja0MJrMQ

What is the thrust of our justification for Judicial Review?

Whilst the process is likely lawful as such, we are (so far) dealing with five issues arising.

1. The Home Office appear to have unfortunately misled Parliament with what we say is inaccurate and biased evidence provided by their advisers. This can still be challenged, and is actively being so.

2. The House of Commons committee stage was flawed in that much of the evidence submitted was ignored and neither alternative solutions i.e. applying heightened security, nor disabled use, were considered at all, even though extensive evidence was submitted, and is on the public record as such.

3. There is a direct conflict with the Equality Act by failing to make “reasonable provisions” - Ministers have stated that:

“In terms of other rifle types, should a ban be imposed, disabled shooters should consider using

.22 self-loading rimfire rifles or “other firearms modified as appropriate to their particular needs.” (Letter to MO from HO Serious Violence Unit, of Jan 2019)

Yet what they are seeking to ban is exactly that - “firearms modified as appropriate to our particular needs”, (i.e. by firearms using propellant gas to extract and eject the spent round and, with added interruption - like the MARS and the Lever Release actions).

Of course, more interruption could be added, thereby further reducing the risk of “rapid-fire;”. but even this would not be possible as things stand, because the Home Office is banning all firearms adopting propellant gas to extract and eject - regardless of their rate of fire!

4. The common law entitlements to peaceful enjoyment and possession; the right of an individual to do anything which does not adversely affect another.

5. We say that it cannot be shown that the action proposed aligns with the stated policy of protecting the public, and that it is a distraction from the 99% of the actual problem.

The Government says:

“However, the proposals in the Offensive Weapons Bill were based on concerns about their potential for serious misuse and loss of life if they were to fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists. In view of the threat assessment received, the Government has a clear duty to protect the public and to consider the need for these particular types of firearm to be more strictly controlled.” (Letter to MO from HO Serious Violence Unit, of Jan 2019). Here is the key - “consider the need … to be more strictly controlled” - we agree to this, and the Home Office has already produced an effective and well-thought-out regime – Level 3 security.

There are a number of ways in which the Government can be held to account for what we say is this mis-direction of resources.

Interestingly, the Parliament website says: "The practical implementation of an Act is the responsibility of the appropriate government department, not Parliament." This means that our target is the Home Office, and not the legislators themselves, who naturally presume that the Home Office is providing them with a balanced, complete and full picture. We say that the brief is badly biased, a mis-direction of resources and, if the letters published in Target Sports in April 2002 (copies available on request), are anything to go by, achieves the opposite of the intended result!

This is because fewer people are trained in the safe use of firearms, and for the impressionable, owning something others do not becomes a fashion accessory!

Questions? Please tel or text 07515595337 or e-mail osment.martinc@gmail.com

Please use the comment section at the end to tell me what you think!

see: https://gunroom.tv/2019/01/04/why-the-mars-vz58-is-so-important

More continues in background, but I can't say much about it yet - whatch this space!