FCSA Update

[ruger7717]

Good evening gentleman,

 

Please find the updated position of the FCSA with regards to the consultation.  This email went live to the FCSA members about 5 days ago.  Due to some negative feedback from my last post (points made about posting on an open forum made me think twice before submitting this) but being the biggest firearms/shooting  forum in the UK I feel it needs to be shared with you all.  Please read carefully Chris' mindset regarding what we can and can't fight financially before you respond.

Thanks for reading.

Dear member, and any other interested person,

 

Many of you have been asking about our fighting fund. As per my previous emails (which I won’t repeat now), we may need to start Judicial Review proceedings if the Home Office insist on pressing ahead with the proposed changes to .50 calibre firearms (or firearms that generate in excess of 10,000 ft/lbs). This will require barrister time and will be very expensive.

 

This fighting fund will be used to defend the FCSA’s primary concern – that of long distance .50 calibre target shooting. This will be extremely costly and therefore regrettably we cannot use this fund to also defend other firearm types that are currently under review, such as MARS rifles.

 

Several individuals have enquired as to why we are not also vigorously fighting to defend MARS type rifles. The reason is simple – these rifles are NOT what we as a club specialise in and we do not have the expert knowledge necessary to challenge the Home Office views. There are other clubs out there that do have the appropriate expertise and should take the lead on defending these firearms. We cannot fight everyone’s battle, if we attempt to do so then we will most likely fail on all fronts. Our expertise lies with large calibres and we need to be clear about this distinction. The FCSA is just that, the Fifty Calibre Shooters Association. We are not and cannot take on the role of being the overarching body to represent the whole shooting community, the role rightly held by the NRA.

 

We are clearly happy for any organisation fighting to retain the use of MARS rifles to use any of the points we have put forward previously regarding the Home Office “consultation document” that may be appropriate to their needs.

 

We have now set up a separate savings account which is ready to accept donations.

 

We can accept BACS transfers at any time, or cash and cheques at our range bookings.

 

Account details are as follows:

 

Sort code 20-97-90

Account:  43660605

Account name: FCSA

 

We will NOT need to use these funds until we have to pay legal fees, this will be AFTER the consultation is closed and any changes to firearms law that concern firearms capable of generating a muzzle energy in excess of 10,000 ft/lbs are proposed by the Home Office.

 

Any associated day to day costs incurred, such as travel expenses, but not legal fees, will be funded from the FCSA current account balance.

 

This way we can ensure that your donation is only spent on lawyer/barrister (legal professional) time.

 

Please ensure that you keep a record of your donation, the amount and the date of transfer. I suggest for your payment reference that you use your full name. The reason being is that if the funds are not required for any reason then we need to ensure refunds can be processed effectively – if requested.

 

 

Many thanks for your support,

 

 

Chris Stevenson

Chairman, FCSA (UK)

www.fcsa.co.uk

[DaveT]

I don't shoot a 50 but have contributed to the fighting fund.

Preventing the banning of 50 cals should be regarded as worthy of our support in its own right...ie defense of fellow shooters....as well as 'armouring' against the inevitable 'next in line' calibre ban.

If they get away with this they can use the same nonsensical AP ammo availability justification to ban 308 / 223........or whatever else takes their fancy!

[DaveT]

Top man......and too true about crap rolling!

[DaveT]

As an NRA member I have just received this via email.

My first question back to the NRA is have you communicated the comments in BOLD about 'the consultation being fundamentally flawed' DIRECTLY AND FORCEFULLY back to the Home Office?

I hope that I am wrong but I suspect that the answer is No.....in which case the email to paying NRA members is simply the biggest selection of ineffectual limp-dick retoric and serves no purpose other than to insult members by trying to create the impression of action being taken.

I truly hope that I can publically eat my words but recommend thst ALL NRA members ask the same question.

Dear Member,

 

Update - Home Office Consultation – “Offensive Weapons”

 

We have recently received further clarification on the Home Office proposals to prohibit two types of firearms (.50 calibre and VZ58 MARS) which included the following details:-

 

(1)     The .50 calibre proposals have been extended to include “other similar high power, long range rifles”; furthermore in an attempt to differentiate between ‘anti-materiel’ type firearms and those used for sporting purposes the Home Office are contemplating imposing a 10,000ft lbs muzzle energy limit.

 

(2)    The VZ58 MARS proposals have been extended to include any “rapid firing rifles” that “employs a Manually Actuated Release System capable of achieving a similar rate of fire”; they have confirmed that their proposals do not extend to self-loading rifles chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges. The Home Office has not provided a definitive description of Manually Actuated Release System so we do not understand precisely which rifles are at risk of prohibition.

 

These clarifications fundamentally change the terms of the Public Consultation which clearly stated the Government proposals were to solely prohibit the ownership of:-

 

(1)     “.50 calibre ‘materiel destruction’ rifles of a type developed for use by the military to allow for shooting over long distances for example, to enable sniping at long ranges and in a manner capable of damaging vehicles and other equipment (referred to in military terms as 'materiel') “ and

 

(2)    “ rapid firing rifles, such as the VZ 58 Manually Actuated Release System (MARS) rifle…because a second pull of the trigger is required to discharge a round”.

 

The current wording of the Consultation and Impact Assessment could be seen as an attempt to mislead the public; furthermore they have been presented without any credible supporting evidence of threat to public safety. This is a direct consequence of launching such proposals without prior engagement with shooting organisations;

 

We believe these changes to the scope of firearms proposals means that Consultation is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned or re-issued as a separate document, with full details of what is proposed and an accurate re-working of the Impact Assessment.

 

Once again I urge all NRA members and friends in the shooting community to register your concerns with the Home Office by 9th December 2017 directly by email to Offensive.Weapons.Consultation@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; you may wish to copy your local MP. These proposals may appear to present distant threats to your own type of shooting; however they have been poorly presented, are not evidence based and, if left unchallenged, will leave a dangerous legacy for the shooting community.  When drafting any firearms legislation a primary consideration must be to ensure that the scope of its application is clear and the rules are consistent, so that the honest citizen is not left at the mercy of inconsistent application of the law

 

It is worth remembering that this is not a dry and impersonal matter; please read the message I recently received below from a concerned NRA member.

 

“This disability has had a profound effect on my life. It has cut me off and isolated me from my old life. So four years ago I joined my local shooting club, partly to give me a reason to get out of the house and mix with others, but also to reconnect with a sport I had competed in at school. I was blessed in that my local club is a very encouraging and enthusiastic place, covering many shooting disciplines.

 

Once I'd gained my firearms certificate, a year after joining the club; I decided to look for my first fullbore rifle.  It became clear through discussion with senior club members that the MARS action rifle would be ideal for me given my disability.  

 

My parents, realising the positive effect target shooting was having on me, purchased a .223 calibre rifle for me. That was over two years ago and to this day, it remains my only fullbore rifle, which I shoot as often as my disability allows me. It’s a pleasure to use and allows me to shoot without breaking my grip, something that would be impossible for me to do with off hand shooting, even seated off hand shooting and very difficult for me when bench rest shooting.

 

The MARS action is a mechanism I use to allow me to accurately shoot a rifle at target.  Like the walking stick I use in busy places or the stool I sit on in my shower, it plays an all important part in allowing me to carry on doing things I need and/or want to do.

 

I would really like to be able to carry on using my MARS action rifle.  I would not stop shooting, I would just stop fullbore shooting and going to Bisley. I think that would not only be a great shame, but also unfair.  

 

I am practical and pragmatic in my response to my disability.  The MARS action rifle is my response to that approach and works very well for me.”

 

 

Andrew Mercer

Group Chief Executive & Secretary General

 

[Montey]

I've had this email and found the link posted in it won't work any body else had the same problem?

i will donate this week and as put forward I've joined my local Conservative party with a view to visit my local MP to put our case.

i know one doesn't have to join a party to visit your MP but   Experience  has shown that this is the way forward.

[JSC]

14 hours ago, DaveT said:

As an NRA member I have just received this via email.

My first question back to the NRA is have you communicated the comments in BOLD about 'the consultation being fundamentally flawed' DIRECTLY AND FORCEFULLY back to the Home Office?

I hope that I am wrong but I suspect that the answer is No.....in which case the email to paying NRA members is simply the biggest selection of ineffectual limp-dick retoric and serves no purpose other than to insult members by trying to create the impression of action being taken.

I truly hope that I can publically eat my words but recommend thst ALL NRA members ask the same question.

Before handing out criticism in other directions, why have you not asked the same question of the FCSA, who had the opportunity to challenge the Home Office when they were face to face with them at the meeting on November 6th?

[DaveT]

JSC....cannot grasp your meaning .....the FCSA pro-actively called for and held a meeting with the Home Office to do EXACTLY that.......trying to understand AND CHALLENGE the basis, logic and evidence (or lack thereof) of the consultation PLUS are planning and trying to fund a legal challenge if it goes ahead anyway for political reasons.

If this isn't THE best example of shooters trying to defend themselves despite a deafening silence from our national bodies then what is?

Please don't quote 'vested interest' ..this defense may have an initial focus on 50 cals but its in all of our interests to stop this creating a precedent for the future.

We are all on the same side but I truly wish we could see NRA , BASC and others at least voicing support for FCSA even if they don't have the stomach to take action in our defense.

[JSC]

My meaning is quite simple. The FCSA have reported what the HO said at a meeting they attended but apparently made no attempt AT THE TIME to challenge the fact that it contradicts the consultation document.

At the very least, they should have taken whoever they met with to task for setting out to mislead and confuse. Unless they did and they aren't telling us what the response was Chris just seems to have accepted what was said. That just makes no sense.

Who did he meet with exactly? What were their names and positions at the HO? What authority did they have to make changes without publishing them?

It's deception (by the HO) if it's true, so that should be what everyone should be mobilising against in the first instance, as that alone could get the whole consultation scrapped before a Judicial review needs to be considered.

[DaveT]

JSC...I am not at odds with you but am not sure what more I can add here.

I was not at the meeting but have full confidence that Chris / FCSA  most certainly HAVE challenged as strongly as possible the consultations' complete lack of a logical and evidence-led basis.....including the arbitrary 10,000 foot lbs muzzle energy issue

Given that Chris is an individual representing one club amongst many and doing so without the visible backing of any of our so-called national bodies I would , firstly , applaud him and secondly wonder if the Home Office isn't laughing its collective socks off at the absence of NRA BASC etc etc.........if I was them I might easily assume that shooters in general are 'easy meat' for follow-up bans.

Given the limp national body backing to date they are probably right!

Thats what leaves me so damned angry with them.....where on earth is their pushback?

 

[DaveT]

Not sure about the facts but have just read on FULLBORE forum that the MOD have / are going to suspend 50 cal shooting on field firing ranges pending the outcome of the consultation......guilty until proven innocent?

How easily things escalate!

[JSC]

Nor am I at odds with you, but unless Chris is prepared to come on here and answer some questions, how are we to know what's really going on other than the updates he puts out?

Same goes for all the other organisations. They are no better but they are also not much worse from what I've read.

The NRA seem to have an issue because of their charitable status. If so, then maybe they aren't as guilty of inactivity as some are making out. I don't know. Again, I can only go by what i'm reading from 'updates'.

Some actual ongoing dialogue with those who have a direct line into the HO is what we really need.

[DaveT]

I will ask Chris to respond directly if there is any more to add.

In my personal view the NRA charitable  status thing is pretty limp.

If it truly prevents any form of activism then the NRA really needs to formally declare itself as non-representative of national level shooting interests and rename itself accordingly.

Any less is simply dishonest.

[bradders]

I know I said I'd keep out of this, but that was a different thread, and to be honest some of the posts in this thread are really unhelpful.

I know exactly what's going on, who's spoken to who (m) what's being discussed and what the concerns are, plan of action is and a few other things. I know these things because I picked up a phone and asked directly

What doesn't help is expecting minute by minute updates as if standing by the Teleprinter waiting for the results to come in, then ranting when they haven't heard anything

Things are going on and people are talking and consulting and there have been several meetings with the HO, not just regarding this, but also other matters such as HO club fees etc. Some of these discussions have been confidential, so it would be wrong to discuss what has been said

I believe there is a meeting tomorrow of all the main bodies......and that's all I'm going to say about it

Dave, chill out. 

[DaveT]

No one happier to hear it.

[Deserttech Europe]

I am happy to say that after a committee meeting last night, Oundle Rifle Pistol Club will be contributing and supporting the legal fees for this "fighting fund" and we would urge ALL clubs and club members to speak to their relevant committees to see if they can also spare some cash for this cause.

 

Chairman 

Oundle Rifle Pistol Club

[DaveT]

Top man!