Unbelievable

[Private Marker]

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2020/07/09/m25-instagram-range-operators-acquitted/

Apologies if this has already been posted, I just came across this today.

I was stunned that a poorly designed and built gun range could be allowed anywhere let alone near a motorway.

Don't get me started on the "loophole' about gun ownership either!

[Popsbengo]

it won't be the last poorly designed and shambolically operated range.  I know some small bore ranges have crazy "fun-fair" exemptions but there's some full bore ranges I'd not go near - the rot started when it was no longer required to have a range safety certificate issued by the MoD or indeed anyone if your insurance lets you get away with it.

[Private Marker]

Oh yes, insurance. Why do I think the place in the article had no insurance?

[Shuggy]

I have little doubt that Section 11(4) exemptions are used responsibly by the ordinary.22 clubs that use them. But this was another thing entirely. All clubs in my experience are very good at weeding out any undesirable characters through their rigorous probationary procedures. But here the undesirable characters actually founded the club!

I’m not too sure though about the ‘funfair’ type operations. My view of those was rather changed when I was hit by a ricochet whilst walking past the one at a previous British Shooting Show. When I complained, the operator just shrugged.  

[Mattnall]

S11(4) is not a loophole, it is the entry point for many in to the world of shooting and is part of the law as written.

It is abused by one or two, as are many laws, and the police and courts can sort them out.

There are many clubs and organisations that use the 11(4) exemption to run a successful operation and the NSRA use it (they used to be called the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs - or something similar). The NSRA doesn't have their own FAC, they operate under the 11(4) exemption.

It appals me that shooters are so willing to throw to the wolves something and/or someone that they don't like or understand - reminds me of: "First they came for the self loading rifles I did not speak out, when they came for the pistols I didn't speak out because I didn't shoot pistols, when they came for the LR and MARS they weren't for me, when they came for few firearms that were left there was no one left to speak up for me."

S11(4) is doomed partly because of twats like Hammond on the M25 and partly because so many shooters don't understand it so fear it.

[1066]

29 minutes ago, Mattnall said:

S11(4) is not a loophole, it is the entry point for many in to the world of shooting and is part of the law as written.

It is abused by one or two, as are many laws, and the police and courts can sort them out.

There are many clubs and organisations that use the 11(4) exemption to run a successful operation and the NSRA use it (they used to be called the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs - or something similar). The NSRA doesn't have their own FAC, they operate under the 11(4) exemption.

It appals me that shooters are so willing to throw to the wolves something and/or someone that they don't like or understand - reminds me of: "First they came for the self loading rifles I did not speak out, when they came for the pistols I didn't speak out because I didn't shoot pistols, when they came for the LR and MARS they weren't for me, when they came for few firearms that were left there was no one left to speak up for me."

S11(4) is doomed partly because of twats like Hammond on the M25 and partly because so many shooters don't understand it so fear it.

Well said - The next threat seems to be the call to ban all lead ammunition. The million or shot gun shooters mostly shrug their shoulder and it would seem some of their associations are actively promoting the idea - not much thought being given to .22 rimfire, muzzle loading or air gun shooters where there really is no acceptable alternative. But hey-ho, it won't effect me.

[Private Marker]

I'm not having a go at any legal responsible shooter. I was stunned a bunch of yeehas could poorly construct and operate a firing range so near a motorway and service area. That's the "unbelievable" in the title.

[Mattnall]

Unfortunately there is no legal definition of a range and no one certifies civilian ranges now anyway. As the expert witnesses said in the court case you can call practically anywhere you want to shoot a range and then it is. H&S might have something to say about it and if you are a danger to the public it can bring unwanted attention to your 'range' and operation but, as in this case, it wasn't the range that he got convicted on.

[Private Marker]

20 hours ago, Mattnall said:

Unfortunately there is no legal definition of a range and no one certifies civilian ranges now anyway. As the expert witnesses said in the court case you can call practically anywhere you want to shoot a range and then it is. H&S might have something to say about it and if you are a danger to the public it can bring unwanted attention to your 'range' and operation but, as in this case, it wasn't the range that he got convicted on.

Now that is unbelievable. 

[Mattnall]

On 8/14/2020 at 3:58 PM, Private Marker said:

Now that is unbelievable. 

Isn't it just.

We're just building an indoor range and have an old TA/RFCA range down the road that's been shut for over a year and is getting impossible to book. Both should be built to the same JSP design but the RFCA one has so little protection that we are supposed to put in that they are two completely different ranges built using the same design template and guidance.

[Private Marker]

Same old thing. The people who abide by the rules are inconvenienced, those that don't aren't.

[simgre]

6 hours ago, Private Marker said:

Same old thing. The people who abide by the rules are inconvenienced, those that don't aren't.

But you so far have called those rules "unbelievable", but those are the rules that allow thousands to go about their lawful business. I can shoot anywhere that I have appropriate permission and where I deem suitable. In short, that becomes my "range". That is not "unbelievable"!

in short, most of what these individuals did was lawful. It's as simple as that. Had there been an escalation, then no doubt that would have been addressed accordingly. Just because we didn't like the activity as conducted, isn't an automatic call to change the law, as I've seen on some forums. If it's lawful, then crack on.

For me, what is unbelievable within the shooting sports and lawful gun owners, is how quick people still are to condemn given that over the last 30 years we've been bombarded by regulation because of the acts of a few individuals. 

Rely on the law to do its job. Don't hasten or add to the opposing sides argument for no other reason than a need to be outraged. 

[Private Marker]

Not at all. What I called unbelievable was the construction quality and location of the range. I doubt anybody on here would disagree that there was no common sense applied to either aspects, let alone how the place was operated. The law should be basically common sense, and enforcing it is the last resort when common sense isn't present. How is that condemning any law abiding shooters?

[simgre]

In post one, you describe a legitimate and lawful exemption, utilised by countless shooters, as a "loophole".

in post nine you state it's "unbelievable" the miscreants involved in this case weren't convicted on the basis of the "standard of the range". The implication is simply that anywhere being shot over, must be approved. By whim? At what cost? At what inconvenience? Within what timeframes?

The thing with common sense is that it isn't. Some say it's unbelievable that we own any sorts of guns at all. Common sense says that no one needs a weapon only designed to kill... you see where I'm going with this. 

Unlawful activity should always be condemned. Lawful activity, despite how unsavoury one finds it, should always be supported, or at worse, tolerated. That didn't happen in the past and so we had rights and then privileges removed.

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, Private Marker said:

Not at all. What I called unbelievable was the construction quality and location of the range. I doubt anybody on here would disagree that there was no common sense applied to either aspects, let alone how the place was operated. The law should be basically common sense, and enforcing it is the last resort when common sense isn't present. How is that condemning any law abiding shooters?

I'm specifically addressing target shooting ranges, not some 'shooting over land' set up for ad-hoc zeroing.

For all concerned it would be far better if ranges were certificated by competent authority (as they were for years gone by until Gov. money saving intervened).  Clubs are responsible for their members safety, clubs are not always run by persons with expertise or indeed knowledge of safe construction and operation.  Do not assume clubs necessarily make knowledgable decisions - There are reckless and dangerous fools in all walks of life.   This is not a theoretical view.