General Election - does YOUR candidate support Shooting?

[Mike]

It seems that campaigning for the coming general election has started, so BASC has set up a system to help us to let the candidates know OUR views, whilst at the same time getting their views, and making those views available to all shooters.

 

I've posted a brief explanation and a link at -

http://psa.bizhosting.com/whats_new.html

 

or you can go there from

http://www.basc.org.uk/

[Oly]

Good work Mike, and good idea too. That should sort the wood from the chaff for the unsuspecting voter!

 

Regards,

Oly

[Mike]

Oly,

 

Thanks for your kind words!

 

We just hope that every shooter who reaads the Bulletin Board takes the time to use this system - it should make the candidates realise how many shooters there are out there - who vote !

[6mmBR]

Thanks for the heads up.

Form filled in, lets see what we get in response.

Cheers

Dave

[TonyH]

I had a look at that link, for which thanks. As I've just told BASC in an email, I think in principle it's a good idea, but I don't like the way their little potted message restricts itself to the economic value of shooting: apart from the fact that it actually involves comparatvely trifling sums, which could be dismissed as irrelevant by any greasy politico spin-doctor or unsympathetic journo, for me firearms ownership is profoundly connected with political liberty, and it's no coincidence that as Britain has become less and less free and more and more buggered up, our rights to own guns - natural rights AFAIC - have been steadily whittled away. There are lots of politicians, not all of them on the Left, who make no secret of their desire to ban all civilian gun ownership.

I think all BASC members should query this lapse and emphasise that as far as they're concerned it's not just the money: far more important is our fundamental, natural, human right to bear arms.

I haven't been a BASC member for some years, since they're heavily weighted towards shotgunning and all that tweed cap stuff, and not politically aggressive enough for my liking; but I had been toying with the idea of rejoining.

TonyH

[Oly]

I sent mine off tonight...time to wait and see.

 

Tony, I do know what you mean. BASC do tend to be far to interested in the paid shooting, whereas I think in reality most cartridges/rounds fired each year are done so for free - carrying out vital pest control etc - but, unfortunatly...money is always going to be a prime driver (which is no doubt why BASC puts so much emphasis in such correspondence). My only complaint with BASC is that I feel it a bit of a shame that they also feel the need to put so much emphasis on paid shooting in their other publications (members website & magazine) when, as previously mentioned, most of it will be carried out for free.

 

Anyway, great idea - I'll be interested in seeing the results, and lets hope it puts pressure on politicians in the right direction!

[TonyH]

Oly, thanks for that. Yes, it will be interesting - though I'd have thought any shooting man would be contacting his local Parliamentary candidates anyway, to learn their attitudes to shooting, and would not need prompting by BASC.

I had a quick reply from BASC, someone called Christopher Graffius at the Communications section; here it is, with my reply comments interspersed:

Thank you for your email. If you read the quote you extracted again you will see that the text does not only emphasise economic criteria, It also mentions all party support, participation, recreation, food and conservation.

 

It most certainly emphasises the economics of shooting, and completely ignores the libertarian aspects of firearms ownership - disappointingly.

 

There is no natural right to own guns in British law, and we can all think of people who shouldn’t have guns.

 

Well yes, like criminals, the insane, non-citizens, and so on. I trust you are not unaware of the past century's worth of firearms legislation? Prior to 1920 there was no "gun control" legislation worth mentioning (yes, I know about the Pistol Act but that was harmless) and proposals to introduce controls on gun ownership were robustly, and rightly, resisted on exactly the grounds I've mentioned: the right to own guns was a natural right in any self-respecting free society, said MPs, and that was that. Until the 1920 Act, pushed through because the Establishment was terrified of anarchists and bolsheviks, not because of any armed crime problem...

I'm sorry to see BASC supporting, apparently, the "gun control" status quo that is founded upon that original 1920 Act (based upon false fears & premises) and subsequent Firearms Acts each of which was in different ways dishonest, superfluous, pointless, badly drafted, irrelevant and illiberal. I have often invited politicians - and those such as BASC - to offer any evidence that the various Acts since 1920 have had any beneficial effect whatsoever, apart from making life easier for control-freak politicians and civil servants. It is a matter of record that at the same time as legitimate gun ownership has been made progressively more difficult and the conditions more onerous, with fewer and fewer people owning guns, so at the same time armed crime has increased by thousands of percent since 1920.

 

BASC takes second place to no one when it comes to defending and promoting the ability to own and use guns within the law and that takes a prominent place in our key objectives. BASC also has an outstanding record in shaping the law through supporting key cases and official guidance through our political work which has ensured that ability.

 

Really? I am prepared to agree that BASC has done a moderately respectable job of fighting a rearguard defence and has undoubtedly scored a few points (though I don't know what those are) but given the fact that very many fewer people own firearms now than they did a few decades ago, and that we can longer own semi-automatic rifles or handguns, I think "outstanding record" is coming it a bit high.

I still think you should highlight the right to own guns, along with the economic significance of shooting. Gun ownership isn't just about boosting the economy, it's about exercising a fundamental right. BASC should emulate the American NRA: I'd rejoin like a shot.

My comments are more restrained than they might have been: I'm actually very damned annoyed at BASC's smug, complacent, prissy attitude. No wonder our rights are being eroded year upon year.

TonyH

[TonyH]

A further communication from Christopher Graffius at BASC, so again I show this together with my replies:

The purpose of the extract is to inform the parliamentary candidates

that shooting is not a minor consideration it is not to preach an

evangelical message on the right to bear arms - which doesn't exist in

the UK.

 

Well, I could cite the Bill of Rights, but more to the point is that historically, though not enshrined in a constitution such as that of the USA, the right to be armed was indeed recognised under Common Law, as outlined by Mr Justice Blackstone among other authorities. And throughout English history, citizens have been free to arm themselves except during times of political repression - so, not much change there, then.

 

 

You're quite wrong to say that the pistols ban was harmless - and BASC

has an ongoing campaign to amend and overturn it.

 

I think you misunderstand. I referred to the Pistol Act of 1903, which required a licence before one could own a handgun - but this was rather like the pre-1967 practice with shotguns, in that one paid ten bob (or something) at the Post Office for a licence, then went out and bought as many handguns as one wanted, which were not registered. I could not, of course, possibly have meant the 1997 Firearms Act, which followed its predecessors in being a kneejerk piece of pernicious legislative nonsense that retrospectively made unlawful the handguns owned by me and 56,000 others. I am delighted to hear that BASC has an ongoing campaign to dump this nasty law, but I haven't heard anything of your progress....

 

We are also working

closely with the police and the Home Office to reform firearms law. No

one pretends that the laws are ideal - they've been cobbled together

over years and the result is multiple problems. BASC is constructively

working to redress that.

 

Neither the police, the Home Office nor Parliament in general is very interested in reforming firearms law, except to make it ever more restrictive. Far too many individuals in each of those groups is on record as saying that they'd like to ban all civilian ownership of guns. The trouble with campaigns such as those by the BFSS/CA and the BASC is they're predicated on a highly optimistic vision of our political opponents being reasonable, decent people who are amenable to logical argument and interested in political liberty. In consequence, such campaigns - and I went on the Hyde Park rally, the Big March, etc - are anodyne and simply encourage our opponents because they see that we will always play fair - while they don't, and don't give a damn. Our EU membership doesn't help either, since our legislative independence is being steadily eroded and if there is convergence and standardisation of firearms laws it will inevitably in the direction of the most restrictive practice.

 

 

The purpose of the web email is to commit candidates - many of whom are

ignorant of the sport - to support shooting. Talking about the "right to

own guns" would not achieve that objective.

 

Candidates never feel "committed", least of all by ticking boxes on a questionnaire. MPs always feel entirely at liberty to renege on any half-promise they might have made prior to an Election. Very few of them know anything at all about shooting and don't give a damn about our right to own guns, which is why they need to be coerced, made to feel threatened, by a very vigorous political campaign that - perhaps - concentrates upon key marginals and organises shooters in those constituencies to vote en bloc. I don't necessarily suggest the phrase "right to own guns" be used, but it ought to be made clear that what was a de facto right to own guns less than 100 years ago - when my grandparents were around, and owning whatever guns they wanted without restriction - has been deliberately eroded, and to no socially beneficial end whatsoever. It is not for BASC to collude with cynical politicians in merely tinkering with the present disgracefully oppressive laws, but to grow some balls - and kick the politicians in theirs.

TonyH

[gazzar15]

A further communication from Christopher Graffius at BASC, so again I show this together with my replies:

 

TonyH

Tony

As an owner of semi-auto full bore rifles pre1988 and a keen pistol shot -collector prior to the debacle of 1997 I must confess to being wholeheartedly in agreement with your post.In my opinion BASC are not anywhere near tough enough with regard to trying to deal with our ridiculous gun laws.I believe that they are probably more interested in an ongoing softly -softly approach and being thrown the odd crumb of appeasement from our political masters and the police.

In order to change the situation our elected representatives need to be told in no uncertain terms that shooters vote and that we have the voting power to certainly cost the seats of those who would ignore our collective voice.

Basc should also take note that their membership figures would probably reflect a more aggressive stance on firearms law reform.

 

Gary

[Mike]

I have been sent the following e-mail replying to Tony H by Christopher Graffius, who has asked me to post it here -

 

 

"Thank you for the response.

 

Given the opinions you've expressed I can understand why you are so frustrated with BASC, the EU, the law, the state of shooting sports, the political process in general and all politicians.

 

With regard to the pistols ban BASC has held meetings with each incoming Home Office Minister to brief them on the need to change the law, we were closely involved in the discussions on exempting athletes for international games. We've held briefing meetings in the Commons to explain the sport of target pistol shooting. We've challenged - and won several times in court - police decisions to deny pistols to those who need them and qualify under the exemptions. Before the last election we negotiated the draft Labour shooting charter which included an undertaking to review the pistols ban. That was leaked to the Scottish press by the member of another shooting organisation and in the ensuing political row the pledge was dropped. You will therefore understand my reticence to go into detail on my current discussions with party policy makers, particularly when I understand that you're publishing this correspondence on a forum without telling me. Suffice to say that discussions are ongoing and promising.

 

It's simple to kick politicians, they're an easy and popular target and some of them deserve a kicking, but in my experience most politicians, not necessarily the ones you hear about on the news, are honest and reasonable and interested in producing just, workable laws within the political constraints they operate under. To think as you do - that it's all pointless and they're all against us - is a counsel of despair and encourages shooters to consider themselves as victims. That will only damage shooting.

 

You suggest that we should coerce and threaten candidates - I can think of nothing more likely to damage shooting. Representing shooting is not just a matter of balls it requires brains as well. I suggest you think about that.

 

I've asked a BASC member who posts on the forum to post this correspondence.

 

Christopher Graffius,"

[TonyH]

I have been sent the following e-mail replying to Tony H by Christopher Graffius, who has asked me to post it here - ...

I've asked a BASC member who posts on the forum to post this correspondence.

 

Christopher Graffius,"

Was it you who told him I was copying our email correspondence onto this board? Just curious. Strange that he should find out so quickly. Anyway, here's the same stuff you've already posted, but with my own replies inserted:

Thanks for taking the time to comment further.

 

Given the opinions you've expressed I can understand why you are so

frustrated with BASC, the EU, the law, the state of shooting sports, the

political process in general and all politicians.

 

You bet. But much though I daresay you'd like to pigeonhole me as some single-issue nutcase or unthinking Express-reading politician-basher, I'm interested in a broad range of issues - regarding each of which I believe the current political state of affairs is worrying. Shooting, and firearms ownership, are particluarly fruitful subjects for those such as myself interested in politics: I happen to believe that a nation's attitude to its citizens owning guns is a key indicator of the degree of liberty in that nation. And I don't think there is time enough for organisations such as BASC to plod on in their gentlemanly old-school way: I'm far from being the only Brit shooter who longs for us to have something like the American NRA.

 

With regard to the pistols ban BASC has held meetings with each incoming

Home Office Minister to brief them on the need to change the law, we

were closely involved in the discussions on exempting athletes for

international games. We've held briefing meetings in the Commons to

explain the sport of target pistol shooting. We've challenged - and won

several times in court - police decisions to deny pistols to those who

need them and qualify under the exemptions. Before the last election we

negotiated the draft Labour shooting charter which included an

undertaking to review the pistols ban. That was leaked to the Scottish

press by the member of another shooting organisation and in the ensuing

political row the pledge was dropped. You will therefore understand my

reticence to go into detail on my current discussions with party policy

makers, particularly when I understand that you're publishing this

correspondence on a forum without telling me. Suffice to say that

discussions are ongoing and promising.

 

Well, forgive me if I decline to hold my breath. I've been a keen shooter for much of my life, and have followed UK firearms politics for a few decades, enough time in which to see a number of shooting avenues closed to me. UK shooting & fieldsports organisations have with absolute consistency proved complacent, naive, trusting, slow off the mark, and ultimately incompetent at the savage - but cunning - infighting necesary to triumph against both the authoritarian anti-gun crowd, and their indifferent, guns-are-for-boring-peasants opposite numbers. I'm afraid I've heard more or less exactly what you've just said more than once before, from e.g. the BFSS, the (UK)NRA.... I notice that you do not attempt to deny or belittle any of the incontrovertible historical facts I've cited, about e.g. the origins of the 1920 (et seq) Firearms Act; and it's difficult to see how you could deny that firearms ownership has indeed become even less widespread than before, and operates under ever more onerous constraints upon the individual. I'm glad to hear that you've done a few good things here and there - but this is, I repeat, rearguard action stuff, winning the odd skirmish while slowly being driven back to the sea. You're presenting a good PR image, but this does not obscure the slow death of firearms ownership.

 

 

It's simple to kick politicians, they're an easy and popular target and

some of them deserve a kicking, but in my experience most politicians,

not necessarily the ones you hear about on the news, are honest and

reasonable and interested in producing just, workable laws within the

political constraints they operate under. To think as you do - that it's

all pointless and they're all against us - is a counsel of despair and

encourages shooters to consider themselves as victims. That will only

damage shooting.

 

I don't know how old you are but it's possible I've been corresponding with politicians about guns & shooting longer than you. I'm not some thicko, joining in the newly popular game of politician-bashing. I don't know about "most" but I'd agree that many politicians are ordinary decent folk who haven't got it in for shooters. But in recent decades there has been a noticeable and regrettable trend to cynical populism, and firearms legislation exemplifies this - especially the 1997 Act. I spent much of 1996 and 1997 observing with increasing disbelief the torrent of lies, misinformation, black propaganda, emotional blackmail and bandwagon jumping following Dunblane; politically, it was the most instructive period of my life. I will never forget John Major's saying that he would ban handguns - retracted for the sake of form when it was pointed out that the Cullen Enquiry had not yet concluded, but indicative of what happens when politicians feel populist sentiment swinging in a certain direction. The "honest, reasonable, interested, just" politicians you describe voted to take away the handguns of 56,000 people - as someone once remarked, whenever there's a gun outrage, they punish the people who didn't do it...

Was it milkmen who took away our semi-auto rifles and our handguns? Are plumbers, accountants or undertakers responsible for the successive Firearms Acts that have so greatly diminished our liberty to own guns, to no discernible good purpose? No - it was politicians. Do you honestly think shooters are not victims? Extraordinary. We're not just victims, we're scapegoats.

 

 

You suggest that we should coerce and threaten candidates - I can think

of nothing more likely to damage shooting. Representing shooting is not

just a matter of balls it requires brains as well. I suggest you think

about that.

 

Well, yes, and not being a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal gun-nut, I'm quite keen on the application of brains. Again, I commend to you the American NRA: try suggesting to them that their noble struggle to maintain Americans' historic gun rights is merely a question of balls and no brains! I'd like to be on hand when you do. No, this is related to what you wrote earlier about the slow process of BASC's meeting, persuading etc etc - a process which as far as anyone can see has achieved zero so far except maybe to prolong, fractionally, the fateful day.

I'd hoped you would realise what I meant by coercion & threats. I didn't mean that we should say, vote to restore handguns or we'll poison your dog; what I meant was that PPCs care first and foremost about getting elected, so BASC should be pointing out to them that unless they support shooting they will see a guaranteed bloc of X-thousand people in their constituency voting for another candidate...

Achieving anything requires brains as well as balls; unfortunately BASC seems merely to have overseen the decline of shooting, rather than ensure the restoration of shooting freedoms hitherto lost. Unless you're going to tell me I'll shortly be able to retrieve my AR-15, and resume Practical Pistol with the .45 I lost in 1997... Does BASC have brains? Does it have balls? I don't know, but something must be lacking, given the parlous state UK shooting is in.

 

I've asked a BASC member who posts on the forum to post this

correspondence.

 

That's helpful. I apologise for not announcing that I would post this stuff on the 'Net, very rude of me. I did make it clear I was copying it to the Sec'y of one of my clubs though - and surely nothing you've said should be considered private? BASC's attitude to gun ownership is fundamental, one would think, and needs to be aired publicly.

TonyH