From: "SA Mail", [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEWS RELEASE 8th.January, 2001 ACPO MOUNT FURTHER ASSAULTS ON LEGITIMATE SHOOTERS This Association has been advised that ACPO have recommended to Government Ministers that firearms such as the .50 Barrett and also long-barreled pistols should be further restricted and that this could be done by utilising the power, granted under Section 1(4) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act, 1988, for the Secretary of State to raise these items to Section 5 of the Principal Act and thereby, effectively, prohibit private possession of these items. ACPO would appear to believe that these firearms are either 'specially dangerous' or 'wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects; .........' if they now want them to be placed in Section 5 of the 1968 Act. Section 1(4) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act, 1988 also covers ammunition that may be considered 'specially dangerous.' Where on Earth do they get such notions? This Association has always maintained that a person's fitness to possess firearms is all that matters - the actual type of firearms possessed by a person fit to do so must surely be totally irrelevant to public safety. (Public Safety being the peg on which so much of the more recent restrictive legislation has been hung.) Have there ever been any problems with legitimately held 50 calibre rifles or long-barreled pistols? Of course there haven't - it is just some notion concocted by those whose days are spent in contemplating what could or might be done with any particular artifact. Yes, rifles firing cartridges such as the .50 BMG are powerful firearms. Armour piercing and incendiary ammunition for them (the only types that could possibly be classed as 'specially dangerous') has already been prohibited for civilian use. Ranges suitable for using such firearms and also available to civilians are few and far between in this country but the perfectly legitimate sport of target shooting with 50 calibre rifles is a healthy and growing interest. The important point is that those persons who own such firearms are very responsible people who do not represent a threat to anyone. If that were not the case, they should not possess any firearms at all, never mind .50 calibres. Another important point is that, as is the case with much military equipment and ideas, the present .50 calibre military sniping rifle was developed by civilians and subsequently adopted by the military. This reinforces the significant link between civilian target shooting and Defence of the Realm - one of the fundamental purposes behind the National Rifle Association. ACPO's actions would negate that purpose. Certain Firearms Licensing Managers have suggested to us that the police are worried in case criminals should steal these firearms and then put them to criminal use. They also suggest that, to ease their worries, the firearms should be prohibited. Based solely upon their record of restrictive recommendations, we are entitled to believe that the ACPO have their own agenda which includes the removal of all licensed firearms from 'civilian' hands. (They seem to be less interested in doing something about the ever increasing number and incidence of usage of unlicensed firearms by criminals.) It is high time that this unelected and apparently totally unaccountable body was instructed to stop involving itself in political matters and to concentrate on genuine police work. It is quite wrong, in any supposedly 'free' society, for the police to be the law-makers. The police should restrict themselves to enforcing the laws made by our democratically elected Parliament and should not be allowed to introduce their own ideas other than through that same democratic process as individual subjects of this Realm. Governments in recent years seem to rely heavily upon the Statutory Instrument procedure to ram through restrictive legislation rather than to permit full and proper debate (the lead shot restrictions being a case in point). Statutory Instruments are, in theory, placed before the House of Commons to be considered before they take effect but do not seem to receive much 'consideration' unless someone makes a fuss, as we do, via the 'prayer' process! In our opinion, ACPO's views are accorded too much weight by Government. On the other hand, the views of the responsible shooters in this country, as presented to Government by our National Bodies, are conveniently disregarded whenever they do not suit the Government's purpose. ACPO's actions are not helping the police service at ground level to carry out their duties as those actions merely serve to antagonise the shooting public to the general detriment of the good relations that used to obtain between the police and the public. We would hope that serving police officers in the front line of the fight to combat criminal activities would seize any opportunities to persuade ACPO to abandon their present agenda and to return to a common sense approach to police work. It is time that the ACPO was reminded that the police are merely 'civilians' with no special powers over the rest of us. They should also be reminded that this country prides itself on being policed and Governed by the consent of the people. That consent is not automatically accorded. We must establish just how much of our money - as taxpayers and Council Tax payers - is being spent on maintaining the ACPO and then perhaps we could either force them to give us better value for our money or force them out of existence. It would help if all shooters were to write to their own Police Forces and ask them to state how much that force was contributing to the ACPO budget each year and then to let us know at our Head Office. Remember, we are actually paying for these people to invent further restrictions to impose upon us. Where are the consequential benefits in terms of improvements in public safety that have resulted from any of their efforts? It would also help if all shooters, and all others who believe in freedom of choice, would write to or visit their own MP's to protest about this latest assault on our activities from ACPO. -- Let me just add a bit here - the Home Office tell me that the ACPO budget is 1.4 million a year, but so far the figures I have from police authorities don't add up properly. 2/3 of this funding comes from Police Authorities, i.e. your council tax. My suggestion is that you write to your Force Director of Finance, find out how much money is given to ACPO each year, and then take up your concerns with your local councillor. Usually the amount is substantially more than a police officer's salary, or several salaries. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________ T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
