Glorious twelfth may not be so glorious next year

The traditional start of the grouse shooting season may be quieter next year if the Home Office's proposals for tightening shotgun regulations become law - despite a 2001 Labour Party manifesto pledge not to restrict the sport of shooting. The Country Land & Business Association (CLA) today submitted its response to the Government's Controls on Firearms consultation damning the Home Office for its failure to 'rural proof' the document; its apparent ignorance of the legitimate use of shotguns and rifles in the countryside; and its failure to recognise the contribution of shooting to the economy. 'The Home Office appears to be assuming a connection between the lawful use of shotguns and rifles in the countryside for pest control and sport and the 'gun culture' in our inner cities. This is both ludicrous and unproven,' said David Fursdon, CLA Deputy President. 'The consultation paper is suggesting extra controls on the licensing of shotguns - creating a bureaucratic, onerous task for the police and making it unnecessarily difficult for farmers and shooting enthusiasts to apply for licences - and all this in the name of simplifying the system,' he continued.

'Not only was it revealed that the Home Office failed to 'rural proof' the consultation paper to establish its impact on rural communities, there is no recognition in the paper of the important economic and environmental benefits that shooting provides. We urge the Home Office not to introduce extra red tape on shotguns and rifles, especially without explanation or proof that crime would be reduced in any way,' added David Fursdon.

As the 1997 Cobham Report found 26,300 jobs in the UK are directly dependant on shooting, and that the direct expenditure on shooting and stalking in the UK came to £402 million, indirect expenditure added a further £251 million. The report Field Sports and Conservation in the United Kingdom by the Durrel Institute (2003) showed that landowners who participate in country sports, particularly hunting and shooting, preserve 10 times more woodland than those who do not.

Summary of the CLA response to the Home Office consultation:

The consultation appears to assume a connection between those who own guns lawfully and those who commit offences using firearms: no evidence is given to support this assumption.

The record of imposing greater restrictions on the legitimate use of firearms by law-abiding sections of society is not good: it has no real effect in reducing gun related crime.

The extra controls will make it more difficult for new people to take up the sport of shooting and extra controls on self-loading shotguns and rifles will impinge on the ability of people who have difficulties with recoil (such as disabled people) to enjoy shooting.

We are concerned at the suggestion that shotguns are licensed in the same way as more powerful firearms when the present test is sufficient.

The suggestion that the age limits for using and owning guns is raised is without justification: indeed, we believe it essential that people who are likely to handle guns in adulthood should learn how to responsibly do so when young.

The proposal to impose greater restrictions on registered firearms dealers is excessive - particularly the suggestion for them to have blacked out windows - a measure that could only make the shop more enticing.
Millions of shotgun cartridges are sold and used each year without any public safety problems and as such was see no reason for imposing greater controls on cartridges.

Any restrictions which do not recognise the legitimate need for different types of shotgun to be held by the same owner (eg different guns for clay and game shooting) would drastically affect the lawful use of guns for sport and land management purposes.

11 August 2004