A letter to the Shadow Home Secretary
Jan 12, 12:38
Here is a letter we have sent to the Shadow Home Secretary:
Dear Sir,
I was very pleased to read your comments regarding the Home Secretaries’ statement with respect of deactivated guns, We run a family business dealing in these, in fact, we are one of the largest, with 900 customers currently subscribing to our newsletter. I am not at all surprised to hear the tiny statistic showing how very few of these guns are ever used in anger, as our customers could attest. Only yesterday, we sold a deactivated gun to a magistrate who, when he spoke to us, was utterly at a loss to see how this proposed legislation would help. He told us that most of the violent crime he sees is knife related, and in fact, in one case, someone had been murdered using a crash helmet. Is anyone seriously suggesting we should ban those? I wouldn’t mind betting that the percentage would be close to that of the deactivated guns used in crime. While we are about it, if we are looking at measures of risk to the public, of commercial enterprises, perhaps we should be closing all chemists, on the basis that many of the items sold there have the potential to pose a serious threat to life. Similarly, no one is suggesting limiting the top speeds of fast cars, despite the legal speed limit , and the many many deaths and serious injuries that occur daily on our roads.
We and our customers would rather that the Home Secretary, ( who, incidentally, has not even done me the courtesy of replying to my email), used her time to address the real problems of violent crime that we face. Let us not forget that she is currently being paid over £135.000 to look after our interests in this area, is this really the best she can offer? Hitting the soft target of law abiding citizens with a deep interest in and knowledge of, this countries’ conflicts and weaponry. Pretty sad. How about looking at the remaining 99% plus., violent gun related crimes? Is that not a more valid use of her highly paid time?
In conclusion, we at Arundel Militaria are more than happy to supply you with any information we can. Our customers are heartily sick of being targeted by politicians with little or no understanding of their collecting and interests. This family will be doing everything possible to vote out this Labour government at the next opportunity. We only hope this happens before more of our perfectly legitimate interests are reclassified as dangerous, anti social and illegal.
Arundel Militaria
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
I could not agree more with the comments in your letter. I am utterly sick of hearing the misrepresentations made by the gun control lobby who on their own web pages show deactivated guns are virtually never involved in crime. The media sensationalise gun amnestys and the police parade deactivated machine guns that have been handed in as if they were live to hype the sucess of their amnesty, what a joke.
As collectors we are a soft target and our weapons look intimidating to those who do not understand what a deactivated gun actually is. We abide by the laws of this country unlike the criminals who use converted blank firing guns of modern manufacture or cheap replicas. We need the Police to use the existing laws and some Customs officers back at the ports to stop the smougglers of live weapons from Eastern Europe not restrictions that will only impact on law abiding collectors. To suggest that criminals are going to pay hundreds of pounds for a pre 95 spec Deactivated gun to convert is ridiculous it would be easier and cheaper to build one from scratch.
Lets hope common sense will prevail and we will not be penalised while the criminals carry on with impunity.
— Mike Stevens · Jan 12, 18:25 · #
It appears to me that this ill-advised Home Secretary has no real knowledge on the subject. It is a totally pointless exercise designed to ‘grab headlines’ and to give the appearance that the Government is actually doing something positive to solve gun crime. I think that a mandatory life sentence handed down to anyone convicted of a gun crime would be more positive… But it’s expensive to keep someone in prison isn’t it!
I would rather that this Government spent my hard earned tax money on more useful plans. Like so many new laws these days they are aimed at the law abiding members of society, we are an easy target and readily available. Why doesn’t Labour go and chase the real criminals? but then I suppose they’d be worrying about their human rights!
— David H. · Jan 13, 10:05 · #
Why not just agree you’ll get all pre-95 guns reworked to 95 spec? Your guns would still be in your hands, the government would be happy no anti-social elements are converting them for use in drive-bys, job done no?
— Mike Fish · Jan 13, 20:34 · #
I have to disagree with Mike Fish. Part of the interest of owning my large collection of WWII deacts (all pre 95) is that I may open up and compare the mechanisms and designs first hand. But that is not really the point. The point is that we should not have to justify the reasons we have in owning what are not actually weapons in pre 95 state. As collectors I believe we should take care not to make illogical arguments or we play into the politicians hands. We can argue that there are better ways to spend our tax money but the danger is that politicians have to be seen to do things and you are quite right in that they will target the low hanging fruit. They will argue that the problem of live guns and the problem of deacts are not mutually exclusive and that it is simple for them to get deacts out of harms way (however wrong they are on this subject) and score lots of political points. They are not targeting deacts INSTEAD of other gun crime. We must remember that the government makes political illogical and unjustifiable decisions every day and so claiming that they are wrong will rarely gain their support. Guns are not widely liked by the public and we as collectors will never get the air time or press coverage to explain our position. At best you will get a scary guy on TV no doubt dressed in military clothes claiming its all safe making collectors look like madmen. This is a game we lost in 95 and a game we will not win in my view if we simply try and oppose what they want to achieve. No politician succeeds by standing up after an announcement to try and ban guns to later admit they were wrong and there was no need to worry. The next day one of the 0.04% of deacts that are used in gun crime will be all over the news and the Home Secretary will lose their job. Understanding how politics works is vital if we are to avoid a complete ban or the ruination of our pre 95 collections. We should embrace the Home Secretary’s worries and suggest membership of such as club as Steve (Arundel) is suggesting. Even a minor license and registering of the weapons. Essentially we offer to bring an unknown set of pre 95 weapons under control and the authorities will know who has what. Its not a big issue. We already have something like that in the proof house. The politician gets a win as the problem becomes a controlled one, they claim to have worked with collectors and come up with a win win for all.
If you try and fight because we are right and they are wrong, expect to lose. We have every time in the past, why would now be any different. We must be smarter this time.
— Simon F · Jan 13, 22:54 · #
I don’t own a pre 1995 deac..but this is rubbish! As if a person is going to walk into NatWest with a pre 1995 Bren gun and ask for the money,I don’t think so..Get real you highly intelligent, highly paid people!They would be seen a mile off.Gun crime involves handguns, have you ever picked up a thomson or a bren gun there flippin heavy?
The bank robber couldn’t get in the getaway car as his Nazi Mg 42 was too big to get in the car. The labour party is a bunch of scare mungers, who want to rap us all in cotton wool.
Tackle the real problem live guns,don’t try to powder puff the problem..It might backfire! I am fed up with snobs telling the poor what to do as if their my parents, well your not.The British people are sick of you! OI Labour have you heard of the story about the boy who cried wolf..well I think you have been crying it a bit too long!!!
— david sparkes · Jan 13, 23:15 · #
I agree that we are seen as gun nuts! Especially by people who do not understand why we collect items of militaria. I for one collect a wide variety of military items, which also include de-activated weapons, as these are MILITARY EQUIPMENT. I think the possible scenario of us not being able to collect without someone telling me I can’t because some little idiot has managed to get hold of an UZI and spares from the net and shot some poor bugger!!! Hell no! I agree with David Sparkes I wouldn’t walk into a bank with my Lanchester (and correct 50rnd mag) and demand cash!!!! It is part of military history.
— Philip Christie · Jan 13, 23:46 · #
Well said Arundel Militaria. I think the last paragraph is the most important. Vote out this appalling government as soon as possible before they do any more damage. If that is possible.
— R Allen · Jan 14, 09:24 · #
Glad to see you all understand the issues here… and some of you think its the government that can’t put a cohesive argument together…
Simon F. you have now opened up and looked at the mechanism inside your collection, a book or a museum can do the same for you no? Do I keep a tiger in my house so I can check out its smell each day or do I go to a zoo? Do you really handle your guns everyday and examine the insides? Don’t answer that…I’m worried enough already!
— Mike Fish · Jan 14, 09:25 · #
Why target criminals? Law abiding people are far easier to find and the statistics look good. I used to shoot handguns, I have commited no crime. The first thing I would losse is my FAC. Laws already exist, just no effort is made to enforce them. The law awas changed to sell electric BB guns, try driving a bus in London and see the effect of that piece of stupidity.
— Tony B · Jan 14, 12:04 · #
I prize my old spec weapons, so much better than a solid lump of metal. I would support a form of licence for these, but a ban is in my view the wrong way to go. As a responsible collector I will be passing on a piece of history to the next generation. What next from this knee jerk govenernment? When will they listern to the people who put them in power rather than the treehugging do-gooders out there?
— Phil · Jan 14, 19:28 · #
I entirely endorse and agree with Simon F’s views – we need to be open and transparent about our perfectly legitimate, and frankly, pretty harmless interest in collecting and preserving ‘old spec’ examples of superb military engineering history.
If future legislation requires us to have the pieces recorded and licensed – then so be it – its just politics – we need to appreciate other peoples understandable concerns, dispel the myths, and work towards a win / win situation.
There is also absolutely no point overeacting, or being abusive to those proposing this legislation – one simply loses credibility and allows the media to stereotype, and marginalise enthusiasts.
Further, ( to an unworthy and ill conceived comment above, from one collector about another ), there is also no advantage gained in trying to score cheap points off others by questioning their integrity or motives.
— Patrick C · Jan 15, 02:07 · #
Hi
I have a collection of mainly old spec deacs which have taken years to build up.I have in the past used them to show people at events the types of guns used by their fathers and grandfathers to keep this country free. I have never had any adverse comment indeed just the opposite. I resent being presented to the world by our Home secretary in the same light as some yob with a converted Makarov pistol. I served 30 years as an unpaid Special Constable in the Met and in that time I was run over by a stolen car which has left me now with loss of some hearing in one ear and an ongoing knee problem. I had bricks, molotov cocktals, bottles, and would you belive a fridge thrown at me during my service. I was injured on several occasions as a result of street disorder and I also have the dubios honour of beng shot at with a pistol yet the Home Secretary thinks it is not safe for me to have a deac Bren gun.I also hold a section one ticket as I am one of those strange people who take part in target shooting.
What she appears to forget is that it is already illegal to use a deac or RIF in crime, what is needed is the enforcment of existing laws not the further crimilisation of a law abideing section of the community.
— John C · Jan 15, 02:48 · #
Mike Fish and flawed logic….I quote – “ Do I keep a tiger in my house so I can check out its smell each day or do I go to a zoo? …. Don’t answer that…I’m worried enough already!” (Mike Fish · Jan 14, 09:25)
You indeed should be worried Mike ! Following your logic there would be no books in private hands as they could be viewed at a library.
What kind of state would want to ban books ?
— Kev · Jan 15, 17:53 · #
Nobody ever reactivated a book and shot someone with it Kev…
— Mike Fish · Jan 15, 21:33 · #
This piece if proposed Legislation is gesture politics at its worst. To try and effect .04% of gun crime is a waste of Parlimentary time and tax payers money. Effecting the other 99.6% of gun crime would be more productive.
Speaking as a re-enactor, having pre-95 de-acts is ‘mission critical’ in a number of cases. The public ask many questions and a demonstration says much more than words. Try demonstrating the usage of a WWI rodded grenade when there’s a steel pin welded into the barrel of your SMLE? How can you demonstrate how dangerous the Sten was to the user when the bolt has been welded inside the reciever? The list goes on.
To present Legislation on the basis of 8 cases defies logic. I suspect that the ‘powers that be’ are implying that unknown weaponry is being described as re-activated de-acts to bolster their case. This is presenting ‘facts’ that are not in evidence.
— BJ Quick · Jan 15, 22:50 · #
And nobody keeps a tiger in their house either Mike ! (or reactivating it and shooting someone with it)
Simon F made some valid points as a collector and your use of a quip of an analogy is not really a sensible response to his post.
In reply to some of your questions –
No you can’t learn everything from a book.As most collectors have found out from handling and examining weapons and knowledge gained by doing this you find out books have there limits.
Try and go to a local museum that has a firearms collection near to you and ask to examine the weapons they hold…..don’t think you will have much luck ! Yes the British Army small arms collection at Warminster and the Armouries at Leeds are a use full reference but they haven’t got everything.
The proposals are a badly thought out PR stunt to appease the likes of a certain government funded anti gun pressure group.
Gun crime is largely a problem of the streets of inner cities , deal with the people who are creating the demand,not the law abiding collector.
— Kev · Jan 16, 00:54 · #
As far as tigers in the house go, you’d need a licence. All well and good. But the books and internet, that nows that’s dangerous! It allows us mortals to learn and research. If the law is not in the hands of individuals, what is it for? we supposedly live in a democracy, so it’s time the poloticians remeber they are represenatives of us and stop pushing their own fatuous ideas. the laws concerning any object used as an imitation firearm in a crime exist. Stop re inventing the wheel and restore a law abiding community. for a law to be effective the majority must respect it.
— Tony B · Jan 16, 14:52 · #
Excellent letter. I’ve said for years that this Labour government will lead the country to disaster, just look at the state of the UK today. Our rights as British citizens are being torn away from us piece by piece, in the name of preventing crime and terrorism. The hand gun ban achieved nothing but to remove legally held guns from license holding owners. The government needs to concentrate on severe punishment for the criminals instead of punishing the innocent.
— A Taylor · Jan 16, 15:44 · #
Hi
I think Simon F’s letter is good well thought out compromise,
We cannot win against the Government, recent past history regarding Handguns and softair guns have proved this.
The goverment will do it because they can.
I believe all people that collect guns either be it deacts or antique, do it because its part of our makeup we are not killers but law abbiding citizens, past gun crime statistics show this, its like collecting any other tems. We appreciate the precise engineering and the history of the guns development,the gun has played a huge part in the development and history of our country and its people,
The Government is only to willnig to give you a real gun if they require you to die for your country, but they will not trust us with guns that dont kill and cannot be made to kill.
People who carry a weapon about there person possibly dont even see it as a piece on enginerring excellence but purely a weapon to injure or kill with. These are the people the Government should target but they wont it would be difficult and expensive so we are the more easy target. All this just to show the Goverment is making strides to protect the people from the killer gun.
I even dought it would make a differnce if we were under a Tory goverment. Anything that resembles a gun as far as the newspapers and media are cocerned are killing machines, its been like that now for a long time.
As simon says comprimise with a lincense if nessesary , otherwise we could lose them all.
Kevin
— Kevin Andrews · Jan 18, 13:21 · #
Hi Back again
Regarding Mike Fish’s suggestion of having all pre 95 deacts being re-deactivated, he must be a rich man or have a small collection of pre 95’s or none at all. Each gun costing between £60 and £80 pounds to be reworked, it could cost some people housands of pounds., I would rather have a lincence.
— Kevin Andrews · Jan 18, 13:54 · #
Apologies in putting links on your site Steve but I thought this report and its critique were quite relevant. The report is long but makes some very intresting reading on a gun crime study and the critique gives some great insight into what the report says and omits as well as hints at its bias in places.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hors298.pdf
www.bssc.org.uk/dox/Greenwood%20Critique%20Gun%20Crime%202007.pdf
One of the surprising things in the docs is the number of criminals who choose to carry imitation firearms when real ones are available to them. Quite a high number fall into this category, mostly around robbery of course. They point out that criminals ae less interested in old guns and prefer the modern pistol.
The key point for me is that there are a selection of weapons a criminal will go for and live weapons are readily and economically avaialble. One of the outcomes of the interviews was that the criminal rarely knew where the gun came from and I suspect would have no idea whether it was a deact, conversion or original. It is the suppliers of weapons who know this and while there is a market for guns there will be suppliers. Taking Deacts out of the equation does nothing to alter supply and especially not demand in any way.
— Simon F · Jan 18, 13:54 · #
Well, with all the people killed in car acidents are classic cars the next target? Oh sorry, thats already going on ‘For the sake of the enviroment’, so breath fresh air and get shoot by an illegal gun. As the fumes from firearms are noxcious how soon till a tax is imposed on those carrying illegal firearms because of pollution? Probably get more enforcment than crime.
— Tony B · Jan 18, 15:33 · #
We’re fast becoming a Nanny State, I’m afraid. At the end of the day, a PERSON kills people, not the gun, which is inanimate. Labour should focus its energy more on dealing with society problems rather than going after innocent collectors and hobbyists.
— James D · Jan 18, 15:53 · #
Please picture this two criminals standing at the Port de Calais with deactivated/activated guns in the boot of their stolen car they tern to each other and say “well we don’t have ID cards our guns are band from England so we better not GO!“…..please who are the government kidding, less than 1% so take them away from collectors who cherish them in their homes!
Is it me or wouldn’t it be a better idea to take the guns off the criminals on the streets? WAR guns are part of the worlds/our history however good or bad that is. the men who had to use them in battle are far braver than any MP when all the MP wants is to leve his/her tiny little foot print in the sand of time and for votes/wealth with on understanding of appreciative collectors we must be aloud to collector, deactivated history.
I no this comment is not fall of political arguments but I just had to get it of my chest.
— Del UK · Jan 18, 19:42 · #
I’m not usually one to defend the home secretary ! But she must have been advised by the police – and (politically) she will have to act in some way – having publicised her intentions so widely. I’m sure the real “villain” here is someone who has the ear of the home secretary – who is “ideallogically” opposed to weapons of any kind. And therein lies a big problem (in my view) in that logic will play virtually no part in what happens next !
The facts speak for themselves that gun crime involving deactivated weapons is very very low. And legislation isn’t really going to help. But the argument has already been won by factions within the police that “all” weapons, including deacs are potential threats to society. I agree with Simon F’s letter of Jan 13. We will need to be smart and embrace the worries that have been put in the home secretary’s mind. (However ill founded they are). We will have to offer something now. Much better that “we” devise a scheme – rather than have one imposed on us by those elements within the police who would like to ban our hobby in entirety.
— tom whitehead · Jan 19, 07:28 · #
The sooner this hopelessly inept government is voted out the better.
— Andy Moore · Jan 20, 23:31 · #
I’m sorry to have to tell you this guy’s but registration leads to confiscation, the police only want you to register your deacts so that when the home secretary (maybe not this one)gets in the smelly stuff your local friendly police officer can come and take them off you, at the moment the authorities don’t know who owns them and that’s the only reason you still have them at home. I have always used section one pistols, shotguns and semi auto rifles and since 1996 i have lost all of them because i was law abiding and bothered to register them despite being offered many unregistered ones, don’t kid yourselves, if you take out a licence you will eventually lose them, it would be safer to take out a licence but don’t mention the good ones, just a little advice from someone who knows the advantages of firearms licencing. Be seeing you!
— Stuart Cooper · Jan 22, 10:42 · #
This Goverment loves Enabaling legislation. What this means is pass one law and in put ‘At discretion of Secratary of State’. What this little gem means is that in the future at the stroke of some MP’s pen the law changes with no disscussion, or chance of appeal. So much democracy, so few poloiticians intrested in it.
— Tony B · Jan 23, 07:01 · #
No amount of legislation will stop a small amount of firearms ending up in the hands of the wrong people. This may change when government take it upon themselves to enforce a long fixed prison sentence on ANYONE found commiting a crime with one! But we all know its far easier to penalise the good honest collector or shooter. Meanwhile politicians will wring thier hands cry thier crocodile tears and continue to restrict the rights of the majority. I have a small deact collection but fear worse may still be to come in regards my very dear hobby. How many would risk showing off with illegal guns if they knew a 10 year sentence was the minimum they could expect!
— michael tunmore · Jan 29, 18:02 · #
Mike comment #3 “Why not just agrees you’ll get all pre-95 guns reworked to 95 spec? Your guns would still be in your hands”, who pays for it mike? You? The government? Cost for a deac cert £21 with 25 guns submitted £25 plus vat singly cost to rework the weapon between £50 to £80 Multiply it by the cost of my collection that’s some 200 guns yes 200 guns could be as high as £20,000 How do I know all this because I am involved in the industry do you know how much you would devalue collections on one item alone many thousands of pounds tell you what Mike you work out how I’m going to pay for it and how many years it would take the Birmingham and London proof house to carry out the inspections and who will compensate me for the devaluation. I have already done this exercise in 1989 I had to do the work myself and pay the costs, then it was around £7 a cert I submitted 21 rifles not all mine. so Mike you probably think I’m rich well actually I’m not. I decided to put my personal savings in to my collection and I have been collecting since I was 8 I’m 43 in all but a month I never went on lavish holidays never had a great salary never smoked not much of drinker just a collector. Do you think I have case, or am I just fair game.
— David Main · Jan 30, 22:44 · #
It wouldn’t devalue it David. If they outlawed pre-95 deacts the value of your collection would be in theory nothing anyway. I’d imagine you’d be faced with a 20k bill or surrender of the items…
— Mike Fish · Feb 2, 21:08 · #
Ok Mike intresting, surrender of my collection, should I and others receive compensation for the full amount or not? remember the goverment said it was ok to collect and retain pre 95 deacs, they are now directly responsible for the massive increase in value in pre95 deacs. As far as I am aware it is still illegal to devalue personal property, even for the government. Should the government compensate businesses who have to close and in some cases make redundancy? Im asuming mike your a tax payer, the bill for compensation would run into hundreds of millions, are you happy in the knowledge that your Taxes would be used in compensation? all thing to be considerd.
— David Main · Feb 3, 12:24 · #
Alcohol-related deaths. Perhaps the govenment should look at yearly statistics on these, and they tackle this problem what do they do give us? longer opening hours. And clevearly introduce anti social behavior order (ASBO) and of course the wonderful VCR bill, Would love to see some politicians on this forum.
— David Main · Feb 3, 12:45 · #
David, if for example they decided that you needed an extra 1mm tread on your cars tyres to be road legal, would they pay to have your tyres replaced if your current set were illegal? No, they would give you 6 months to adjust to a new law in which you could sell or remediate your “future illegal item”… I’m not trying to be funny, just trying to make some see that demands about this that and the other here are likely to be met with this kind of response.
— Mike Fish · Feb 4, 14:08 · #
A new set of tyres aint gona cost me £20.000 Mike
— David Main · Feb 4, 21:30 · #
Come on Mike, your last analogy was not good either. Its not a good comparison as tyres naturally wear out and guns dont. If you want to make an analogy then use art. If a prudish government decided that any paintings showing nudity were now to be banned and controlled in the same way as pornography or banned altogether then how many owners of paintings would NOT be making the same argument about compensation.
Our weapons are not consumables they are assets like our houses and have real value and represent a real loss. Not the same as tyres at all. If you want to make a car analogy then what if they ban all classic cars as too polluting. Owners would want compensation.
I was reading today about the Finnish Gov. They have lots of guns in Finland and relatively easy laws. Also very few murders involving weapons. The kid that killed 9 has triggered another round of legislation but only to stop kids being allowed guns (sensible). They also have a law about handing in illegal weapons in the form of a permanent amnes in as much as any weapon handed in voluntarily wilnot result in prosecution. That means people who have them and dont want them can get rid of them. In sweeden they took it a stage further. If you had an illegal weapon you could actually give it to the police and it would be sold to permitted owners and you would get the value of th gun. It encouraged the possessors of illegal war artifacts to actually get the value of them back and reduced illegal gun ownership at the same time. It is very successful in both countries.
In fact given the number of guns it supports the position that the availability of guns does not drive the murder rate. I.e. if you are going to kill someone you will get hold of a gun even if they are illegal. Lets hope that our government can get equally innovative and sensible about solving the proble while not screwing people over financially.
— Simon Freeman · Feb 7, 14:45 · #
As stated above Mike you cannot compare consumables with collectables and reasonably think you are making a valid point.I would leave the comparing oranges with apples scenario to the government !
Kevin
— Kev · Feb 7, 15:10 · #