APPENDIX 38
Memorandum by Justice for Shooters
LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
Justice for Shooters was formed to protest multiple
Human Rights violations caused by the introduction of the Firearms
Amendment Acts of 1997. On behalf of Justice for Shooters, I present
an outline of our position concerning the prevailing firearms
legislation in the United Kingdom and offer to provide more detailed
information—should it be deemed appropriate by the Committee.
When considering the introduction or amendment
of legislation it is imperative that government ensures the measures
are:
— effective for the stated purpose;
— proportionate to a demonstrable need;
and
— protective of the rights of minorities.
Justice for Shooters submit that the historical
approach to firearms legislation in the UK has been to present
a series of event driven measures without conducting a proper
analysis of the real need or assessment of the full impact against
the stated aim.
In particular, the rationale for the 1997 firearms
acts was on the pretext of public safety. Justice for Shooters
fully endorse public safety as a legitimate reason for firearms
control but contest that the 1997 acts do not achieve the stated
aim. We contest that the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts only succeeded
in depriving a significant minority of innocent people of their
Human Rights, sport, property and livelihoods. The UK Government
is, as already acknowledged by senior Government Lawyers, to be
in breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the European
Convention of Human Rights in this respect.
Justice for Shooters legal challenge against
the UK Government commenced in Strasbourg on 28 October 1997 and
is based on the following articles of Convention Rights:
— Articles 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17 and
18.
The key breaches of the Convention are:
— an arbitrary discrimination against
a law abiding minority of sportsmen and women with no recourse
to a fair hearing or an effective remedy;
— a disproportionate interference in
private lives;
— an arbitrary loss of rights without
full and fair compensation;
— an arbitrary confiscation of property
that was both disproportionate to the need and contrary to an
overwhelming body of expert advice; and
— an unequal application of the law
within the UK;
The UK Government is already legally and morally
bound, as Lord Williams of Mostyn QC has already confirmed in
writing, by its existing obligations under the European Convention
of Human Rights. The 1998 Human Rights Act will come into force
on 2 October 2000 and will further obligate and compel the UK
government, under domestic law, to act within the bounds of Convention
rights.
Therefore, any further changes to firearms legislation
in the UK must address and respect Human Rights obligations with
far more care. Preparation should now be made for the restoration
of those rights illegally withdrawn by both the 1988 and 1997
Firearms Amendments Acts.
Richard J Hudson
Hon Secretary
20 September 1999
| 
