APPENDIX 40
Memorandum by the National Association
of Re-enactment Societies
LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
I am writing at the suggestion of the OPPU at
the Home Office in my capacity as Vice-Chair of the National Association
of Re-enactment Societies (NARES) in respect of the forthcoming
meeting of the Home Affairs Committee on 14 October.
NARES is an umbrella group representing some
two dozen historic re-enactment societies and associated groups,
many of whose members (depending upon the historic period the
group represents) use reproduction muskets and rifles, held either
on Shotgun or Section One Firearm certificates. As the meeting
of the Committee is to deal with the various matters relating
to the control of firearms, on behalf of re-enactors, I would
hope the Committee will have regard to their interests. Two issues
that I believe will be discussed have particular relevance for
re-enactors.
Firstly, it has been suggested that the ownership
of firearms, particularly shotguns, might be restricted to rural
areas on the assumption that only farmers have a need for these.
I would point out that the many thousands of re-enactors, be they
recreating the English Civil War, 18th century, Napoleonic or
mid-Victorian periods, all hold their muzzle-loading muskets on
shotgun licences and upwards of 90 per cent of these re-enactors
live in cities and other large urban areas. As there does not
appear to be any suggestion that muzzle-loading, black powder
muskets appear in the crime statistics and as historic re-enactment
is viewed as a legitimate reason for owning such weapons, any
restriction in respect of urban areas would effectively destroy
the hobby.
Secondly, there is a suggestion that the separate
Shotgun and Section One Firearm licences could be combined into
a single "unified" licence. As previously stated, there
are several thousand British re-enactors who mostly use re-productions
of muzzle-loaded, smoothbore muskets, be they matchlocks, flintlocks
or percussion weapons, held on shotgun certificates. The general
reaction of re-enactors to the concept of a unified licence focuses
on whether such a move would make it harder to obtain both in
terms of justification and cost. If the proposal is basically
administrative and would leave intact the present requirement
for obtaining a licence for the standard musket and its like,
we do not predict a problem as the present security requirements
for the storage of a muzzle-loading musket is now equivalent to
that required for a section 1 firearm, the historic distinction
that in practice distinguished the separate classifications.
A good example of this is cannon in re-enactment.
As a result of the 1988 Firearm (Amendment) Act, cannon with a
muzzle diameter of two inches or greater, are held as Section
One Firearms. The nature of such pieces is that they usually weigh
in excess of one ton and have a barrel length in excess of four
or five feet. I am not aware of a police constabulary ever having
made an issue of these, readily granting Section One certificates,
despite the fact that, given the dimensions and weight of a smoothbore
cannon, they mostly sit on the floor of garages. I imagine the
police accept this practice because the concept of a criminal
using a muzzle-loading cannot to commit a criminal act is, frankly,
more absurd than the possibility of a musket being utilised. However,
if moving to a single certificate made it any harder for a re-enactor
to justify obtaining a "unified" Firearms certificate,
to hold and use a musket or cannon, effectively treating them
as dangerous as a high velocity hunting rifle, the proposal would
face stiff opposition.
Further, quite properly and as previously mentioned,
it is already a requirement that muskets held on a shotgun certificate
be stored in an appropriate lockable, steel gun box. However,
if a unified firearms licence resulted in re-enactors being obliged
to acquire expensive burglar alarms and the additional security
to store a 17th century matchlock or Napoleonic Brown Bess flintlock,
it would seem rather extreme and would undoubtedly cause financial
hardship. As it is, reproductions of historic muskets already
cost upwards of £300 to £400, whilst a cannon can cost
as much as £10,000. Requiring the same level of security
to store a modern high velocity rifle as a muzzle-loading musket
or cannon would be unlikely to further public safety. It is accepted
by all police officers I have come into contact with over the
years that criminals do not use muzzle-loaded weapons.
I trust the above concerns can be placed before
the Home Affairs Committee in time for their meeting on 14 October.
If there are any questions or issues upon which further elaboration
are required please do not hesitate to contact me.
Dr P J C Elliot-Wright
Vice-Chair of NARES
10 October 1999
|
