BASC calls on shooters to lobby MPs. Press release.

[garygreengrass]

BASC calls for shooters to lobby MPs. (Press release)

 

9th June 2010……………………………………………………………immediate release

 

The UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), is calling on its members and others who shoot to lobby their MPs in advance of a parliamentary debate on firearms laws in the wake of the murders in Cumbria.

 

BASC has launched a campaigning website which allows people to look up their local MP by postcode, constituency name or the name of the MP. The results show whether an MP has indicated if they are supportive of, or opposed to, shooting. An email text is then made available, which can be edited and altered if desired.

 

BASC spokesman Simon Clarke said: “While our thoughts are very much with the people of Cumbria as they cope with the aftermath of this appalling tragedy, inevitably media and public attention has been drawn to the UK’s firearms licensing laws. Those who are opposed to the lawful use of guns have not been slow in putting their views across and shooting must make sure that its voice is heard. We urge everyone who is involved in shooting to visit the BASC website and to take a few short minutes to send a message to their local elected representative. It’s also vitally important that they send responses back to us. All the details are on the website which can also be found here.”

 

The email to MPs sets out the value of shooting to the countryside and to the economy, where it generates £1.6 billion pounds a year, and asks them to consider the damage that knee-jerk legislation would do to lawful and responsible shooting and the countryside. It also offers them a chance to find out more about shooting in their constituency.

 

Simon Clarke said: “While professional campaigning groups such as BASC have their work to do, nothing gets through to an MP more quickly than a message from one of their own constituents, so we are calling on everyone to play their part to back up the work we will be undertaking.” ENDS

 

 

Done

[garygreengrass]

Done

[KPV4]

Done the other day, and received a letter back from the House of Commons from my MP today

[william1]

email yesterday to p.macfadden M P of wolverhampton suporting shooting

[william1]

email just back he is one ov the lad's

[Biggest]

Done.

 

MP is a Tory who supports shooting so hoping for a good response, but who knows with politicians! lol

[BigG]

Done

[groach1234]

Done, I know my man is pro shooting and have shot with him in the past

 

George

[markm]

I sent over a week ago with no response.

 

Do MP's have a legal obligation to respond to something like this?

[Mungler]

Done.

 

Well done BASC for setting up the on line website mechanism for making it happen.

[the running man]

U boys are so lucky,my mp is dawn primarolo,so I'm not going to bother writing.

[billytheghillie]

done, my m.p. is unknown where he stands on the shooting fraternity

[joke209061]

Done and Done.

 

Tory, supportive.

[maximilian]

Done

[Christopher Graffius]

I sent over a week ago with no response.

 

Do MP's have a legal obligation to respond to something like this?

 

There is no legal obligation on an MP to respond to you, however it would generally be regarded as a breach of convention if they don't. It's possible that the MP's office has mislaid it or is disorganised. I suggest you follow it up with a chasing email asking if they've received it. Let me know how you get on. Who's the MP?

 

Christopher

[markm]

There is no legal obligation on an MP to respond to you, however it would generally be regarded as a breach of convention if they don't. It's possible that the MP's office has mislaid it or is disorganised. I suggest you follow it up with a chasing email asking if they've received it. Let me know how you get on. Who's the MP?

 

Christopher

 

 

Sitting MP Mr Ian Lavery MP (Labour Party)

Constituency Wansbeck

Position on shooting Unknown

 

 

Sent again.

[Beardo]

funnily enough i never got a reply from my Labour candidate during the original mail-out

[Guest stiv24]

Here is the reply I received in less than 24 hours

 

Dear Mr ******

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about your sport.

 

Recent tragic events in Cumbria have shown why there is a genuine need to regulate the availability of firearms and other offensive weapons in the face of violent crime. Such a tragedy has served to highlight the dangers of firearms and my thoughts are with those families affected by the events there. The police investigation is ongoing and it is imperative that the police are given the time and space to conduct that investigation fully. The Home Secretary, the Rt Hon. Theresa May MP has indicated that where there are lessons to be learned or changes made following the horrific events in Cumbria, the Government will respond to these.

 

On a more general level, we are in favour of cutting police bureaucracy, allowing police officers to spend more time on the streets and making police officers more accountable to the locality within which they serve, which will assist with addressing local problems and local need.

 

I can appreciate your concern about access to weapons for legitimate sporting purposes, but as you will appreciate in the current circumstances, the overriding priority must be the effective prevention of violent crime involving guns. The Government does not wish to penalize legitimate sporting activities, however, and I will make my colleagues in the Home Office team aware of your concerns.

 

I am most grateful for your kind offer of a briefing and have carefully noted your address, in case I need to take you up on your kind offer.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP

Secretary of State for Defence

[Kent Militia]

Hmm protecting people against violent crime? What a rubbish response by Liam Fox shows his true colours.

 

"I can appreciate your concern about access to weapons for legitimate sporting purposes, but as you will appreciate in the current circumstances, the overriding priority must be the effective prevention of violent crime involving guns."

 

I always thought that the over riding priority is liberty of the individual not following a company like health & safety policy and dictating what to ban nextb in case somebody stubs their finger.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Kent Militia

[al4x]

That is actually a pretty valid response, after all the people of Cumbria had their liberties infringed on when they were shot. Its not saying we're going to ban things but that they want to prevent crimes with guns which is fair enough. The first step in that ought to be a thorough shake up of the licensing system stop all this DSC rubbish etc and what you can and cannot shoot and concentrate on the guns themselves which is all the police should be involved with, are you fit to hold them and use them properly.

[Vipa]

That is actually a pretty valid response, after all the people of Cumbria had their liberties infringed on when they were shot. Its not saying we're going to ban things but that they want to prevent crimes with guns which is fair enough. The first step in that ought to be a thorough shake up of the licensing system stop all this DSC rubbish etc and what you can and cannot shoot and concentrate on the guns themselves which is all the police should be involved with, are you fit to hold them and use them properly.

 

I hear ya brother.... but if that is the case I think courses like DSC will be made mandatory or some kind of formalised training/assesment course which would not only ensure safe handling of firearms but evaluate the applicant as a whole, social skills, interaction etc (valid indicators as to personality).

 

I have been on training courses/candidate selection events such as this where, although they tell you they aren't, they are watching you and scoring you every second of every minute over a 2 or 3 day residential, that mey be on the range, in the classroom, in the bar afterwards etc... etc...

[al4x]

the funny thing is courses won't stop deliberate acts, its a hard one and probably something that is needed rational thought about whether improvements etc could be made to the system. I'd like to see certain conditions notifiable by your doctor to the licensing organisations would seem to make sense as they only come to light at renewal or when something happens. In this case i reckon we need to wait to see what the report on his licensing is and whether the police were at fault at any stage.

[docholiday]

done

[Vipa]

the funny thing is courses won't stop deliberate acts, its a hard one and probably something that is needed rational thought about whether improvements etc could be made to the system. I'd like to see certain conditions notifiable by your doctor to the licensing organisations would seem to make sense as they only come to light at renewal or when something happens. In this case i reckon we need to wait to see what the report on his licensing is and whether the police were at fault at any stage.

 

I was thinking along these lines the other day and it's a double edged sword. I went to the docs 4 or 5 years ago as I was (as a large number of us are nowadays) getting very stressed/down with work and he put me on prozac , which I didn't like and after a few months came off 'em. Business improved and I got my head out of my a.r.s.e. and got on with it but that has left a 'depression' stamp on my medical records which was declared on my SGC & FAC apps. Certainly doesn't mean I am any more likely to be a future raving nut than any one else. My concern though is that if a ticket holder started developing mental health issues but knew that if he went to his GP, those issues would be automaticaly passed on to plod, he may be far less likely to go to his GP in the first place for fear of losing his ticket. You then have the situation where someone with mild, easily treatable, mental health issues could go undiagnosed and untreated and so decend into something potentially dangerous.

[al4x]

yep its tricky, I know two people I grew up with who commited suicide with shotguns one definitely was having treatment the other wasn't, I don't think there is a right answer and in your case it should have been possible to say you were fine to keep guns but had you got picked up with serious mental health issues there is nothing to tell your doc you have guns. Its highly unlikely they would remember who had had the police enquire about them