BASC condemns Royal Mail gun ban proposals.

[Teal]

Emailed Zoe Allchorn ( zoe.allchorn@royalmail.com ) as recommended. Only to be greeted by the following auto-responder. As a contact for a very important issue, I find it bizarre that she is on "leave" whilst the most important period for consultation and her being available as a point of contact is open.

 

Please note - I am on leave between the 11th August and the 25th August. Martin Anderson is covering for me in my absence, his contact number is 074xx xxxxxx. Thanks

 

It is really worth sending these emails in, remember the government U-turn that happened in Northern Ireland following the campaigns against shooting restrictions on SSSI lands. Similar Royal Mail proposals were rejected in 2005, and it is vital that they are blocked again. Copied from the poster above: Royal Mail is the only courier now that will still ship guns and parts for private individuals (all the others require a business account or you need to be an RFD). This will make it very difficult for hobbyists to purchase or sell items related to shooting online.

[JonathanL]

The Royal Mail consultation document is shockingly poor in its assesement of the state of the law. They seem to be suggesting that magazines and trigger parts are 'component parts' for the purposes of the Firearms Act - ie; that they are firearms in their own right and require licensing. They don't, of course!

 

The whole premiss of their decision is flawed in law. The only actual reasons they give for the ban on carrying firearms is that they cannot meet the requirements of sec.14 of the Act. Namely that; they cannot (and by definition are not now so should be being ivestigated by the police for the offence in question) take 'reasonable precautions to ensure the safe custody...' of the firearms and cannot identify firearms in their system so cannot notify of a loss.

 

The claim that 'reasonable precautions' must involve an entirely separate shipping and tracking system for firearms is complete balls. It is rubbish because they already have a common-law duty to take 'reasonable precautions' in respect of each and every package which is in their custody. If they are not already doing this then they should not be accepting packages from anyone at all! In short; the law does not require any greater level of security than they are, or should, already be providing.

 

The point about notification in case of loss is easy to dismiss because you just make it a requirement to declare the fact that a firearm is in the package. You probably wouldn't even need to do that because the first point at which a loss would be noticed is upon non-delivery at which point the intended recipient would notify Royal Mail of the loss and that is when RM would notify the police. Hence, complying with the law.

 

J.