Rt Hon Dr Vincent Cable MP Secretary of State

Rt Hon Dr Vincent Cable MP Secretary of State

Rt Hon Dr Vincent Cable MP
Secretary of State
Department for Business, Innovation &
Skills
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
Dear Vince,
ROYAL MAIL CONSULTATION – BAN ON TRANSPORTATION OF GUNS
AND THEIR COMPONENT PARTS
I am writing to you on behalf of Jai Nolan who is the owner of Arnold Heal Ltd on the
Isle of Wight who has contacted me regarding his concerns about a consultation being
undertaken by Royal Mail and their handling of gun parts. Mr Nolan is a gun stockist,
repairer of guns on the Island and offers a restoration service.
Mr Nolan informs me that under the consultation, Royal Mail would no longer carry
items such as springs for guns or rifles as they cannot guarantee the safety of such
items. I understand these are inanimate objects which could just as easily be used in
other items or created with simple know-how. Under these changes, Mr Nolan would
have to rely on couriers to deliver items which cost as little as £2.50.
Furthermore, he explains that due to strict regulations set out by the Home Office, he
is unable to send guns by post as although they can be ordered online, they must be
collected in person. He is therefore at a loss to understand why Royal Mail deem it
necessary to undertake such an unexpected measure.
He is concerned that the additional delivery costs, particularly to the Isle of Wight,
which couriers often increase charges for because they do not consider it to be
mainland UK, will mean he has to charge high prices for relatively inexpensive items.
Mr Nolan believes this could have a detrimental impact on his business and others in
the UK. He explains these proposals would mean Royal Mail introducing stricter rules
than currently set by the Home Office.
I am concerned to learn that Royal Mail is unable to carry such items safely and
Parcel Force and TNT would be responsible for deliveries. This limits choice for
customers and given that these are courier services, increases shipping costs.
I will also be writing to the Home Secretary given that these proposed changes go
above and beyond current legislation set out by her department.
It would be helpful to me in answering my letter if you could provide me with your
response to these concerns, in a form which I can forward to Mr Nolan.
Andrew Turner
Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Secretary of State
Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Dear Theresa,
ROYAL MAIL CONSULTATION – BAN ON TRANSPORTATION OF GUNS
AND THEIR COMPONENT PARTS
I am writing to you on behalf of Jai Nolan who is the owner of Arnold Heal Ltd on the
Isle of Wight who has contacted me regarding his concerns about a consultation being
undertaken by Royal Mail and their handling of gun parts. Mr Nolan is a gun stockist,
repairer of guns on the Island and offers a restoration service.
Mr Nolan informs me that under the consultation, Royal Mail would no longer carry
items such as springs for guns or rifles as they cannot guarantee the safety of such
items. I understand these are inanimate objects which could just as easily be used in
other items or created with simple know-how. Under these changes, Mr Nolan would
have to rely on couriers to deliver items which cost as little as £2.50.
Furthermore, he explains that due to strict regulations set out by the Home Office, he
is unable to send guns by post as although they can be ordered online, they must be
collected in person. He is therefore at a loss to understand why Royal Mail deem it
necessary to undertake such an unexpected measure.
He is concerned that the additional delivery costs, particularly to the Isle of Wight,
which couriers often increase charges for because they do not consider it to be
mainland UK, will mean he has to charge high prices for relatively inexpensive items.
Mr Nolan believes this could have a detrimental impact on his business and others in
the UK. He explains these proposals would mean Royal Mail introducing stricter rules
than currently set by the Home Office.
I am concerned to learn that Royal Mail is unable to carry such items safely and
Parcel Force and TNT would be responsible for deliveries. This limits choice for
customers and given that these are courier services, increases shipping costs.
I will also be writing to the Business Secretary as the responsibility for Postal Affairs
falls within his department. I would be interested to learn your views on these
proposals.
It would be helpful to me in answering my letter if you could provide me with your
response to these concerns, in a form which I can forward to Mr Nolan.
Andrew Turner
Member of
Parliament
August 2012
A response from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation
1) INTRODUCTION
1.1) With some 130,000 individual members the British Association for Shooting and
Conservation (BASC) is the major UK representative body for sporting shooting.
Additionally, BASC has 923 trade members, many of whom deal in firearms, imitation
firearms, component parts and ancillary material.
1.2) BASC’s expertise on firearms matters is widely recognised and we are routinely
consulted by a variety of Government departments and agencies (including DEFRA,
LANTRA, the Health and Safety Commission and The Home Office) and other statutory
and non-statutory bodies e.g. the Association of Chief Police Officers.
1.3) BASC is pleased to offer this response to the Royal Mail consultation document
“Proposals to prohibit Firearms and component parts from postal services offered under
Postal Schemes”. If Royal Mail wishes to ask BASC for more details about any issue in
our response, we will be pleased to supply them where we are able.
1.4) BASC does not consider any part of this response to be confidential and welcomes
its wider publication.
2) THE ROYAL MAIL PROPOSAL
2.1) This is an application by Royal Mail to alter the postal schemes for those
items which may not be sent through the post (prohibited items). Specifically, leave is
sought to add the following to the list of prohibited items;
a. Firearms (including Section 1, Section 2 and Section 5 firearms)
b. Air rifles and pistols
c. Component parts of the items in a. and b. such as triggers, actions, barrels etc.
2.2) Despite Royal Mail’s wish to include prohibited firearms within the proposed postal
prohibition, prohibited firearms (Section 5 Firearms Act 1968) may only be sent by
Home Office approved carriers. Royal Mail does not have such approval. Consequently,
BASC understands that Section 5 items are included in the consultation for completeness
only.
3) ROYAL MAIL’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPLICATION
3.1) Royal Mail’s case for prohibiting firearms is made based on Section 14 (1) (a) of the
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which makes it an offence for an auctioneer, carrier or
warehouseman “to fail to take reasonable precautions for the safe custody of any firearm
or ammunition which, by virtue of Section 9 (1) of the Principal Act, he or any servant of
his has in his possession without holding a certificate”.
It is important to remember that air weapons as defined at Section 1(3)(b) of the Firearms
Act 1968 are exempt from the carrier’s exemption at Section 9(1) of the 1968 Act. The
carrier’s exemption only applies to firearms that require a certificate. BASC asserts that
the proposal does not cover low powered air weapons and their components for this
reason.
3.2) The statutory duty of a carrier to take reasonable precautions for the
safe custody of firearms or ammunition in his possession.
a) This duty is defined by the phrase “take reasonable precautions for the safe custody”. It
flows from this that there is no absolute duty to ensure the safe custody of any firearm or
ammunition. However, an offence will have been committed by a carrier etc who fails to
take reasonable precautions against the occurrence of a loss of a firearm in his care.
b) It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the term “reasonable” is a generic expression
which applies to a particular situation i.e. it is case specific. It may be defined as the
standard of care taken by a prudent person having due regard to any risks to try to prevent
the loss of items entrusted to him. The phrase conveys a sense of what might be described
as a legitimate expectation by anyone who examines the circumstances of a loss against
the precautions that had been set in place to prevent it.
c) The term “take reasonable precautions for the safe custody” is used consistently within
the Firearms Acts 1968 - 1997 and the Firearms Rules 1998 when referring to firearms
and ammunition which are either in use, in transit or are away from a more permanent
place of storage. The same expression appears within the Statutory Conditions (4) (b) of
both firearm and shotgun certificates. There is also similarity of language within the
Home Office publication “Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police 2002.” Whilst the Home
Office guidance has no statutory basis, it is widely regarded as being a manual for the
proper administration of firearms licensing. All Chief Officers within Great Britain
agreed to its adoption when it was first issued. In BASC’s experience, the guidance
carries considerable weight in the courts and has comparable status to an Agreed Code of
Practice (ACOP) in health and safety legislation.
d) Appendix 6 (page 172) sets out those conditions which the Home Office considers to
be desirable to be appended to the registration certificates of firearms dealers. Condition
1 is recommended for inclusion with all new registrations. It states “reasonable measures
shall be taken to maintain the safe keeping of all firearms and ammunition dealt with or
kept in the course of the Registered Firearms Dealer’s business”. Appendix 11 deals with
conditions for visitor’s firearm or shotgun permits. This reproduces condition 4 (b) from
firearm and shotgun certificates in its entirety.
e) It is important to differentiate between the phrase “reasonable precautions for the safe
custody of any firearm or ammunition” from a similar phrase - so far as is reasonably
practicable - used in condition 4 (a). This applies to a permanent form of storage when a
gun is not in use e.g. locked in a steel gun cabinet. The statutory condition for this is
written in different terms e.g. “The firearms and ammunition to which the certificate
relates must at all times (except in the circumstances set out in paragraph (b) below) be
stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms
and ammunition by an unauthorised person”. In this case the duty that falls upon the
certificate holder is to store his gun securely to prevent access by unauthorised persons
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
f) This is an entirely different duty and one which is much more stringent than the
condition used when firearms are in use or transit. It is clear from this that Parliament
recognised that when guns and ammunition were in use or transit etc, they should be
subject to a less stringent duty of care than when they were not in use and secured in
some form of permanent security measure. The phrase “reasonably practicable” means
that any risk has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate it.
g) The Home Office guidance offers advice to certificate holders as to how they might
take practical measures to comply with the statutory requirement to take reasonable
precautions for the safe custody of their firearms when they are in use or transit etc.
Paragraph 19.47 of the guidance recommends “Any guns should be hidden, preferably in
the locked boot or other secured load carrying area of the vehicle where practicable.
Vehicles used frequently for transporting firearms should ideally have an immobiliser
and/or alarm fitted, if the firearms are to be left unattended.”
h) Paragraph 19.48 goes on to recommend “If the vehicle is left unattended for any
reason, firearms should be concealed, preferably in the locked luggage compartment and
(where practicable), an essential component such as the bolt or foreend removed and kept
in possession of the responsible person. Where possible any ammunition should be stored
separately from the firearm and this too should be concealed from view. The vehicle
should be locked, and any immobiliser or alarm should be set. If possible, the vehicle
should be parked within the sight of the responsible person”.
i) It is clear from this that the Home Office envisages that certificate holders will take
sensible but rudimentary precautions to safeguard their firearms whilst travelling. It is
instructive to note that the Home Office does not require some form of secure container
or other restraint to be fitted to the vehicle. The vehicle’s fabric, its locks plus
concealment of the firearm is considered sufficient.
j) BASC asserts that Royal Mail already achieves this standard when postal workers
deliver mail by vehicle. It is likely that it has been exceeded because most Royal Mail
vehicles have separate load carrying areas, lockable doors and no access from the cab. In
that respect, they are more secure than the average hatchback car. It will not be apparent
that a firearm is contained within a parcel and as a consequence the Home Office advice
on concealment is automatically achieved. The removal of a vital component part from a
firearm within a parcel cannot be achieved. However this advice is qualified in that it
need only be done “if practicable”.
k) In light of this, BASC believes that the Royal Mail already satisfies its statutory duty
at Section 14 (1) (a) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Its actions of carrying
firearms in parcels within Royal Mail vehicles are reasonable in all of the circumstances.
They mirror or probably exceed the advice given by the Home Office to all firearm and
certificate holders. It flows from this that if the shooting public follows the Home Office
advice then it is safe from prosecution. Consequently, Royal Mail commits no offence
under Section 14 of the 1988 Act. BASC strongly asserts that the erroneous belief
held by Royal Mail that it is in breach of its statutory duty is unfounded when
tested against its practices.
BASC disagrees that Royal Mail has made out its case to change the postal schemes and
asserts that this proposal is based on a misconception that it is failing in its statutory duty.
In BASC’s opinion, the proposal by Royal Mail to ban the carriage of firearms and
components on the grounds of non-compliance with firearms legislation is neither
justified nor sustainable. In any case, Royal Mail ought to take reasonable precautions for
the safe custody of any item consigned to it and not just firearms.
3.3) Section 14(1)(b) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act creates a further offence for
auctioneers, carriers and warehousemen “to fail to report forthwith to the police the loss
or theft of any such firearm or ammunition”.
3.4) The operative word in this sub-section is “forthwith”. The Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary defines it as “Immediately, at once, without delay”. It is clear from this that
the duty to report any loss is imposed as soon as that loss is discovered. The language at
Section 14(1)(b) differs from the statutory condition placed upon all Firearm and Shotgun
Certificates which requires the holder to notify a permanent change of address without
“undue delay”. That is effectively an open-ended contract; the wording in Section
14(1)(b) creates an offence if the loss is not communicated at the moment of discovery.
BASC believes that this duty can be readily discharged by Royal Mail without further
complicated procedures being put in place. Suspicion of loss will come in the form of an
enquiry from the sender or expectant recipient of a parcel which has not been delivered.
Either party should declare that the missing parcel contained a firearm or relevant
components.
In that case Royal Mail should use make an immediate inquiry as to the location of the
parcel as with any other. If it cannot be found, then the police should be informed. If it is
subsequently located then no harm is done. Royal Mail has proofed itself against any
prosecution by acting swiftly. In BASC’s opinion, prosecutions are only likely to be
mounted in cases where no prompt action is taken when a potential loss has been
notified by a customer.
3.5) Royal Mail says at section 24 of its consultation; “We expect the impact on
customers to be minimal”. BASC strongly disagrees with this assertion which is bereft of
any supporting evidence. This suggests Royal Mail is not aware of the level at which its
service is used by the shooting community, especially traders. Nor is it aware of the
impact a ban would have on a trade which relies so heavily on the postal service.
3.6) The extent and economic value of shooting sports in the UK
a) Home Office statistics show that as of 31 March 2011, there were 3,205 registered
Firearms Dealers (RFDs) compared with 2,030 in 2005/06. There are currently 141,347
firearms certificates covering 464,839 firearms and 564,269 shotgun certificates covering
1,336,701 shotguns in England and Wales alone.
b) In Scotland at the end of 2011 there were 25,831 firearm certificates on issue covering
71,860 firearms and 48,726 shotgun certificates covering 138,939 shotguns as well as
347 RFDs.
c) In Northern Ireland there are currently 60,126 firearm certificates on issue (Northern
Ireland has a single certificate regime) covering 153,459 firearms. There are 113
Firearms Dealers.
3.7) There are estimated to be in excess of seven million air weapons in the UK. Shooting
sports are at their most vibrant since the 1980s. Some 480,000 people shoot live quarry in
the UK and this supports the equivalent of 70,000 full-time jobs. Shooters spend £2
billion each year on goods and services and shooting is worth £1.6 billion to the UK
economy1. This does not take into account target shooting, the air weapon market,
bespoke equipment for hunting abroad and firearms sold by the UK defence/law
enforcement industry. Any reduction in cost-effective methods for moving firearms and
components will have a detrimental knock-on effect in this area of the economy.
3.8) BASC estimates that in excess of 500,000 parcels containing items in para 2.1 (a-c)
above are sent through the mail by the civilian shooting industry annually. Whilst this
number may be small compared to the overall number of parcels carried by Royal Mail
annually, the effect of stopping this vital 1 http://www.shootingfacts.co.uk public service
will have a detrimental effect on shooting sports and the gun trade.
3.9) In the consultation, Royal Mail threatens that “If these proposals take effect all
Firearms found in our network on or after the 30th November would be passed to the
relevant authorities for disposal”. This unfortunate statement demonstrates that no proper
thought has been given to the enforcement procedure if the proposal is accepted. It is hard
to think who these so-called “relevant authorities” might be. It cannot refer to UKBA or
HMRC as the firearms concerned are already within UK jurisdiction and are not imports.
Equally, Royal Mail could not pass any firearms to the armed services as they are not
authorised to possess firearms other than as Crown Servants for military purposes. The
police service is in a similar position and its possession of firearms is limited to law
enforcement, seized/lost property and in connection with firearms licensing. In any case,
the police do not have the means to store large numbers of firearms properly. Chief
Officers will be properly reluctant to take on responsibility for their safe custody and
care, knowing they will be liable for any loss or damage. Royal Mail’s terms and
conditions2 expressly state that if an item submitted to Royal Mail is compliant with its
terms and conditions it will be accepted and from that point onwards, Royal Mail agrees
to convey it. At that point a contract exists which must be fulfilled. It would be unlawful
for Royal Mail to dispose of the firearms by destruction.
BASC strongly disapproves of Royal Mail’s proposal. Should a ban come into effect we
recommend a transitory period to allow residual parcels to be delivered.
http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/RM_GeneralTermsandConditions_July12_0
.pdf
4) COMPONENT PARTS
4.1) Royal Mail seeks to prohibit the movement of component parts through standard
mail. BASC is concerned that this proposal has not been thought out. There are two
categories of component; those that require certification under the Firearms Acts and
those which do not. Small parts of firearms such as replacement springs, magazines,
small working parts, wooden stocks and other furniture are not regulated by the Firearms
Acts. Royal Mail quotes ‘triggers’ and ‘magazines’ in its consultation document, these
are not controlled components and may be freely acquired by anyone. The term
“component part” is not defined in law. However the Ninth Report of the Firearms
Consultative Committee provides helpful information on this subject. It is widely
accepted by police and the shooting industry that the detail provided in the 9th
Committee report (as quoted in “Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police” 2002 by the
Home Office) that component parts are held to include (i) the barrel, chamber or cylinder,
(ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing
the charge at the rear of the chamber, (iv) any other part of the firearm upon which the
pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture
are not considered component parts.
4.2) Movement of component parts and services essential to the gun trade
a) Component parts such as barrel blanks (not subject to certification) are routinely sent
to gunsmiths by primary manufacturers. One of the UK’s main manufacturers is based in
Scotland and a great deal of its trade is based in England, typically London and
Birmingham. It would be prohibitively expensive to move a barrel blank by carrier. Also
dealers may send finished barrels and other parts through the network to have special
features added such as engraving, metal finishes and to have barrels threaded for
moderators.
b) Components for low powered air weapons not subject to certification are routinely sent
around the UK by air weapon owners for custom work. Not all gun shops have resident
gunsmiths and there are many businesses in the UK not routinely connected to the gun
trade which offer metal or wood finishing services. It is easier and cheaper to send an
item away for finishing than invest in specialist equipment at a gun shop. The trade and
firearms owners rely on the skills of others. Shooters often acquire off-the-shelf firearms
– especially air guns - for later customisation. The gun trade is composed of a
geographically diverse network of specialist outworkers who need a cheap and efficient
way of moving firearms and components around.
c) Shotgun components such as barrels are not subject to certification controls and are
routinely sent for modification or repair using the postal service. Specialist companies
such as Teague Precision Chokes offer a plethora of modification services for shotgun
barrels including barrel porting, re-sleeving of worn barrels, chamber modification and
fitting of screw in choke systems. Other parts such as actions are routinely sent for repair
and bespoke services such as engraving sporting scenes on the exterior. BASC
recommends that component parts are exempted from any future prohibition should one
be imposed. Guns and component parts have been carried in the post for years without
any evidence of them falling into the wrong hands; and a component part poses no threat
on its own. There are significant trade and private movements of components of all kinds
and standard mail or special delivery are the most cost-effective ways of sending them.
Should a ban be approved by Ofcom, BASC would welcome further discussion through a
specially organised working group prior to implementation. BASC is happy to host and
lead such a group.
5) OTHER REASONS FOR USING ROYAL MAIL TO CONVEY
FIREARMS AND COMPONENTS.
5.1) Proof testing of firearms
The proof testing of firearms is a long standing consumer protection measure which has
been in force since the mid-17th Century. It is a form of neardestruction testing where
guns are fired with heavy loads of powder and shot to ensure that they will not fail when
used with lighter service loads. Proof of firearms is a compelling reason to use the mail as
the most cost effective option for sending guns to the test facility. After a firearm is made
or imported from countries outside the CIP proof regime it must be sent to the London or
Birmingham proof authorities for proof testing. This is done for the benefit of pubic
safety to ensure the firearm remains safe to use. The law exempts anybody who submits
an item for proof; accordingly items for proof may be submitted by people other than
Registered Firearms Dealers (RFDs). No obstacles should be placed in the way of a
process that is set up to safeguard public safety. The Royal Mail remains the most cost
effective means of sending firearms for proof.
5.2) Verification of deactivated firearms and their sale Deactivated firearms are popular
with collectors, re-enactors, film-makers living history enthusiasts and others as they can
be displayed and handled by anybody without a certificate. They are not classed as
firearms in law and thus fall outside of the scope of Royal Mail’s proposals. Deactivated
firearms are often used at trade shows and in film, theatre and TV work. It is a significant
and valuable area of business within the UK. Collections of deactivated firearms are an
essential part of UK heritage preservation. The proof authorities offer a service for
verification of deactivated firearms according to the Secretary of State’s3 specifications.
There is significant traffic between dealers and the proof authorities for the verification of
the 3 SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ADAPTATION OF SHOTGUN MAGAZINES
AND THE DEACTIVATION OF FIREARMS: REVISED 2010, available at:
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/2EDD9D88-B3C440BC-ADCF08688FAD95C4 deactivation process. Once a deactivated firearm is
verified, sales may be made long distance using the postal network as the most cost
effective method. Again, no obstacle should be put in place to obstruct this process
which was set up for public safety.
5.3) Shotgun magazine conversions requiring proof authority verification The Firearms
(Amendment) Act 1988 introduced a requirement that a shotgun incorporating a
magazine which holds no more than two cartridges must be verified and marked by the
proof authorities4. Section 1(3A) of the 1968 Act (as amended in 1988) requires a
restricted capacity shotgun to be submitted to the proof authorities for verification and
standard mail is a cost effective method for dealers to send guns after conversion.
6) PERSONAL OR FACE –TO-FACE TRANSFERS
6.1) Royal Mail suggests that the use of Royal Mail for sending guns and components is
not significant as transfers of firearms etc must be made on a personal or ‘face to face’
basis. Section 32 of the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act introduced this requirement
where a firearm (Section 1 & 5 firearms) is “sold, let on hire, lent or given” and where a
shotgun (Section 2 firearm) is “sold, let on hire or given, or lent for a period of more than
72 hours”. The legislation requires;
(a) the transferee must produce to the transferor the certificate or permit entitling him to
purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition being transferred;
(b) the transferor must comply with any instructions contained in the certificate or permit
produced by the transferee; .
(c) the transferor must hand the firearm or ammunition to the transferee, and the
transferee must receive it in person.
4 SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ADAPTATION OF SHOTGUN MAGAZINES AND
THE DEACTIVATION OF FIREARMS:
REVISED 2010, available at:
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/2EDD9D88-B3C440BC-ADCF08688FAD95C4
6.2) Further to Section 32 of the 1997 Act, Section 32 of the Violent Crime Reduction
Act 2006 extended the face-to-face aspect to low powered air weapons sold “by way of
trade of business” by RFDs.
6.3) This provision requires any dealer, his employees or other dealer acting on behalf of
the seller who “transfers possession of the air weapon to the buyer” to only do so when
the buyer, and either the seller or a representative of his to be present in person.
6.4) The face-to-face requirement is not required for dealer-to-dealer transfers or where a
certificate holder wishes to send his gun to a dealer for sale or repair etc. The following
are exempt from the face-to-face requirement;
• Antique firearms (including antique air weapons),
• Deactivated firearms,
• Firearms sent to the proof authorities,
• Private sales of air weapons,
• Any shotgun certificate holder is authorised to lend to another
certificate holder a shotgun for a period of 72 hours without conducting a written transfer
and the postal system may be used toaffect a loan.
• Shotgun sound moderators and shotgun components are not subject to certification and
are also exempt from the face to face requirement.
• Parts other than components for a firearm.
Standard mail is the most cost effective way of sending these items.
7) OTHER MATTERS
7.1) The information supplied by Royal Mail in support of its application is sketchy. It is
also unsupported by any empirical evidence and based on a lack of knowledge of the
legislative framework. Royal Mail has taken an overly strict view of what is required by
the Act on a practical level.
7.2) It is not appropriate for Royal Mail to seek to interfere with or to try to ban the
internal trade in legitimate firearms and related items without adducing any evidence to
sustain its position.
7.3) The Treaty Establishing the European Community, colloquially known as the
“Treaty of Rome”, contains rules on transport and competition. These prohibit marketdominating carriers from operating regimes to the prejudice of consumers or from
pursuing discriminatory policies which either affect internal customers’ trade or trade
between member states. Royal Mail’s proposal to prohibit the carriage of firearms and
their components may breach Articles 79 & 86 of the Treaty. No indication has been
given in the consultation document that it has been examined to ensure that it complies
with the provisions of the Treaty.
8) CONCLUSIONS
8.1) BASC asserts that the application by Royal Mail to Ofcom to prohibit the carriage by
post of firearms and ancillary material is unjustified for the following reasons.
a) Royal Mail has not put up any credible evidence to support the proposal. Neither has it
suggested a viable and cost effective solution to maintain any postal service for firearms
carriage. BASC asserts that the proposal to transfer such carriage to Parcelforce is
unworkable and unduly expensive. It is essential that the national postal service maintains
a service for the public.
b) Royal Mail’s claim that it is not compliant with the requirements of Section 14(1) of
the 1998 Firearms (Amendment) Act is not properly made out. Again, no evidence or
credible legal opinion has been adduced in support.
c) No economically viable alternative exists for the carriage of firearms or their
components. This means that contrary to Royal Mail’s assertion, the proposal would have
a significant impact if implemented. No proper regulatory impact assessment has been
conducted by Royal Mail in this respect.
d) Royal Mail has included every firearm and component beyond those caught by the
legislation such as airguns and non-regulated components.
e) The proposed prohibition appears to contravene certain elements of the “Treaty of
Rome”, notably Articles 79 & 86
MATT PERRING
Firearms & Explosives Officer
BILL HARRIMAN
Director of Firearms
Steven Kenderick
I WRITE TO YOU TO COMPLAIN AGAINST THE PROPOSAL TO BAN THE
TRANSPORT OF AIR RIFLES, LEGALY HELD FIREARMS, AND IN
PARICULAR, ANTIQUE FIREARMS, BY YOUR ORGANIZATION.
What latest political nonsense is this? The transport of such, causes you no problems at
all, in paricular antique firearms, in which there is a healthy trade in the uk, and which do
not, in any way what so ever, offer up any risk factor to your company , in any way . On
the contary, they provide a healthy profit to you, have you completed any research on the
number you carry in a year? It runs to thousands, does royal mail intend to shoot itself in
the foot yet again?. Small wonder you are loosing buisness to smaller companies, when
cocerning yourselves with such imagined problems .
R. Parnaby
Why are you trying to fix some thing that is not broken? I recently purchased a
replacement trigger for my target rifle from the USA which was delivered to me by
Royal mail. I am certain that nobody was injured or killed during its transportation to
me. The inconvenience and problems your proposals would cause a law abiding section
of society, who you seem to have singled out for special attention, would be far greater
than you are prepared to admit. You have no grounds to support your proposal at all so
why do you deem it necessary to take this action?
Alan Bush
I live in Italy, practice target shooting with rifles PCP English brand (Theoben, BSA,
Daystate, Air Arms) I always need spare parts for repairs and ask that the company
continues to Chambers Gunmakers we can deliver spare parts, its closure would cause
considerable danno.
Alfio Gorlani
I'm 71 and have been an enthusiast of air guns all my life. To the best of my knowledge
there has never been a murder or a robbery committed using an air gun. The reason is
simple. They are absolutely useless for the job.
You will know that the standard air pistol or rifle that can be sold without a license has
only 6 ft/lbs of power for a pistol and 12 ft/lbs for a rifle . It's just about enough to shoot
a rat or rabbit at thirty yards max. As far as pistol doing the same at 6 ft/lbs, forget it. I
know it's difficult to visualize what 12 ft/lbs is. The nearest thing that is comparable is
salmon fishing using a very thin line to catch a fish that weighs more than the breaking
strain of the line. In other words, not the easiest thing in the world to do but a lot of fun.
A lot of people think that shooting an air rifle requires less skill than a powder rifle like a
.22 rim fire on up. In fact the reverse is the truth. The projectile travels at such a slow
speed that it is affected by everything and anything. That is, the pellet is so light that a
breeze will affect the hit point. If it touches a leaf during it's flight that also will ruin the
shot. Basically the thought of using an air gun as a weapon of war is almost too
embarrassing to contemplate. No, most of us adult kids enjoy the look the feel of what we
consider a thing of beauty. The conversations with other owners. The complete bull we
tell others about the shots we have made and so on.
But more importantly the air gun industry has fortunately grown over the last thirty
years to proportions that provide the government with a serious amount of money and
you a lot of revenue. The amount of jobs that have been generated by the industry is to
say the least, staggering. Think about it. All those company's that manufacture
component parts, pattern parts, ammunition, telescopic sights, gun cases, lubricants, and a
whole host of other things to numerous to mention. Jobs jobs jobs jobs and
taxable revenue with virtually no risk.
You at a stroke would put all of this in danger of complete collapse.
And, at a time when there are no jobs and virtually no manufacturing in England at all.
Why would a young person study engineering of any sort get an overdraft that will hang
round their neck for god knows how long when there is no chance of a job.
I know from personal experience what happens when an industry is killed. I was a design
engineer (electronics) and dear of Magi killed the industry stone dead and thousands of us
were out of work in a heart beat.
The other thing you might wish to consider is. The purpose of a law is to solve a problem
and with air guns you don't have one.
What you might wind up with is a very hostile public tired of stupid legislation that
achieves nothing as it did with gun clubs fiasco that killed an industry, ruined lives and
solved not one problem.
Allen Sinclair
As a user of your services and it seems to be an strange choice for you to be considering
reducing your own business. All sorts of people use airguns and firearms , either for say
sporting activites , like as in the Olympic rifle and pistol disciplines , or say farmers for
pest control.
In my own case, I am a member of a club where we have many disciplines and I rely on
the post for many items , for example I recently had delivered by Royal Mail a new
wooden pistol grip for my air pistol. It was made in Germany and I purchased it from a
company near Edinburgh ,so it would have been somewhat impractical to pick it up.
I hope your company sees fit to continue carrying items to help me with my sport and
hobby.
Andrew Scrimshaw
just what we need ?
Andrew Stansfield
I understand that royal mail is about to shoot its self in the foot once again. Most air rifle
shooters like myself are members of legitimate clubs don't shoot animals and are in the
age group 45 to 70 its only us that can afford the expensive pcp competition rifles. So
would you explain to me why this proposal.
Bernard Todd
I am writing to record my opposition to the proposed ban by the Post Office on the
carrying of shotguns and firearms within the existing postal service.
I have in the past used the Post Office service for transporting parts of a shotgun to and
from a repair specialist when it was impractical to deliver the parts personally and having
used recorded delivery had a trouble free experience.
Currently it is not illegal to possess or transport a firearm or shotgun provided that the
correct licences are obtained and therefore as a public service the Post Office does not
possess the mandate to ban legal activities, that is the privilege of Parliament.
By all means introduce a secure postage method, although I suspect that all owners would
send items via recorded delivery and possible separate packages given the value of their
possessions.
If the Post office does proceed with this ban it will provide another reason as to why I
would cease to use their services. I currently deliberately send items (both business and
personal) to preserve what I consider to be a useful service despite cheaper alternatives
being available.
Brian Rose
This proposal seems ill judged and unnecessary. I have friends that shoot and many that
do not. It is and will remain a legitimate pastime. The Olympics remind us that we need a
balanced amd mature approach to the use of firearms for sporting purposes. There is little
evidence that the inconvenience and expense your proposals will cause to sportsmen and
small traders will have any commensurate benefits in terms of security or law
enforcement. Please drop this rather extreme measure.
Bruce Perry
I wish to object to the proposal to ban the sending of guns and gun parts by post.
Ownership and use of guns is a lawful activity and the royal mail should not seek to place
such activity in jeopardy by their actions.
please reconsider your proposals.
Christopher Williams
The proposals are exceedingly similar to your 2004 proposals that were flatly rejected by
Postcomm.
Royal Mail's proposal in 2004
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/post/1441.pdf
Postcomm's decision in 2005
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/post/163.pdf
There has only been one major change that could affect Royal Mail since then and
support any reintroduction of all but identical proposals and that is the VCR act of 2006.
In a nutshell that act prohibits RFDs from selling airguns and a few related parts through
the post. It does not prohibit private individuals from doing so. The VCR act does not
support these proposals in any way shape or form.
1. It is not the Job of Royal Mail to enforce the VCR act. That is the job of the police. A
similar point was made by Postcomm. RFDs are exceedingly well aware of the law and
due to the licensing requirements of their trade are amongst the most law abiding
members of the public to be found anywhere. There is no RFD in the country who
disregards the VCR act.
2. Your proposals 100% ignore the sale of airguns between private individuals. This is
totally legal and it is totally legal to use the postal service to move them. I refer you to
Postcomm’s decision of 2005 above. Because of the total disregard for private sales in
your proposals I must assume that they have not been considered and therefore the
proposals require scrapping. You state the proposals effect will be minimal yet obviously
haven’t considered them in any detail due to your oversight of private sales. At the
moment the Royal Mail is the ONLY service that can be used to move airguns between
private individuals. How can removing that only service be in any way a minimal
disruption? It will cause drastic issues for secondhand sales that are perfectly legal.
3. You refer to yourselves as being unable to guarantee the safe custody of firearms yet
the relevant 1988 act states that only “reasonable precautions” are required. Reasonable
precautions would mean little more than delivering to the correct addressee in a timely
manner and not allowing unauthorised persons access to a parcel. Surely this is the basis
of any parcel service for any item at all?
4. You state that “Postcomm did not want to pre-empt the (VCR act)” yet that was not the
main thrust of their response. That was a side issue. Their main points were:Royal Mail has not provided sufficient evidence that carrying firearms in its letter
network causes them undue and unavoidable disruption;
Royal Mail has not provided sufficient evidence that prohibiting the carriage of firearms
in its letters network would contribute to a material reduction in the number of illegal
weapons entering and circulating within the UK;
Prohibiting the carriage of (legal) firearms in the post would cause unnecessary hardship
for many persons and businesses, especially those in rural areas and Northern Ireland.
Not one of these points is any less valid today than then. I urge you to scrap these illthought out proposals. It is quite obvious that there is an anti-gun based position from
Royal Mail based on fear and prejudice rather than any facts whatsoever. It frankly
appears that Royal Mail is trying to get away with under Ofcom what it could not under
Postcomm. Different regulator – same proposals. I have also sent a copy of this letter to
Ofcom.
David Anness
I'm an Italian shooter. Like me, many other people in Italy and in other EU countries,
purchase spare parts for our airguns from the UK.
Considering that law abiding shooters, like me and other thousands around the world, are
first of all respectful of the laws, a choice like that would affect only our passion for
weapons, while dishonest and criminals continue to get weapons and their parts illegally,
as they always have done. You should also consider the important economic damage for
sector companies and for the families that live on this, because many jobs will be lost.
I hope that you will think well to your decisions, because after such choices, one can not
always go back.
I am sorry for my poor English, but I hope that my opinion has been as clear as possible.
Federico Sette
I am responding to an email sent by Chambers Gunsmiths regarding your changes to
posting airgun spares; if this does come into force, it will effect hundreds of thousands of
people who rely on the post office for their spares as airgun shops are very sparse and we
all rely on the postal services. Basicaly if you stop sending spares, then I will have to give
up my airgunning as I do not buy my spares in any other way.
PLEASE DO NOT ENFORCE THIS,
Graham Saward
I am writing in connection with the consultation process regarding the prohibition of the
carriage of firearms and components through the Royal Mail network.
My specific concern is with regard to parts, I regularly send non pressure bearing parts
(i.e. items NOT requiring a licence) through the Royal Mail, pins, springs, bands, sights
(both standard fitted and telescopic) and magazines. One of our most important areas of
business is magazines. at this juncture I must stress that magazines are NOT classed
as a component part of a firearm and anyone can own them without licence in the
UK and therefore there is no need to ban their carriage.
Removal of this facility with no alternative available would be a disaster for small firms
like mine and would almost certainly threaten our continued existence, we rely heavily on
the Royal Mail for approximately 85% of our business and removal of service would
leave us with no viable alternative.
I also believe that Royal Mail would suffer as a result, there are a great many small
businesses and individuals who sell parts & spares not requiring a licence and if they
cannot send these kind of innocuous items through the letter post they will cease trading.
Royal Mail will of course lose a great deal of revenue from these customers if they
cannot use your services.
Whilst I understand your reluctance to accept firearms and pressure bearing components,
there are alternatives for these, but for small items such as sights, magazines, furniture
and fittings, springs and screws, there is no viable alternative.
In addition we frequently buy items from overseas to finish firearms off, and these being
small most often arrive by Royal Mail at this end. Without this facility we will have to
import via more expensive methods which will make the acquisition of those parts
prohibitively expensive.
Also to be considered are the people who buy items from Ebay and other auction houses,
overseas sellers and UK businesses such as mine, they have a need to acquire these items
for legitimate purposes, if Royal Mail bans their carriage how are they supposed to obtain
the items they need?
For the sake of my businesses, and therefore my livelihood and my family, I urge you not
to ban the carriage of innocuous components in general and magazines in
particular which need no licence to possess by anyone.
Ian Durrant
I am astonished that the Royal Mail are banning the posting of air gun spares. I have a
vintage air pistol over 50 years old and has no impact on society, being a 68 year old man
whose hobby is repairing old air pistols.
Please register my objection to the rule changes. I will reject all Royal Mail deliveries
from any purchase of whatever in future. I will use the overseas companies, campaign for
the closure of Royal Mail and lobby for its sell off.
J F Donovan
As a holder of legally held sporting guns, I have in the past used your service to send and
receive small parts e.g sights for target air rifles etc.
I cannot for the life of me understand why you won't handle a small metal sight or similar
component, or what harm these items could cause to anyone.
It is no wonder the Royal Mail is in the state it's in if this is your thinking in refusing
business and putting small dealers out of business.
Please think again before implementing this ridiculous policy.
Capt. J.P. Comac
You cannot be serious about this act i therefore ask you to reconsider this act
James Watson
I was informed about the intention of Royal Mail, to prohibit the movement of goods
relating to Airguns and accessories.
As a shooter and shooting athlete, but also as customer of several shops in the UK, I want
to kindly ask you to reconsider this policy wich will lead to problems in many people
who are doing quite legally the sport and will lead to significant problems several shops
in your country.
I hope, Royal Mail will consider all aspects before decision
John Papadopoulos
I am surprised that RM would even consider taking this stance. In these days of a
shrinking economy you should be gathering all the business you can, not deliberately
losing it.
Royal Mail is losing business hand over fist to competitors, and closing post offices. If
these proposals go through, you will inconvenience & detrimentally affect a large number
of business, both large & small, in the UK.
In my view, RM should be looking to offer a better service, an improved service, not
deliberately take yet another one away.
Go the other way; offer a specific transportation service.
Julia Birchall-Mann
I send this email as someone who purchases firearm parts for delivery within the UK. As
far as i am aware this is completely within the law unless you know something i don't. I
find it difficult to believe that if you decided against carrying these parts many people
would be worse off. Including people like myself who are very rural and don't have a
shop close by so i can get the items i want and business who sell the items.
Please think this through.
Kevin Coker
I have contacted you to object to your proposal to stop air rifle service parts and
accessories though the postal network. This idea apart from closing down suppliers , and
putting a large number of people in the airgun manufacturing trade out of work. This has
no practical use at all , also i would like you to tell me how you will be able to police
this.
L Lewington
I am the Chairman of BFTA (Bulgarian Field Target Assosiation). We were informed by
our Brittish supplyers that the Royal Mail have proposed changes to ban the posting of
firearms, air guns and component parts. This will affect all the members of our
Assosiation, having expensive British airrifles and other bought airrifles by British
merchants, by declining their possibility of buying spare parts, as there is no alternative
possibility. Such a change will affect customers all over the world, too.
Kindly plase consider all the negative effect of such a change of no reason, and do not
accept it.
Maksimilian Dinchev
i'm writing in opposition to your plans to stop delivering componet parts for shooting as it
will cause a lot of job loses &it will make it difficult for me & many to continue our
hobby/pastime as i & many do not drive
M Sanderson
With reference to the above consultation, as office manager for our local RFD, handling
packets and parcels by mail and courier there are a few thing I think should be
considered.






If you feel unable quote “As previously stated, we currently prohibit the carriage of
firearms except those guns for sporting use. We wish to now explicitly prohibit all
Firearms because we are unable to offer safe custody of Firearms through the postal
network within the meaning of Section 14 (1) of the 1988 Act as set out above”. How
are we expected to have confidence in anything sent by Royal Mail?
The items in 13 C whilst being parts for Firearms (generic term) would not be cost
effective if they had to be sent by carrier, this would place the cost of supplying these
parts to our customers very difficult indeed to justify. You seriously need to
understand more about the business as a whole before making sweeping gestures
regarding component parts.
This whole document seems to me to be another uneducated move to put more
pressure on small business, we have enough problems as things stand.
Whilst I, in some ways, can understand the logic behind the complete Firearm not
being delivered by the “Post Person” most full Firearms will be outside the parcel
size/weight for the post office to accept and can only go via carrier Parcel Force/TNT.
I would feel this is the only area if any that needs addressing.
It is time once again for you to take heed of the GTA and other expert bodies who
know the legislation relating to these parcel movements and Firearms Legislation and
stop infringing our right to run profitable businesses in hard economic times.
This is a consultation document so please consult and stop trying to ride rough shod.
I am sorry if you find this a bit harsh but over the years this industry has had much to
battle and we will not lie down!
Maree Fiddler
I am writing to you regarding your proposal to ban the on posting airgun/firearms and
'componant' parts.
I think the entire idea is not only poorly thought out but will be devistating to the private
market and businesses who sells custom/parts. This is not a 'minimal' effect, you are
trying to remove the only legal way to post these tiems around the country and this will
effect men and womens jobs, businesses and careers. All being thrown out of the window
at the expense of more anti gun policies!
Being a fan of responsible shooting I believe this will effect my hobby massivley, to an
extent where I will need to travel 15+ miles just to simply aquire parts, airguns and
pellets.
I urge you to scrap this plan, not just for the sake of my hobby, but to spare the the
legitimate businesses and private sections of sales from total destruction.
Mr.Bryant
It is noted that you are proposing to cease the delivery of firearms, air weapons and
component parts.
This will have a severe effect on the working lives of many businesses as well as
impacting on the lives of legitimate users.
It should also unneccessarily and adversely effect the revenues of the Royal Mail and at a
time when revenues are increasingly being reduced by the use of email and other
competitors, I object to my tax subsidy being negated by an unwarrented self imposed
reduction in earning capacity.
There is no legal justification for such a proposal and economically it is quite illogical.
Please reconsider and abondon these absurd proposals.
N Croskell
Them refuseing to handle firearms,air rifles ect wont stop the idiot elimemt from getting
old of them so i dont see the point??????
just making our sport harder to enjoy.
Norman Stubbs
The proposed ban on mailing antique collectors firearms (freely available throughout the
civilised world) – firstly it would put me out of business as a small specialist self
employed businessman: Secondly, how in the name of sanity could the posting of leather
blunderbusses or Waterloo period muskets cause the slightest problem to anyone? Who
dreams up these pointless rules and regulations?
Paul Downey
The UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and
Conservation (BASC), has condemned plans by Royal Mail to ban the transportation of
guns and their component parts.
These have been managed for many years in a safe and secure way with no evidence of
firearms or their components falling into the wrong hands.
Royal Mail says it is consulting on changes to its terms and conditions that will ensure
that they are consistent with relevant firearms legislation. Royal Mail is proposing that all
firearms, including guns for sporting use, as well as their component parts, are prohibited
under its terms and conditions.
The association and its members will fight the proposals, which are outlined in a
consultation document launched this week.
If the proposals go ahead, consumers and traders will no longer be able to use Royal Mail
postal services to send firearms or component parts.
The proposals extend to component parts and accessories that are not regulated by
firearms legislation. That would mean that people who shoot could no longer buy a range
of accessories such as firearm furniture, magazines, fastenings and triggers by post.
Under the proposals, Parcel force Worldwide, which is part of the Royal Mail Group,
and other carriers would continue to carry firearms and component parts but only
between Registered Firearms Dealers.
BASC has scrutinised the consultation document and has found the Royal Mail claims to
be flawed, legally incorrect and not evidence-led.
The consultation document states that Royal Mail is concerned as it is unable to
guarantee the safe custody of firearms during carriage within the meaning of section 14
(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. It says that in order to provide safe custody it
would be required to set up a dedicated handling system and conveyance pipeline.
However, the legislation does not refer to a guarantee; it refers to “reasonable
precautions” for the safe custody of firearms and ammunition.
Royal Mail has stated that it expects the impact of these proposals on customers to be
minimal. There are more than one million shooters in the UK. Many of them live in the
countryside and rely on the post instead of travelling long distances to take guns for
repair or to buy accessories. These proposals will have a significant impact.
These proposals are quite ridiculous. Guns have been efficiently and effectively carried in
the post for years. BASC are unaware of any occasions when this has led to crimes being
committed and we find it extraordinary that a law abiding section of society should be
discriminated against by a public service in this way. This is a solution to a problem that
does not exist. Without any evidence we wonder why you are doing it. Having gone
through this process in 2005 when it was knocked on the head by the regulator, one
wonders why Royal Mail is doing it again.”
Paul Mas
As an avid field target sportsman I am totally opposed to the banning by the Royal Mail
of delivering air gun component parts, at present all my spares and pellets are sent by
post, my nearest well stocked supplier is 30 miles away, cost's a lot more and has less
choice than the same products bought on line, this would severely restrict my sport and
may stop it alltogether.
In the current economic climate I would think that any work the royal mail turns down
would be another nail in the coffin of this once fine delivery service.
Peter Thompson
I'd like to respond to a document I was just forwarded outlaying the new terms for
banning the carriage of firearms or parts thereof in your systems.
While I can understand your desire to do this at the same time I firmly believe there are
other manners in which carriage of these items could be made safer or more structured.
The current system whereby items of any connection to firearms need to be sent to a
registered gunsmith is adequate, though no doubt could be made more strict if required.
Parts, I truly believe to be safe in carriage. Nobody is going to damage anything with a
piston head or trigger housing on it's own in any way, unless thrown but then that raises
the question of any parcel, item or package becoming a possible projectile if someone
saw fit. Perhaps whole firearms could be released into the service in a tamper proof
package, clearly labelled and tracked accordingly. Or even if one should wish to go as far
as to create a lockable crate for whole arms, that only registered gunsmiths have access to
the keys for. Or, universal trigger blocking bars with locks that again, only the above
have keys for. Or perhaps keys sent separately the day before the gun in a registered
envelope.
I don't think banning the carrying of these items all together will truly solve anything.
Measures in place are adequate. Minors are not allowed to purchase guns, and only those
of a responsible ilk are allowed to use them under close supervision of an adult. I had use
of an air rifle as a child, from the age of about 12, I was taught how to correctly hold, use
and fire it, and always told to carry it muzzle down, hands away from the trigger,
unloaded.
It really concerns me that the banning of such items in the mail system could come about,
as many businesses that I rely on now to find parts for my now vintage air rifles could
face closure if this passes through. I honestly do not think that air guns and minor arms
are really that much of a danger on the whole. You'll always get idiots in the world
getting hold of something but I've never heard of such thing in a mail system. It's usually
some mindless chav getting into a cupboard and finding one who causes the problems in
public, picking off wildlife, unfortunate domestic animals and the knees of those they
dislike. You see it all the time down these parts. Gun cabinets are already in the pipeline
and I myself lock my guns in a solid wood modified wardrobe so they cannot easily be
accessed by anyone other than myself with the key.
Anything above an airgun/bb gun requires age limits and licencing anyway, and so it
should. Perhaps putting forward plans to the government to enforce gun safety courses
before allowing ownership of minor rifles could be a way forward instead. Those who
have been taught by elders would fly through such a course, and a non-forged document
of proof could be issued, of a suitable size of which to carry on your persons if going to a
public target range etc.
Outright banning of things never solves much of anything, just puts a mask over the root
of the problem, which in today's world is folks that don't have a clue getting their hands
on sensitive items such as rifles and thinking it's all a big laugh. It ends up ruining it for
people like myself and others who collect, cherish and responsibly use their air guns, and
though I don't own one, other types of gun also.
Miss Sophie Forsyth
I write to you to complain against the proposal to ban the transport of air rifles, legaly
held firearms, and in paricular, antique firearms, by your organization.
What latest political nonsense is this? The transport of such, causes you no problems at
all, in paricular antique firearms, in which there is a healthy trade in the uk, and which do
not, in any way what so ever, offer up any risk factor to your company , in any way . On
the contary, they provide a healthy profit to you, have you completed any research on the
number you carry in a year? It runs to thousands, does royal mail intend to shoot itself in
the foot yet again?. Small wonder you are loosing buisness to smaller companies, when
cocerning yourselves with such imagined problems .
R. Parnaby
It would appear that if there is no alternative way that gunparts can be sent ,that makes
you a monopoly and I believe there is a body to counter you.What difference does it
make to you?Gunparts sent in this way are only for home use anyway and are sent
between licensed individuals /companies,does this then say that the Royal Mail is more
important than the Police Force?,personally I don't think so. Mind you if this comes
about,you will have less to do so maybe able to concentrate more on keeping the service
up to the agreed levels.
Robert Slatcher
Genuine firearm and shotgun certificate holders are some of the most law abiding citizens
in the country they have to be in order to be issued with said certificates
Due to current legislation many gun shops have now closed and the only way to to obtain
parts for many owners is via mail order and now it seems royal mail wants to close that
door too !
Cars kill and mame more people than any firearm or component has and yet it is perfectly
ok to send a car component via royal mail
I am opposed to the current proposal
S Arnold
Gunsmiths and specialised Firearm component vendors are few and far between, their
cliental from Sportsmen, Shooting Clubs to Farmers rely on the Postal service to send to
and purchase from them. This proposal would have a devastating effect on their business,
their sport and their land management. While I understand the growing need for security
where Firearms are concerned I am sure a better solution could be found.
S Darling
Recent proposals by royal mail left me upset.
I am a shooter, I have shot since the age of 10.
I am a competitive person and of course this led me down the route of entering
competitions, after 11 years I have done well for my age (21) finishing 4th at the last
world championships for hunter field target shooting.
You proposal would effectively make my sport an awful lot harder.
To be competative we constantly need new parts.
The parts we need are items such as barrels (a hollow metal tube), hammers (small pieces
of metal), springs, seals, items like triggers (small pieces of plastic)
I completely understand banning guns being sent, I don't agree with that either but I get
it.
but banning parts? May I ask what are you wanting to achieve with this?
They are small pieces of metal and plastic, they are useless by themselves.
What harm can a lump of metal 2 inch by 1inch do (a trigger for example)
I would ask you put more thought into this.
Steve Hughes
I am writing to you as an airgun enthusiast and collector. I am deeply concerned about
your proposals to prohibit firearms and component parts from postal services.
The key argument in your consultation document is that your are unable to guarantee the
safe custody of firearms during carriage within the meaning of section 14 (1) of the
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. However, this legislation does not refer to a guarantee,
it refers to “reasonable precautions” for the safe custody of firearms and ammunition. I
am not aware of any legal case brought against Royal Mail for violating these Acts.
You also state that the impact of these proposals on customers will be minimal. This is
inaccurate on at least two counts.
Firstly, you have underplayed the impact that this could have on many small businesses
who provide repair and servicing services. For example, TW Chambers & Co (who have
been trading since 1823) have stated publically that if your proposal was implemented
they would have to close down.
Secondly, your proposal completely overlooks the private second-hand airgun market.
This affects a significantly larger proportion of your customers than the Registered
Firearms Dealer (RFD) community. There are more than one million shooters in the UK,
many of whom live in the countryside and rely on your postal service. Private customers
do not have access to the services provided by Parcel Force and TNT.
As you are no doubt already aware, the British Association for Shooting and
Conservation (BASC) had already condemned the proposal. Having scrutinised the
consultation document they have determined that is flawed, legally incorrect and not
evidence-led.
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/pressreleases.cfm/prid/27B57CDB-6BB5-45F1AC47CA97F53F0587
I also note that you made a similar proposal in September 2004 which was rejected by
Postcomm in June 2005. Since then, the only significant change has been the passing of
the Violent Crime Reduction (VCR) Act 2006. This prohibits RFDs from selling airguns
and certain related parts through the post. However, it does not prohibit private
individuals from doing so.
I find it disappointing that given your monopoly position, you feel it necessary to neglect
your public service responsibility and discriminate against a law-abiding section of
society.
S Wood
I am very disapointed to here of your proposal to prohibit the posting of firearms and
parts. Since this proposal will prevent me from participating in a perfectly legal sport I
have enjoyed for the last 20 years. I have always preffered royal mail over other
companies for all my distance dealings, however should this proposal go through I will
have to reconsider my position.
Scott Harris
Many thousands of people in the UK use air weapons , shotguns and small calibre
firearms either professionally or for sporting purposes .
This proposed ban by Royal Mail would have a serious impact on the shooting fraternity
in the UK and i believe Royal Mail have seriously underestimated the impact this
measure would have both on the shooting community and on Royal Mails business as a
whole .
I know two company directors who are keen shooters .
They say that they will be moving their company's product delivery's to other carriers in
protest ( DHL , FedEx ) if this proposal is implemented .
You should be aware that shooting is a very popular pastime with the high ranking
business community in the UK ..
Simon May
I have been informed that the Royal Mail are proposing changes, to ban the posting of
firearms, air guns and component parts. I am asking if can assert any pressure to prevent
this being introduced. I do not know of any issue in country's that ship far more guns and
parts than we do in the U.K., this would be very detrimental to the ever decreasing gun
community. You may of noted that there were no British entrants to any of the shooting
events in the Olympics, except shotgun. We should be trying to encourage young people
to take up the sport not hinder.
Simon Petyt
I am strongly apposed to your unjustifiable proposals to ban the posting of firearms, air
guns and component parts.What possible reason could you have for this ban , which will
stop alot of law abiding people from obtaining the equipment they require. This will
affect a lot of business and could result in many being forced to shut down and people
losing their jobs.
Will Royal Mail gain from this?,will society? ,will anyone.?
I would really like to know how dreamt this up and their reasoning behind, it just defies
logic.
Simon Thompson
I would like to register my opposal against the proposed ban of gun parts through the
Royal mail network.
Royal mails claim that the impact of such a ban would be "minimal" is a joke, this would
cause many businesses to fail as a result, causing honest people to loose their lively hoods
and very likely their homes. These people are already "registered firearms dealers" and
work under a very strict set of guidelines as part of their business.
And thats just one side of the coin, the people who use guns for recreational activity
would be greatly effected, so then the clubs and shooting grounds would suffer. I myself
use a air pistol from america, without the ability to recieve items through the postal
service my pistol would soon become worthless through not being able to maintain it
with the specialist parts needed. Would Royal mail be taking this into account and
looking to compensate people for their losses as a result?
To sum up, the impact of this proposal has clearly not been investigated properly, and to
allow such a proposal to go through will impact many industries and individuals around
the country in a very bad way and would cost the economy a lot of money. T
herefore i object to the proposal being put forward.
Simon Weaver
As a keen airgun enthusiast I have used TW Chambers on a number of occasions when
vital parts in my rifles have failed. The changes to the carriage of these items will have a
massively detrimental effect on this and other businesses with no real reduction in
criminality, violent offences, terrorism or any other unlawful activity, which the law was
brought in to address. The law states that we as air rifle owners are legally required to
ensure that our rifles comply with the power output requirements detailed in the Firearms
act (sub 12ft/lb). By removing our abilty to reasonably do this and to maintain our rifles
to a safe and legal standard (by making the aqusition of necessary parts near impossible)
law abiding owners will not be reasonably able to adhere to this requirement.
I would like you to consider my views and opinions in light of your recent propsal and
focus on the intention of the law - to reduce crime and disorder, and not the letter of the
law. Unless the police and wider criminal justice system have specifically expressed an
intention to prosecute Royal mail for non-complaince with the letter of the law then I'm
sure your collective time could be more productively spent elsewhere than by worrying
about one (of no doubt many) minor infringement within your operating policy.
Simon Wheeler
I am writing to you as an ordinary member of the public who uses the postal service to
deliver a wide range of spare parts for my various legitimately held firearms including
things like O-rings, split pins, washers, screws, springs etc etc which are not in any way
more than 'engineering spares' that are necessary, from time to time when I service my
firearms. Some of these parts come from the UK, but others come from overseas using
the Royal Mail to deliver them in the UK. None of them constitute a 'firearm', but all
may be considered 'component parts'.
I cannot believe that it is right and proper for the Royal Mail to use this amendment to put
a blanket ban on " all component parts such as triggers, actions, barrels and magazines”
because I do not believe that whoever drafted these words understands that many of these
component parts do not in any way shape or form constitute a 'firearm' that the use of the
term 'firearm' to describe these parts is in error and that the final sentence of paragraph 13
of the proposal to include these component parts should not be allowed. Furthermore,
low powered <12 ft/lb air rifles and <6ft/lb air pistols are not subject to the same controls
as firearms and the rules governing them are different in Scotland, also that anyway the
wording and description is far too vague - e.g., a 'trigger' is a single piece of shaped
metal, as for example is a 'trigger guard'; a 'trigger group' is a collection of shaped metal
pieces and springs - even a magazine is only a shaped piece of steel or plastic fitted with
a spring.
I can understand that special attention needs to be placed on the carriage of those parts of
a firearm that are pressure tested and / or bear registration numbers relating to a firearms
certificate, usually the action and barrel, but typically no other component and that
usually these would be dealt with by registered firearms dealers using an appropriate
carrier. There is a very significant difference between an assembled firearm and an
assortment of component parts.
If I order a new stock or fore-end or set of sights, replacement O-rings or a magazine, or a
trigger group or even a new telescopic sight what is the harm in carrying these
'component parts' to the business of the Royal Mail?
There are a large number of businesses in the UK that rely on the Royal Mail to deliver a
huge range of firearms spares and accessories who would be crucified by such a poorly
thought through proposal.
I am afraid this badly written and ill thought through proposal goes way too far,
particularly with respect of 'component parts' and should not be allowed in this format.
Simon B Wilson
The Post Office has been the preferred carrier for the sporting firearms world from day
one.
Whether it be for an annual service, repairs or modification, the Post Office has always
offered a secure, efficient and discreet service, which does not attract the attention of
those less well intentioned entities.
British Airways have simplified their processes over recent years making it very simple
to take sporting firearms abroad whether it be for target or field sports ( very topical with
the Olympics here as I write) and many sporting items have been sent by post in support
of both our and many visiting, Olympians.
It would appear a very much a retrograde step by the Post Office to now withdraw that
service at a time when the Post Office is the Market leader.
Sportsmen and businesses, of all followings, who wish to send firearms and related items
via the Post Office are very security minded and open, posing little burden on an efficient
system.
The Post Office have long had a staff vetting and training system, not always enjoyed by
other carriers, contributing to far less losses and miss- directions.
Unless the Post Office is intending to seek savings by downgrading the staff training and
security currently offered, the organisation and management should be seeking to
capitalise on being the best and staying the best.
What attraction is there for businesses or individuals, to use the Post Office Services, if
that unique Service becomes no more competitive than the myriad of miscellaneous
carriers competing in the market place.
The Post Office is a world wide institution and has been the model for many nation's
postal services. It is the oldest institution of it's kind and should not seek to self destruct,
but hold the high ground and continue to modernise and lead whilst maintaining
traditional values and services.
The carrier of these items in no way contributes to crime statistics, where the Bona fides
of the sender and receiver are recorded. This cannot be said of all carriers.
Many legitimate sporting businesses, sportsmen and clubs depend wholly on this Post
Office Service and would cease to exist if the PO banned the carriage of legitimately held
items.
Whilst I agree with the argument that someone will always fill the void.....would that be
desirable? and is this just the tip of the self destruct iceberg?
Long may the Post Office remain an entity to be proud of and online to offer a unique and
trusted service.
Simon Wilson
These proposals are an attempt to ban a legitimate trade from the postal services. They
are driven by currently fashionable political correctness. If they are enacted they will
undoubtedly ruin a considerable number of legitimate businesses.
If these proposal are enacted, I will abandon my use of the postal services. So will a
large number of other people who participate in shooting sports. This will be easily done
because nowadays there are so many alternative channels of communication. Indeed
over the past few years I have often found myself choosing to use the postal services
simply in order to support them.
If you willfully choose to ruin the legitimate livelihoods of others, a good many of your
customers including me will do what we can to ruin your livelihood. Your already
declining business will decline a lot faster
Simpson Shepherd
I would like to register my disagreement to these proposed changes.
To be fair I can fully understand why you would want to prevent complete firearms from
being sent for both safety reasons and in case they fall in to the wrong hands but to ban
the posting of gun parts or air rifle pellets seems unreasonable to me. A gun part or pellet
offers no danger to either the postal staff, nor is it any use on it's own without the rest of
the gun to fire it.
All this will do is force many respectable and responsible dealers to close causing a
severe loss of jobs and force the prices of parts up for the rest of us responsible gun
owners.
For these reasons I ask you to re-consider your decision.
Steve Mestern
We have got information that say that your company plan to stop all parcel/sendings with
gunparts and similar equipment.
We buy from different companies in the UK and it will affect our business in a very bad
direction....
Staffan Leth
I do not agree to the proposal of guns and parts not being sent by royal mail
it makes it very difficult for people who live in outlying areas to receive their
guns and gun parts.
Stella Cartwright
This is totally outrageous.Why after all these years is it now a problem to carry gun
spares? Is this another government inspired scheme to try and ruin a perfectly legitimate
sport.This WILL NOT stop or even cut down gun crime.Banning hand guns did not have
the slightest effect on gun crime,particularly hand gun crime.Just remember we were all
very quick to be proud of the shotgun Olympic gold medal yet you lot want to put gun
spares dealers out of business.It is stupid to suggest that you cant guarantee the safety of
said spares.How many kilos of drugs does the Post Office carry every year without your
knowledge and how much damage do drugs do every year.Do you carry car spares.How
many people are killed by cars in a year compared to guns.11 children a year,on
average, drown in garden ponds,do you intend to stop carrying pond related goods as
well,or is it only the over publicised gun problem.If or when the Post Office is
privatetised your bosses wont be so fussy,profit before quarms,believe me,I
know.Anyway,chew on that lot,I will be suprised if you get this far into the letter.
Steve Batchelor
With regard to this Royal Mail consultation, I would like to point out some of the
difficulties that some members of the public may have with it.
I have an air rifle and occasionally require spares for it. Currently I can send for spares,
by post, and they will arrive very quickly. These are spares. This is not a complete gun.
In my location, on an island, if these proposals are ratified it will mean that I would have
to travel to the mainland, on a weekend due to work commitments, and possibly have to
stay in hotel overnight. To get a spare part. For an air gun.
I do not use the air rifle for sporting events, it is for vermin control, but I imagine that for
many rural air gun enthusiasts ,who use air guns as a sport, the proposals will become a
problem. Unless one lives near a supplier, who I imagine are more likely to be in larger
centres of population, there will be a much greater expense, again unfairly affecting the
rural communities. For air guns.
I cannot understand why air guns are being placed under the same headings as weapons
of war, rifles, automatics and shotguns and feel that the proposals are again over the top.
Stephen Garraway
I have received an email from T W Chambers that the Royal Mail are proposing to ban
the posting of firearms,air guns,and its component parts for these items, if these proposals
should actually go through then the Royal mail will not only be destroying many
hundreds of businesses across the country but also people's livelihoods and and by doing
so will be putting thousands of people out of work.
In addition to this there are many thousands of people who enjoy shooting as a sport up
and down the country and also abroad who will be seriously affected by these proposed
changes by the Royal mail which is draconian to say the very least.
Businesses such as T W Chambers and many such as these rely on the Royal mail as
the Royal mail are supposed to provide a public service to the people of the UK.
Please sirs, I seriously hope that the Royal mail reconsiders these proposals and think
very carefully regarding these possible changes.
If these proposals do actually go ahead then the Royal mail will be recognised for having
destroyed businesses up and down the country and also having put people out of work,
but in doing so ruined many people's pleasures and hobbies.
If the Royal mail cannot provide this type of service to deliver these items then which
company in the UK can???
Stephen Hopkins
As a very keen Shootist I do not think you should stop Delivery items from T.W.
Chambers. As this will put them out business, and stop people like me from getting
spares as this Is a very good shop for spares.
Stephen Line
The secure and dedicated deliver system needs to be in place for the transportation of
weapons and live ammunition, and the Royal Mail delivery service already has this in
place.
The movement of firearms between registed firearm dealers is the solution in place.
members of the public who hold the appropriate certificates/licences are able to collect
such items from the dealer in person.
The need to restrict the delivery of componant parts goes beyond what is required. the
Royal Mail is required to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the item in transit.
Surely this safeguard will apply to all items in the possesion of Royal Mail.
If your staff are are CRB checked and well trained, if the vehicles are not left unlocked
while the deiveries are being undertaken, then all reasonable precautions have been met
and the transportation of the items can continue.
Can the Royal Mail be in such a privilaged position that it can refuse work, and therefore
revenue?
As postal charges have just been raised it would suggest that this is not the case.
Common sense needs to be applied to the new regulations and changes made only where
they need to be made based upon fact based research not supposition.
Stephen Roberts
I would like to express my concern about the proposal to ban the posting of firearms, air
guns and component parts. I can see no reason why legal firearms of the components
thereof should be banned. I am not aware that the posting of such items in the past has
resulted in any problems for Royal Mail. As there is no viable alternative method of
shipping such items, it will make it impossible to maintain and service legitimate firearms
and will result in the closure of a number of UK companies who will no longer be able to
operate. In particular, as air weapons are not even required to have a firearms certificate,
what possible reason could Royal Mail have for excluding such items from the postal
service?
Stephen J Tanner
I understand that the Royal Mail is proposing banning the posting component parts of
airguns as part of a wider ban on the posting of firearms. I do not own a firearm as such
but do own an air-rifle and hand held airgun. I rely on the Royal Mail for the supply of
spare parts for these airguns and hope your proposals will not affect me. To ban the
postage of for example of rubber sealing rings would be excessive and serve no useful
purpose whatsoever.
Stephen Whitby
I've recently read a report that stated that Royal Mail are proposing to ban the
transporting/delivery of firearms, airguns and component parts. I strongly feel that this
would be a bad move for R.Mail, as much needed revenue is generated through people
like myself, who order 'bit's and piece's from various registered firearm dealers.
By removing this service, it could probably result in many businesses ceasing to trade,
and the likes of myself and other's finding it difficult to obtain items that are 'firearm'
related.
Do you also intend to ban the handling and delivery of shooting magazines,of which I
receive 7 per month?
Most 'firearms' already have restrictions on transportation already, and are sent to 'RFD's'
usually by courier. I know of not one instance where 'firearm' 'airgun' or 'component
parts' have gone missing and ended up in the 'wrong hands'.
I would ask that you strongly rethink your proposal.
Steve Bradshaw
Please see below my response to your consultation on firearms carriage. I'm unable to
attach a coversheet but my response is not confidential, and I understand it may be
published.
Steve Bunn
I have been alerted to the your proposal to ban the post posting of firearms, air guns and
component parts.
I frequently purchase components for air guns and have found that the best supplier in the
UK is based in Scotland. I am based in West Wales.
How will I, and others, buy replacement seals and springs in the future if the suppliers are
unable to ship the items? How will suppliers of such items remain in business? In this
climate do we really need any more businesses closing?
Surely there is no danger in carrying springs, seals and other components and I am fairly
certain that most suppliers of shotguns and air guns do not send whole guns through the
post, that is a job for a specialist courier.
I appreciate that a shot gun wrapped in brown paper may be an issue, but components?
Steve Edwards
A poorly thought out piece of work, which wilfully misrepresents the legal requirements
envolved. It seems little more than a rehash of the widely ridiculed “Notice of a
Proposed Direction for Royal Mail to Prohibit the Carriage of Firearms” of December
2004. An attempt to ban the carriage of legitimate sporting items in the year of the
London 2012 Olympics (a sport in which we won a gold medal I might add). Shame on
you.
Steve Gray
I disagree as this will mean that I will no longer be able to onbtain even the smallest of
spare parts for any air guns I own.
I can understand the need to not transport an entire weapon - but to ban all componenet
parts is a step too far.
I have ordered things like screws and seals - these are componenet parts that would be
cost prohibitive to send via any other carrier.
By banning these item you will force many small businesses out of business.
Please re-consider this amendment.
Steve Mecrow
These changes will prohibitively hinder the entirely legal trade by private individuals in
sporting air weapons and the components required to ensure the safe use of the weapons.
The law states that you only need to ensure reasonable precautions for their safe custody.
If you cannot provide this for air weapons why should anyone trust you with ANY item
of worth or value?
There is no legal requirement for non-FireArms Certificate air weapons and components
to be sold by private individuals on a face-to-face basis. However you seem to have taken
it upon yourself you go above and beyond the law, prohibiting the legal posting of such
items, seemingly because of your own failures as a postal delivery service.
In your proposal you have not provided any evidence that an air weapon has been lost or
delivered incorrectly.
In the proposal you state that you expect the impact on customers to be minimal. How
exactly are the one million sporting shooters in the UK expected to transfer air weapons
and components if you withdraw your service?
Steven Carter
I have recently found out that you are proposing to drag up the failed 2005 proposals
regarding firearms transportation.
After reading your proposal it appears that it is both flawed and legally incorrect.
Moreover, firearms and their components have been transported via post for many years.
Not once has there been an incident with firearms carried in this manner. It appears that
this is yet another Royal Mail ‘Let’s fix a problem that doesn’t exist’ scenario.
You state that you ‘Expect’ the impact your proposals will have on the shooting
community to be minimal. Please can you enlighten me on how, denying the one million
shooters in the UK access to posting firearms, the affect will be minimal? Many of the
shooting community reside in the countryside, Farmers, Estate workers, Gamekeepers,
they rely heavily on the post to purchase and send off for repair, their firearms. Without
this facility, this will cause untold problems to decent law abiding fully certificated
shooters going about their lawful business.
I respectfully ask you to consign your ill thought out proposals to where they belong, the
dustbin. Perhaps you can spend your time more productively sorting out other areas of
your business where customer service is sadly lacking.
Steve Rennie
if you go through with this ban, on air gun and parts,a lot of decent people will be out of
work
plus you will be putting a nail in the coffin of our sport,you must remember we put work
your way also
and why spare parts,does not make sence.
Steve
I find your proposals rather ill thought out to say the least. As a bona fide sportsman I am
sick to death of the stupid knee jerk and bullying reactions to incidents and proposals
such as your that in the end ONLY affect the genuine sports people of this country. Your
proposals WILL without doubt result in the closure of many businesses supporting out
sport and it will not affect the criminal fraternity one single jot exactly the same as the
banning of pistols. The criminal have more than ever yet this country couldn't even field
a pistol team in it's own Olympic Games. How absolutely pathetic. Please stop this
persecution of the sports shooters of this country and their associated businesses.
Steven Booth
I have been greatly concerned to read of the proposal to ban all firearms and components
from the postal service. I am an airgun shooter and rely on mail order companies to
obtain spares for my airguns, some of which are vintage or collectable guns which are no
longer in production. Low powered airguns and their components may be purchased
freely, and the mail order of spares and second hand airguns is perfectly legal and safe.
Any ban would effectively kill off the second hand airgun market, which many collectors
rely on, and greatly inhibit the supply of spares and other components. I can see no
reason for a ban on this service; I know of no occasion when posting an airgun has
resulted in harm or damages. I particularly see no reason for the ban on component parts a spring, lever, sear or catch is no more dangerous because it is made to fit an airgun.
Presumably it would be permissible to post an identical spring, catch etc if it were
intended for use in a lawn mower rather than an airgun?
I do not hold a firearms certificate so would not be affected by a ban on components
exclusively designed for firearms (as opposed to airguns). However I again see no reason
why a spring etc could not be posted, simply because it is designed to fit a firearm. My
understanding is that firearms and pressure bearing components such as barrels, breech
faces, charging bolts etc cannot be sent through normal postal services; however, I cannot
understand restrictions on other parts which are essentially inert and face no restriction of
sale.
I hope I have made my case clear and that common sense prevails in this matter.
Tim Bracken
I wish to express my deep concern and worry with regards to the royal mails current
proposal to stop carrying firearms and parts.
These latest proposals appear to be similar to those proposals put forward in 2004, which
were rejected by Post-comm in 2005.
As such, I am baffled to understand as to why the royal mail feels it is worth revisiting
this matter.
As a public service company the royal mail is duty bound to provide a service without
discrimination.
Not only will the proposal discriminate against those who are law abiding, carrying out
perfectly legal sporting activities, it will have a great impact on the ability of individuals
to seek best value through freedom of choice and also affect a number of business who
provide spare parts, servicing and repair, etc.
I am a law abiding British subject who has been into air gunning since the age of 14
(nearing fifty now) and have enjoyed taking part in many competitions, along with
collecting various types and make of airguns.
I also carry out my own gun repairs (requiring parts) and sometimes have to send them
away for servicing or repairs.
Collectable airguns aren’t always in my local shop, or owned by people living just around
the corner. They are distributed Country wide, as are the engineers and specialist who
provide competitive prices for servicing, upgrading, and repairs.
By putting this proposal forward you are strictly limiting the rights of your customers,
and I feel this is a step backward, rather than catering for a modern world that does a very
large proportion of it's business by post.
A concerned royal mail user,
Steve Miles
I just want to send you a response in regards to the consultation of removing sporting
firearms and their components from your condition of carriage. I think this move is a bit
confusing as I regularly send firearms and components, I know very well that any part of
a firearm that is by legislation defined as a firearm such as the receiver, bolt or barrel
have to be send with a registered firearms dealer and not by regular post. Ammunition
cannot be sent by post either. So we are left with your company trying to ban obscure
firearm components such as magazines, stocks and gun accessories that virtually prove
no danger to you or your employees and do not in any way break the Firearm Acts.
So your new carriage conditions do not actually make any sense. I would also like to
know how often, a firearm or its components have been stolen in tranzit and how many
employees have been hurt by any parcel that have contained firearm components. I bet
not very much.
Steven Wolf
i start by asking a question about my main concern to your decision(s) :- has anyone on
the decision making committee given more than one seconds thought as to the livelihood
of others, by others i mean those outside the Royal Mail, as firearms dealers, repairers,
and customiser's many of who rely upon your services & without which may end up
going out of business, most of these businesses employ at least one person,
So let us suppose there are only 1,000 arms dealers etc in the uk & each has just the one
employee, which is a very conservative estimate, this could mean a possible 2,000 more
people collecting unemployment and paying less if any tax, then there's the V.A.T. that
wont be earned.
all the above alongside the expected redundancies within Royal Mail,, at a time when the
UK is already struggling financially,, PLEASE ask yourselves " is this the direction an
institution like Royal Mail really should be going?
as a committee should you not be looking to expanding the company & services?
and finally a lot of like minded shooters / gun users use Royal Mail to send off their
weaponry for a variety of works to be carried out, from servicing to customising whether
it be a gun stock or a trigger mechanism, or even a legally modified action, or indeed to
just send for parts like scopes, scope mounts, range finders and numerous other items to
do with our beloved sport
recently on Face Book among others like minded members of the shooting fraternity have
been discussing this topic, and have taken it upon themselves, if this BAN is enforced, to
go elsewhere for their postal needs that do not come under this BAN. if this was to
happen, isn't it a feasability that there could be even more redundancies within your
company? thus requiring you to further reduce services to other groups who may well
retaliate in a similar manner the ad infinitum
Steve Yates
As the relevant legislation refers to “Section 5(1)(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol
which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system”,
it would seem excessive to prohibit carriage of standards airguns or their components, i.e.
those operated via coil springs and delivering a muzzle velocity below the legal limit for
unlicensed airguns.
Such a move would pose a threat to those businesses which operate perfectly legally in
the supply of such airguns and their components, and would increase costs and
inconvenience to customers.
Stewart Bowman
Like many members of the shooting fraternity I maintain my own guns, especially the
antique and elderly and have a need to acquirre components from the ever fewer suppliers
available to me. Equally accessories and other items are now proving more readily
available by mail order, with the reduction in numbers of local dealers since the 1998
firearms act came into force. With the vast increases in fuel costs making travel too
costly, purchasing by mail makes a lot of sense. I cannot understand your motivation in
prohibiting the movement of innocent items such as sights, or screws with long obsolete
thread types! What do you hope to achieve? Let me assure you that neither terrorists or
criminals will be hampered in any way by your proposals but innocent sportsmen and
hard working gun shop traders who may well have their business badly damaged by this
notion, certainly will. I have been involved in shooting all my life (now nearing
retirement) and have yet to come across a more honest and reasonable group of people.
Perhaps you should consider the requirements of firearm ownership if you are trying to
curtail the misuse of weapons. In order to hold a section one firearm certificate it is
necessary that the holder has a clean criminal record, is temperate and of good standing
and has no record of mental problems. In other words the very kind of people you would
hope are your best customers! Equally if you wish to control sales of airguns, then please
remember you are a servant of the public, transporting goods and not an arm of
government making the law. While you may find guns and their usage for sport abhorent
for whatever reason, trying to prevent their movement by the back door is working
against the very principles of democracy that we all enjoy. I strongly object to the misuse
of air guns, by teenage idiots and others. Yet thoroughly endose their use for pest control
and low cost food gathering. Both my Mother now, 84 and myself have enjoyed many a
rabbit pie gathered legally with the aid of a lead pellet delivered to us by the post, are you
suggesting that our vermin destruction and organic food gathering is in any way the
business of the postal service and as such to be controlled by a body who has not been
elected in any way?
I would ask you to reconsider any such proposals for the damaging impact it will have on
perfectly innocent people, who go about their lawful affairs using firearms and airguns or
the gun trade who need your support in difficult times. You will I am sure reap the
rewards of avoiding a storm of protest and vitriol from a section of the public who have
become well versed at making themselves heard.
Stuart Perry
I think that it is disgusting that Royal Mail is thinking about banning the transport of
firearms and their component parts. This is discrimination against the shooting
community.
I regularly buy and then receive firearms related goods that have been delivered by Royal
Mail.
S.Wilson
Indeed law and new regulations are created keeping in mind the ongoing increase in
terrorism. However, it is well set in the law that no innocent being injured in due course.
I personally do appreciate the move, but your regulations appear to justify for sportsmen
like us, situated in Indian continent, who has no means and source spares other than U.K,
especially due to our usage of U.K. make arms. I often in need order to Chambers
Gunmakers of U.K. for spares from India.
It is also surprising that there is no privilege within commonwealth country. More so this
policy will not only seriously impair the long lasting British attitude of fairness but also
will substantially adversely affect the export of your country.
The policy maker must decide who are enemy country or community and respond
accordingly.
A straightforward policy forwarded like this appears to be only creating road blocks for
innocent hobbyist.
I strongly appeal for withdrawal of such policy, before the same even tried for
implementation.
Swajan Kumar Sen
I strongly object to Parcel Force taking complete reponsibility for delivering air gun
spares.
I have had many parcels sent to me via Parcel Force but only ONCE has a Parcel Force
van attended my address which is very rural. In reality what Parcel Force does is drop
my parcel off at Girvan Post Office ( marking it 'delivered ' - but not having the courtesy
to actually advise me ) and the Royal Mail van then delivers or I collect. Not really
satisfactory I would say.
I have read your draft document which refers to the Firearms Act, 1968. Why has it
taken Royal Mail 44 years ( since the 1968 Firearms Act ) to compile such a document?
Lastly, component parts of any firearm and indeed firearms themselves are inert causing
no danger of explosion or fire. Firearms only become 'dangerous' when loaded with
ammunition. This may be worth considering.
T.L. Weir
I would like to state that I am completely against the Royal Mail proposed ban on
carrying firearmsor their parts or accessories as I often rely on the post for these items.
Apart from anything, I surprised that Royal Mail feels it can turn away any sort of
business in the current financial climate.
Mr T M Colmer
Regards your proposal to no longer carry firearms/airguns and component parts via the
postal service I wish to register my complaints regarding these proposals.
I am a registered firearms dealer (RFD), registered with Wiltshire constabulary, who
undertakes my business legally receiving airguns for repair via your RMSD service and
returning the repaired guns/components to the customer via RMSD as part of my legal
obligation to ensure the gun is returned to the owner and not signed for by anyone else.
Your proposal to withdraw from the carriage of firearms will reduce if not eliminate the
legal methods a customer may send a firearm or component to me for repair since most of
my customers are not holders of RFD licences with trade accounts for ParcelForce (who
will only carry firearms/components from RFD to RFD).
My supply of spare parts from distributors and manufacturers will also be eliminated if
the Royal Mail refuses to carry such components, as many of the suppliers use Royal
Mail for small quantity shipments, especially those parts such as magazines or pellets
which are not banned from postal sales by the current VCR (Violent Crimes Reduction)
act and as such are not required to be carried on a recorded signature on delivery to the
addressee basis.
My concern is that the withdrawal of the present level of service will effectively strangle
my business, threaten the livelihood of many other RFD's and seriously damage the
shooting trade as a whole also it will make life difficult if not impossible for gun owners
who are not situated nearby to an RFD for the servicing and repair of their guns, the
supply of pellets etc.
The Royal Mail proposed a similar set of measures in 2005 which were rejected by
Ofcom, the legal position has not changed since then and our present government has
proposed that the firearms and VCR acts require no further alterations or revisions for the
forseeable future. This begs the question as to what motivation the Royal Mail has in
such a proposal?
T.Nelson
The proposal for the Royal Mail to stop the transport of sporting firearms and parts
thereof smacks of giving another boost to the private carriers at the expense of a public
company. If indeed the ammendment to the firearms act of 1968 prohibits the carrying of
these items by the Royal Mail then why has the Royal Mail not been prosecuted by the
law. It seems the police and the government are quite happy to allow these items to be
processed by the Royal Mail and many small businesses and their customers will be
adversely affected. It may well lead to the closure of many small businesses and the loss
of even more jobs in these already hard times. Please reconsider these proposals and
come up with positive solutions and not just throw out the baby with the bath water.
Ted Blackmore
I have read through the consultation document and proposals. I find the document to be
ill founded and the draconian measures proposed to have no evidential support.
These proposals intend to deal with a perceived problem that does not exist and are
therefore nothing more than a covert attack on law abiding members of the shooting
fraternity.
The proposals do not have my support
Terence E Smith
In response to the The Royal Mail proposing changes to ban the posting of firearms, air
guns and component parts. times are hard enough as it is without you destroying an
industry that is 90% internet and post based, I myself am in contact with
several company's {T W Chambers} (GMAC custom parts)
{Guntarder.co.uk} {Pyramid air} just to mention a few these have traded for years and
stuck with royal mail throughout strikes and you plan to hang them out to dry
its disgusting. There are thousands of company some sell and ship very little and others
that ship hundreds of item a day it makes no sense, they now rely on royal mail to ship
orders out to all parts of the world i thought the idea was to make money if you go ahead
and you will lose a huge amount of sales please reconsider the plans
Terry Calland
I am against the banning of guns from the Royal Mail service on principle and from a
practical perspective. Why should the gun trade and individuals be excluded from your
services?
It appears to be a proposal based on a political viewpoint rather than a commercial
decision based on common sense.
Are individual gun owners and people in the gun trade existing and potential customers
or are we the enemy to be marginalised and excluded?
I hope you take into consideration that we have been loyal cutomers that pose no threat to
your business, but help support it. Don't descriminate against us.
Terry Gamble
Just to let you know that a lot of businesses will close if you ban the carrying of air gun
parts and components.
Terry Robb
I was informed about the intention of Royal Mail, to prohibit the movement of goods
relating to Airguns and accessories.
As a shooter and shooting athlete, but also as customer of several shops in the UK, I want
to kindly ask you to reconsider this policy wich will lead to problems in many people
who are doing quite legally the sport and will lead to significant problems several shops
in your country.
I hope, Royal Mail will consider all aspects before decision
Theodore Kritsimas
I wish to protest against the proposals you are trying to implement for the carriage of
firearms and component parts of firearms.
I collect and use many British made air guns and I use companies in the UK as a source
for spare parts as these parts are not obtainable here in Germany. All of
my suppliers in the UK use the Royal Mail to ship parts to me and I have contacted them
about your proposals and have been informed that there is no other alternative service
available that is as cost effective or can give the same service as the Royal Mail.
Many of these companies will have to close down if these proposals are passed. Please
leave the postal service as it is as you provide a great service to all of us who rely on
ordering parts from the UK.
Thomas Arend
I should like to register my opposition to Royal Mail's proposals to prohibit Firearms and
component parts from postal services offered under Postal Schemes.
The reasons that I oppose these proposals are:
1. The law does not prevent Royal Mail from transporting legal Firearms and component
parts.
2. I understand Royal Mail has a duty of care to its employees but these items,
appropriately packaged, will present no danger to postal workers.
3. This will have a significant, adverse and needless impact upon not only a legitimate
industry but also many other people indirectly connected.
T. Davies
I am wholly against royal mail banning fire arms, air rifles and
components associated with them from being shipped using the Royal Mail. If these
proposals go ahead I will boycott Royal Mail in its entirety.
Thomas Flynn
I wish to protest against the proposals you are trying to implement for the carriage of
firearms and component parts of firearms.
I collect and use many British made air guns and I use companies in the UK as a source
for spare parts as these parts are not obtainable here in Germany. All of
my suppliers in the UK use the Royal Mail to ship parts to me and I have contacted them
about your proposals and have been informed that there is no other alternative service
available that is as cost effective or can give the same service as the Royal Mail.
Many of these companies will have to close down if these proposals are passed. Please
leave the postal service as it is as you provide a great service to all of us who rely on
ordering parts from the UK.
Thomas Kiesswetter
I recently was made aware of your intended chages to the shipping and handling of items
prohibited by legislation in your jurisdiction. I am an air gun enthusiast as well as
marketer and promoter of air gun vendors, retailers and suppliers based in the United
States.
I noted in your "Proposals to prohibit Firearms and component parts from postal services
offered under Postal Schemes" publication two things which cause me to question the
practicality of your proposed changes.
Air rifles are not firearms and are not a weapon choice for terrorists
I know that in countries outside the UK, many airgun enthusiasts are reliant on UK
suppliers of airguns and related parts and accessories. There is significant business
transacted in this market through postal delivery as it is the most practical and affordable
means. As here in the United States and many other countries the regulations regarding
sporting goods such as air guns are much more lenient and relaxed, I do not believe your
proposed changes afford enough scope or consideration for this. Your proposed changes
would in effect make it virtually impossible for many vendors to maintain a viable
overseas market for their goods and services, and in effect result in a severe enough loss
of revenue to these vendors as to force them out of business.
I also note that as per your publication of proposed changes, according to the (Firearms
Act 1968 - Section 5(1)(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or
adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system, e.g. Brococks; ) that the
definition of prohibited air rifles and pistols is very limited and does not account for
spring powered or manually charged air operated rifles and pistols. These non-cartridge
powered air rifles and pistols and their related accessories make up a large portion of the
overseas market for vendors based in the UK and would be adversely affected by your
proposed changes as well.
Finally, I would like to note that many suppliers, retailers and vendors here in the United
States rely on supply from UK vendors to maintain a steady support for customer bases
loyal to and dependant upon UK based air powered rifle and pistol brands and the parts
and accessories related to these brands. Your proposed changes would negatively affect
not only businesses within your own region, but those on an international level as well.
I am sure those within the Royal Mail services are well aware of the current economic
climate and the difficulties many business face at this time. Your proposed changes could
very well provide the last negative financial impact that many businesses simply will not
be able to compensate for.
It is my hope that your service will reconsider these proposed changes and make attempts
to accommodate the efforts of UK based air gun businesses to maintain viable and
valuable services that benefits the economies of both our continents.
Thomas C. Kummer
I would just like to say that I oppose the continued loss of facilities available to the
general public such as your proposal to not carry guns or gun parts. No licensed gun
owner would send a firearm in an unsafe condition whereas that might not apply to
unlicensed firearms (which are responsible for the majority of gun crime in this country).
I would therefore suggest that you apply your new policy only to unlicensed firearms
and introduce some system of checking the credentials of those who wish to use the
service, even if it costs a bit more. I have to say that unlicensed owners are likely to
disregard any ban that you may impose.
Thomas Olesen
I wish to protest against the proposals you are trying to implement for the carriage of
firearms and component parts of firearms.
I collect and use many British made air guns and I use companies in the UK as a source
for spare parts as these parts are not obtainable here in Germany. All of
my suppliers in the UK use the Royal Mail to ship parts to me and I have contacted them
about your proposals and have been informed that there is no other alternative service
available that is as cost effective or can give the same service as the Royal Mail.
Many of these companies will have to close down if these proposals are passed. Please
leave the postal service as it is as you provide a great service to all of us who rely on
ordering parts from the UK.
Schwöbel
I can see no means by which the transportation of firearms parts/products/accessories etc
(excluding certain chemicals/explosives) can be a risk to a Royal Mail employee or those
who are having goods delivered to them.
Likewise in regards to fitting in with current law, there is nothing prohibiting the postage
of firearms parts/products or accessories nor should there be any need to bring in such
legislation. The proposals cover many components and parts of firearms that are not
covered by legislation at all, this is would make the exercise pointless.
The idea that it may reduce crime is also completely wrong, firearms parts are incredibly
specific and it is unheard of for firearms parts posted to be stolen or used in crime, it
simply does not happen.
There are over a million UK gun owners who must travel long distances to firearms
shops or supply stores in order to purchase goods, your change of practice would increase
the costs significantly for these people and make it very hard to carry out their work and
sport.
This process has already been tried once in 2005, it was proven to be pointless and I
simply cannot understand why the effort is being made to flog a dead horse.
Thomas Simpson
As an air gun sports enthusiast ,this proposal is totally unjustified,
There is not one justifiable reason why this should be actioned.
Tony
I have been greatly concerned to read of the proposal to ban all firearms and components
from the postal service. I am an airgun shooter and rely on mail order companies to
obtain spares for my airguns, some of which are vintage or collectable guns which are no
longer in production. Low powered airguns and their components may be purchased
freely, and the mail order of spares and second hand airguns is perfectly legal and safe.
Any ban would effectively kill off the second hand airgun market, which many collectors
rely on, and greatly inhibit the supply of spares and other components. I can see no
reason for a ban on this service; I know of no occasion when posting an airgun has
resulted in harm or damages. I particularly see no reason for the ban on component parts a spring, lever, sear or catch is no more dangerous because it is made to fit an airgun.
Presumably it would be permissible to post an identical spring, catch etc if it were
intended for use in a lawn mower rather than an airgun?
I do not hold a firearms certificate so would not be affected by a ban on components
exclusively designed for firearms (as opposed to airguns). However I again see no reason
why a spring etc could not be posted, simply because it is designed to fit a firearm. My
understanding is that firearms and pressure bearing components such as barrels, breech
faces, charging bolts etc cannot be sent through normal postal services; however, I cannot
understand restrictions on other parts which are essentially inert and face no restriction of
sale.
I hope I have made my case clear and that common sense prevails in this matter.
Tim Bracken
It is with regret that I have been made aware of Royal Mail's proposed changes to the
carriage of component parts for firearms and air guns used for sporting and work
purposes that would prevent the positng of such items.
A significant minority of private customers and businesses would be affected by such
changes. In many cases the prevention of the use of Royal Mail's services for the
transport of such items will render them unobtainable to those in areas without local
access to businesses that can supply such items. Consequently this will have a negative
impact on those who use firearms and air guns for totally legal purposes in the course of
their professional lives and leisure time as well as forcing small company's that depend
on the posting of such items to close down.
Since the implications of these proposed changes would include components as small as a
set of screws or rubber o-rings, they seem unwarrented and harmful to Royal Mail
customers who are engaged in totally legal activities.
I would be most grateful if you would take the above points into consideration before
effecting the proposed changes and causing such a negative impact on your commercial
and private customers.
Tim Child
It was with some concern & dismay that I have learnt that Royal Mail (& I assume
ParcelForce) are considering proposals on the banning of transportation of firearms and
other constituent firearms & shotgun components.
As a long time target shooter and firearms / shotgun certificate holder, I rely heavily on
being able to purchase reloading components, (i.e. Brass Cases, Bullet Heads, Shotgun
Choke Tubes, Cleaning Materials & all manner of firearms accessories etc.), from a
number of retail outlets that regularly use the postal services of the Royal Mail Group.
Being able to place my orders and then receive consignments by post is, without doubt, a
convenience that is both secure, safe and efficient. I have, as yet, not had a single
consignment go “missing” through postal issues; and the service provided by the Royal
Mail Group is second to none.
I strongly urge you to re-consider the Royal Mail Group proposals on the transportation
of firearms & component ban, in the interests of those of us who regular sporting shooters
and law abiding citizens.
T. M. Gray
I have had a number of dealings with Royal Mail in the past and the shipment of weapons
including the loss/theft of weapons whilst in their care.
On the occasions of weapon losses Royal Mail failed to notify the Police of the missing
weapons quoting an ancient act of parliament that gave them immunity from
responsibility, prosecution and notifying the authorities of any loss of items.
I truly believe that there are sufficient specialist carriers and couriers that are already used
by the trade and licensed by the Police and have a duty of care that could quiet easily be
used members of the public should they wished to. The fact of Royal Mail giving up
moving weapons and accessories would be of little consequence or missed.
Tim Harrison
What is all this about? Not going to ship firearms or components anymore?? To what
end?
Is this just an excercise in self assured equanimity? Let me tell you, your common sense
compass is way off kilter.
You can fill in your explaination below on the dotted line.
................................................ <----- insert misguided excues here.
Titus Clifton
What consultation? Please don't say you are colluding with Gill Marshall-Andrews...
Just remember, guns aren't dangerous or offensive. They are inanimate objects.
I hope good sense and at least a measure of business savvy prevail. Gun-Haters are not
going to use the Royal mail any more if this stupidity wins through
I write to you in regards to the Royal Mail's proposal to prohibit firearms from the postal
service and i begin my email with a simple question; why should the rural community be
made to suffer further in this already difficult economic climate? Firearms are a part of
the rural community, and a part that is in many cases mandatory to certain professions
and persons. With firearms being so essential to many rural persons, how are we
therefore expected to maintain these tools when the closest gunsmith may be over two
hours away and you propose a ban on essential parts?
The rural community is a responsible one, with the vast majority of crimes or accidents
involving firearms being restricted to cities and suburbs. Why therefore should the rural
community be made to suffer for being responsible? With this proposed ban you are not
only potentially damaging the professions and lifestyles of many people, who are already
suffering, but you are also doing nothing to tackle gun crime.
Tom Cackett
Why does everyone have to pick on the gun trade as if the are to blame for all gun
related crimes.
And I think you will find it more detremental to your own business than you realise, do
you think all
the gun and tackle shops in the UK are going to use Royal Mail for any deliveries once
they organise
new couriers, I dont think so!!!
Count me as not in favour of this proposal!!
Tom Meneilly
I can understand why you want to stop the firearms distribution by prohibiting it to be
sent by Mail but we who Have old Airguns for hobby and recreation it would be a
disaster there are nowhere easier to get spare parts then from Great Britten and the reason
to maintain this is let the mail handle spare parts to airguns especially older guns!
Tomas Tegner
I wish to protest against the proposals you are trying to implement for the carriage of
firearms and component parts of firearms.
I collect and use many British made air guns and I use companies in the UK as a source
for spare parts as these parts are not obtainable here in Germany. All of
my suppliers in the UK use the Royal Mail to ship parts to me and I have contacted them
about your proposals and have been informed that there is no other alternative service
available that is as cost effective or can give the same service as the Royal Mail.
Many of these companies will have to close down if these proposals are passed. Please
leave the postal service as it is as you provide a great service to all of us who rely on
ordering parts from the UK.
Toni Jesche
I've just seen the proposed changes to ban the posting of firearms, airguns and component
parts and am "shocked" at the proposal. I live in the Caribbean and run a small
gunsmithing business, mainly airguns and shotguns and order "All" my parts out of the
UK. If ths proposal goes through it will be absolutely devestateing to me. Please can you
reconsider this?
Tony da Silva
bloody pathetic, why stop posting air gun components, i enjoy air gun shooting as much
as i can and rely on t w chambers for certain parts that i cant acquire locally, so this will
throw a spanner in my works without a doubt and if it means t w chambers could close,
because of this it makes it even worse as that's peoples jobs going too, bloody pathetic.
I am against this move 100% sounds like the people who take up shooting legally as a
hobby/sport are being victimised again .
Tony Elliott
i feel that not carrying firearm components and cleaning fluids and similar is very unfair
as with a lot of people so much shopping is now done over the internet not only because
of price but availability and the royal mail is the most reliable postal services available
and i for one always use them i would imagine that nearly every item posted could be
deemed as dangerous in one way or another you could say a mobile phone is danger as it
has a battery and that could classed as explosive so if you are thinking about going ahead
with your plans you just as well say you will only deliver letters.
Mr T Ford
I'm intrigued at the statement that you must ban all shipments to comply with the
law...under the VCR act it clearly states only new guns, pressure parts, silencers and
barrels must be shipped RFD to RFD, second hand airgun sales and shipment between
individual end users are regarded as legal as is the sale of second hand parts which does
include pressure parts, silencers and barrels also...its only when you buy new that it has to
go RFD to RFD, then RFD to end user face to face.
Does your legal team take the view my above statement is incorrect? If they do then i
would urge you to ask them to talk to BASC who will advise what i stated above is 100%
correct.
or is there another reason for the complete banning of all shipments?
If a ban were to come into place countless businesses will cease to trade, the shooting
industry will lose millions per year and many will lose their jobs....i really can not see an
issue in things staying as they are unless you can show me where the law is being broken
and causing an issue to public safety?
Tony Leach
I gather from a recent communication, that the Royal Mail is proposing to ban
distribution of spare parts to customers from various specialist suppliers of Air Guns.
This will no doubt put most out of business, causing more unemployment and will
inevitably lead to higher prices for relatively mundane parts - OR - will lead people
witrhout expertise to make parts on a local basis, which could be dangerous when added
to the guns in question, leading to unnecessary danger for all.
This is a dreadfully ridiculous idea, no doubt promulgated by somebody with an
uneducated view of what is entailed. The world of sporting and target shooting has
suffered relentlessly over the last many years, from uninformed and prejudicial knee-jerk
legislation, (by a succession af largely useless politicians), reacting to something which
they feel might get them a few votes. I was under the impression that the Royal Mail was
a service provider to the public at large, and not an arm and supporter of political
ineptitude. The Draconian measures now taken to stifle, the Gun Trade and sporting
shooting are desperately bad enough now, without Royal Mail trying to sink it beyond
trace. We won a Gold Medal in the Olympics for shooting, we could not compete for
others because of current legislation banning the use of certain guns. Royal Mail does not
need to get involved in this morass!
Further, I am absolutely amazed that Royal Mail can afford to consider turning down any
form of business in the current climate. As a pensioner, I have watched the service
deteriorate over the years from a very efficient, reasonably priced, valuable asset to
business and the public at large, to the present shadow of its former self. Its service is
now grossly overpriced! The first mail may arrive late afternoon, (if at all), and the
material coming through the letter box now consists mainly of junk mail, the inept and
ridiculous introduction of sizing letters, killed off much of the birthday card and
Christmas mail, caused chaos to the massively increasing market from on-line buying,
and the recent price hikes for stamps will further reduce this business no doubt. Nothing
in gun spares that can currently be carried by Royal mail constitutes any form of threat to
the world, so why ban it?
Please rethink this very bad idea and revert to doing what Royal Mail used to be good at delivering parcels and packages quickly and securely!
Tony Parker
I am a BASC member and shooting enthusiast and gun collector and am concerned at the
likely impact the Royal Mail's proposals to ban the transportation of guns and their
component parts will
have on my hobby and obviously also the businessess of people involved in the Trade.
Please advise the rationale behind your organisations proposals.
Tony Platts