Author Topic: ******** Letters for your MP - SEND NOW ************  (Read 24745 times)

June 26, 2011, 08:21:47 pm
Read 24745 times

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 538
    • View Profile
Join us in sending a letter to your MP, either via email, post or fax. Provided below are several generic letters. You are encouraged to add your own experiences and personalize it in any way you can.  The important thing is that EVERYONE send in one form or another.



*Important - when using the WriteToThem  website, use only letters written in your own words - duplicates are blocked. You can however simply rephrase the ones below*

You can find your MP and send via http://www.writetothem.com

You can find their address and personal contact details via http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

*Find their email in the list above if you wish to use the letters below*



(Tip - hand write your letter to give it a personal touch - Duplicate letters are easy to disregard, but a personal, well thought out letter is more difficult to ignore)

-----------------------------------------------



Dear Mr/Mrs/ Ms


 
Self Defence and Non-lethal weapons
 
I am writing to express my wish for non-lethal self defence weapons, such as pepper spray, electronic stun guns, and rubber bullet and CS gas pistols to be legalized in the UK. Most countries in Europe allow the purchase and carry of all of the items mentioned including France, Germany and Switzerland. In fact, only 7 out of 27 European Union states outlaw possession of pepper sprays, which includes the UK and Ireland.

Currently, a person in the UK cannot carry any item for self-defence in public, as it is prohibited by the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and the items mentioned by the Firearms Act 1968. The UK's Violent crime rate is among the highest in Europe and this combined with a lack of any effective means of self defence results in a law abiding population at the mercy of increasingly armed criminals. In the wake of cuts to public services being recently announced, I fear this situation can only get worse.

I would feel much safer walking the streets at night if I were permitted to carry an item for self-defence such as a can of pepper spray. Many other people I have spoken to share this sentiment and have expressed concern about the complete lack of legally available items for self-defence use, especially as nearly every other country allows at least one of these items to be sold and carried.

I urge you to lobby fellow members of parliament to support this and to bring this issue up with the relevant government minister to request that sections of the relevant Acts be amended or repealed to allow the possession and sale of the above mentioned items. I would be very interested in hearing from you with regards to your views on this matter and look forward to your reply.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Your signature                                                                            
Print name



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Mr/Mrs/ Ms
 
Firearms Control


Being a keen sports shooting enthusiast, a number of issues with firearms legislation have been brought to my attention which have a profound effect on myself and those who partake in shooting related hobbies. I am writing to express both mine and the wider shooting community's wish for both full bore self loading rifles and pistols to be removed from section.5 of the Firearms Act and placed back into Section.1, allowing ownership upon grant of a firearms certificate. This was the case before 1988 for self loading rifles and before 1997 for pistols.

Currently our Olympic pistol team cannot legally train in the UK and must go to Switzerland or France due to pistols being moved to sec.5 of the Firearms Act. A prohibition this tight does absolutely nothing to improve public safety and only serves to restrict otherwise lawful sporting activities by the law abiding.

I would also like to see a fairer licencing system for firearms listed under section.1 of the Act. It would be much more efficient and would not compromise public safety to licence these in the same way shotgun certificates are granted. If a person can be granted a shotgun certificate when certain security and criminal background requirements are met, then there is no reason why that same person should not be able to have a rifle under those same conditions.

It is also a view shared by myself and many in the shooting and reenacting community that muzzle loading black powder firearms should not be subject to obtaining a firearm or shotgun certificate, as is the case with crossbows and bow & arrows. Flintlocks and matchlock muskets are obsolete by hundreds of years and are entirely ignored by the criminal element in society. Antique muzzle loading firearms made before 1939 can already be purchased without a certificate and the licencing of those made past this date simply puts strain on police resources and offers no increase public safety. In fact, most European countries allow these to be purchased freely by persons over the age of 18.

I urge you to discuss this matter with fellow members of parliament and to bring these addressed issues up with the relevant government minister to request that sections of the Firearms Act be amended or repealed to cater to the above requests. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter, and of any opinions on this you may have.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Your signature                                                                            
Print name




« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 07:39:45 pm by Admin »

June 28, 2011, 10:49:40 am
Reply #1

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 538
    • View Profile
You'll get a nicely typed letter on headed paper from the House of Commons, thanking you for your letter and going on to say basically nothing in long-winded terms. It's unlikely the MP themselves will ever actually see your letter.


It usually takes a while, but many of us have had replies on this issue - some positive.

On a large scale, it most definitely is not a futile move for the little effort it takes to send.

June 28, 2011, 11:16:05 am
Reply #2

Roughdiamond

  • *
  • Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 7
    • View Profile
In 1953, both the Attorney General (Lord Saltoun ) & the Home Secretary ( Maxwell FFyfe), emphatically stated that any legislation would recognise the right of the public to be armed for their self defence.Parliament unlawfully legislated against Common Law.
In the case in the High Court Regina v Home Office ex parte Michael James Burke ( on appeal ) the Law Lords stated that the right to carry defensive arms ( knife, baton etc ) were lawful and also lawful for the persons duty under Common law to prevent breaches of the peace and dignity of our sovereign lady, Eliz 2nd. In fact whatever the police carry, then so can Joe Public.
The recent book"Does the trigger pull the finger?"explains these facts, and is freely available to be inserted within this website.
Parliament is slowly realising the true facts, but will it allow us to carry such arms, as they have for many years imposed the Emergency powers act, holding Common Law in abeyance.Since Britain signed the United Nations treaty in 1946, there is ( clause 41 ) the right for this U.N.  to suspend the Constitutions, laws, Common laws, of each member state whilst war is in process, hence the ever frequent creation of "war" with so many minor tinpot regimes as Libya, in order to perpetuate this "War" standing.We are, and have been duped for years.

June 28, 2011, 03:46:24 pm
Reply #3

Roughdiamond

  • *
  • Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 7
    • View Profile
Quote
Just found it on Amazon. I'll order a copy...Thanks mate.   ;)

As an after thought, that begs the question why didn't the UN insist that the USA follow suit and suspend their 2 amendment rights during times of conflict ?

Mind you,  IANSA seem to be having go!

Philm,
I think the Admin may think we digress from the subject, but yes, during the Roosevelt presidency, he asked Congress to bestow upon him unlimited powers in tim e of war of national emergency, after 1946 these powers have been used widely especially under their latest "Terrorism " scare.Quite rightly, as you state the 2nd amended hasn't been suspended ,...yet, but it has been intruded upon as regards certain firearm and carraige.
Good thing though each independent state is now seeking self determination and not obliged to acceded to federal legislation.So in effect, whatever treaty was signed by presidential power, would not be recognised by that states own legislature.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 08:50:15 pm by Admin »

June 28, 2011, 05:33:12 pm
Reply #4

Buzz-Rision

  • Tech
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Tiger Ryder

  • 978
  • Personal Text
    An armed society is a polite society...
    • View Profile

June 29, 2011, 09:27:53 pm
Reply #5

Peppersprayuser

  • *
  • Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 18
    • View Profile
As I've had first-hand experience of defending myself with pepper spray, I'll draft something and get it sent off asap.

July 04, 2011, 04:16:12 pm
Reply #6

pilingswivel

  • *
  • Gun Wise

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 152
    • View Profile
I've got my letter written and will send it ASAP! :)
"Touch not the cat but a glove." Motto of Clan Macpherson

"This is the lower sling swivel. And this is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see, when you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel, which in your case you have not got."
From 'Naming Of Parts' , by Henry Reed

July 16, 2011, 02:00:50 am
Reply #7

that frightful gun-owner

  • *
  • Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 56
  • Personal Text
    Mark it zero!
    • View Profile
I'm doing it anyway tomorrow, but is it too late to send out now?
'who elected these goddamn swine anyway?'

July 16, 2011, 02:16:01 am
Reply #8

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 538
    • View Profile
Absolutely not - This is still very much on-going.

Petitions will be running on the new official government website this month - a follow up letter could include these petitions. Should we get endorsement from various MPs, we'll be gaining ground.

July 17, 2011, 07:08:41 pm
Reply #9

pilingswivel

  • *
  • Gun Wise

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 152
    • View Profile
"Touch not the cat but a glove." Motto of Clan Macpherson

"This is the lower sling swivel. And this is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see, when you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel, which in your case you have not got."
From 'Naming Of Parts' , by Henry Reed

July 17, 2011, 09:03:07 pm
Reply #10

Ali3nat0r

  • Tech
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1,449
    • View Profile
I sent mine off a couple of weeks ago, and so far have only had a generic "thank you for your letter, Mr Lloyd will contact you as soon as he can" reply. I imagine it will take a while to get a proper response.

July 29, 2011, 03:17:42 pm
Reply #11

Morpheus

  • *
  • Gun Wise

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 113
    • View Profile
Changing any legislation once enacted has many implications and ramifications to many other acts of parliament that one Act might refer or rely upon another. Most politicians and those drafting any changes would rather not revisit anything, its far easier to focus on fresh legislation and current topics. I can not wait to hear what the firearms consultative committee have to say in their final report.....it wont be a reduction on controls i can assure you of that, more like a strengthening of existing controls with scope to extend it without parliaments consultation. "After all, we must do everything we can to reduce the risk of someone committing another a dunblane or hungerford". I wrote to the Home Office an asked why after the handgun ban of 1997 has armed crime with handguns increased ?  The response was the ban wasn't intened to reduce armed crime generally.... but simply to reduce the risk of another firearm certificate holder using a handgun to committ another atrocty like dunblane. I suppose in that narrow minded sense, its worked !  :-\
"Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus"
(We are slaves of the law in order that we may be able to be free.)

July 29, 2011, 04:02:00 pm
Reply #12

Ali3nat0r

  • Tech
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1,449
    • View Profile
The response was the ban wasn't intened to reduce armed crime generally.... but simply to reduce the risk of another firearm certificate holder using a handgun to committ another atrocty like dunblane. I suppose in that narrow minded sense, its worked !  :-\

At least they were open and honest about it.

June 26, 2013, 10:52:59 am
Reply #13

Crimefree

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 643
    • View Profile
Very complex subject this stuff...

Your rights are not very complex at all.  Do you want them or not is the only question.

June 26, 2013, 11:38:11 am
Reply #14

Stephen

  • *
  • Master of the five stringed banjo

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 374
    • View Profile
I wrote to the Home Office an asked why after the handgun ban of 1997 has armed crime with handguns increased ?  The response was the ban wasn't intened to reduce armed crime generally.... but simply to reduce the risk of another firearm certificate holder using a handgun to committ another atrocty like dunblane. I suppose in that narrow minded sense, its worked !  :-\

That is what is said now, but it wasn't what was said at the time of the ban.  In 1998, Alun Michael was reported in Hansard to have said "By this measure [the handgun ban] we take guns off the street", which was a flat out lie.  The only guns being affected were those in locked firearms cabinets.  The ban was sold as a general crime reduction measure.  If it had been sold as simply a means of preventing another atrocity with a legally held pistol then people might have questioned the need for the law, since such events were so incredibly rare - one such incident in more than 80 years of firearms licensing. 

June 28, 2013, 08:00:06 pm
Reply #15

RifledJustice

  • Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 66
    • View Profile
But wasn't there police concerns over Thomas Hamilton's mental state months before the massacre but were shrugged off by senior officers? I don't know if that's true or not, but if that is, then if someone did their job properly we'd wouldn't have had this tragedy.

Don't forget the case has a 100 year gagging order, which raises some very suspicious questions.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 11:25:33 am by RifledJustice »

June 30, 2013, 10:15:42 am
Reply #16

Crimefree

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 643
    • View Profile
But wasn't there police concerns over Thomas Hamilton's metal state months before the massacre but were shrugged off by senior officers? I don't know if that's true or not, but if that is, then if someone did their job properly we'd wouldn't have had this tragedy.

Don't forget the case has a 100 year gagging order, which raises some very suspicious questions.

Correct all gagging orders are not for the good of the public that is for sure.  It's always to cover up.

November 28, 2013, 02:21:49 pm
Reply #17

Jackblack

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 1
    • View Profile

November 28, 2013, 10:29:28 pm
Reply #18

RomanA

  • *
  • Campaigner

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1,724
    • View Profile
    • UK Gunroom e-comerce
The answer to 1984 is 1776


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

Benjamin Franklin (January 17th 1706 ? April 17th 1790)

September 26, 2015, 12:00:46 pm
Reply #19

sako TRG22

  • Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 61
    • View Profile
I think they will probably bs top reading as soon as they read the word weapon