The availability of section 1 firearms

---

9.77   Evidence was given as to how to achieve restriction to single shot. Mr Paton and Mr Alexander W Dalgleish, a registered firearms dealer and gunsmith, gave evidence as to the practicability of this operation. They described a number of techniques which could be used in order to deal with pistols, depending on whether the magazine was detachable or integral. However, they considered that there was no method which would prevent a pistol from being re-converted with relative ease. Mr Paton added that the handling and in particular the loading of a pistol which had been converted to single shot might also be difficult, if not dangerous. The conversion of a revolver could be accomplished by blocking all but one of the chambers or by removing the dividing walls until only one complete chamber was left. Mr Paton said that the latter course was probably more secure against re-conversion but repeated firing in one chamber might create such stresses within the remaining sections as to make it a dangerous practice. Mr Dalgleish added that with the former method it would be necessary to ensure that the single chamber was strong enough as the welding could result in the annealing of the steel, even if it was carefully carried out. I consider that the permanent restriction of multi-shot handguns is impracticable and in any event it would in certain cases be ineffective.

9.78   Another approach is to consider restricting the capacity of magazines of self-loading pistols. Almost all pistols which are in private ownership and available for purchase have magazines which will hold a larger number of rounds than is required for a particular course of fire in competitions. Such a course commonly involves 5 or 6 rounds. As I mentioned earlier they may be used with magazines which hold up to 20 or more rounds. It would therefore be necessary to consider dealing with those already in use as well as those that may be sold in the future.

9.79   As regards those in use, the alternatives are confiscation or modification to a smaller capacity. One immediate problem is the fact that probably there are several hundred thousand in circulation. They do not have serial numbers. They are not recorded on firearm certificates. There is and has been no limit to the number which may be purchased at any time. Deactivated firearms are an additional source of them. The opportunities for evasion would be considerable. Mr Penn said that it would be possible to restrict the capacity of individual magazines by crimping their sides or inserting a pillar. However, neither method was irreversible. As regards new magazines, the fact that they were freely available on the continent of Europe meant that a shooter who was determined to acquire large-capacity magazines would have no difficulty in so doing.

9.80   However, all these considerations are subject to the important point, which I noted earlier, that it takes only a few seconds for a shooter to change a magazine. Thus reducing the capacity of magazines or making illegal the sale of magazines which were greater than a certain capacity would have little overall effect on the speed with which a large number of shots could be fired.

Temporarily disabling multi-shot handguns

9.81   With a view to making handguns less readily usable by their owners and potential thieves it was suggested that they should be temporarily disabled by the removal of magazines, where they were detachable, when the shooter left the club range. The magazines would be retained by club officials and restored to the owner when he next wanted to shoot. This would have the effect that for the time being the handguns would be inoperable, with the exception of those pistols which were so designed that the absence of the magazine did not prevent them being used as single shot pistols. The fact that a huge number of magazines are already in existence and unrecorded leaves ample scope for evasion even if new legislation required that magazines should be entered on firearm certificates. This would not be an effective method of restricting availability.

9.82   Another possibility which was canvassed was the removal of the firing pins. However, this is essentially unsuitable for routine dismantling. Removal can be technically difficult. In the case of pistols the pins consist of small pieces of machined metal. They are liable to fracture and replacements can be obtained without a firearm certificate. In the case of revolvers the pin is often an integral part of the hammer or may be riveted to it. Removal of the pin carries with it the risk of damaging the gun or losing a small component from the mechanism. A gun owner who was bent on mischief could keep a spare firing pin at home and, if he was technically confident, he could use it to reactivate his gun when he wanted.

9.83   I next consider the removal of major components of multi-shot handguns, and in particular the slides of pistols and the cylinders of revolvers. These components require the production of a firearm certificate for their replacement. This was advocated in a subsidiary submission by Mr Andrew Gibb, who represented the family of Mrs Mayor and members of the teaching staff of Dunblane Primary School, although his primary submission was in support of the Dunblane Snowdrop Petition.

9.84   Mr Paton and Mr Penn were in agreement that the generality of pistols were designed to be field stripped, ie broken down into separate components, for cleaning purposes; and that the generality of revolvers were capable of being easily dismantled. In each case the handgun would be rendered inoperable.

9.85   In his evidence Mr Paton explained that self-loading pistols were so designed that their dismantling did not require specialist assistance. In most cases this involved the removal of the slide assembly without the use of special tools. He demonstrated at the Inquiry how the removal of the slide on a 9 mm Browning pistol took 2 or 3 seconds. He said that the majority of pistols would not take much longer than that. The user who knew what he was doing would be able to dismantle a pistol. However, care had to be taken not to dislodge small parts lest they be lost. There would be no risk of degradation with repeated dismantling.

9.86   Mr Penn said that he agreed broadly with the evidence of Mr Paton. There were very few pistols which did not have a slide. One exception was the Luger .22 pistol which had a bolt instead of a slide. This pistol was not well designed for the easy removal of the bolt. It was a difficult operation but its repeated removal should not cause damage to the gun. Mr Penn pointed out that some pistols had the barrel permanently attached to the frame but the detaching of the slide would be sufficient to disable them. However, in the case particularly of many high precision .22 pistols the removal of the slide was not recommended unless the gun malfunctioned and required disassembly for cleaning. Repeated disassembly involved disruption of carefully tuned components and would very quickly impair the accuracy for which they were designed. Such pistols were not developed for military service and ease of dismantling played little if any part as a consideration in their design.

9.87   As regards revolvers Mr Paton demonstrated at the Inquiry that the cylinder in a solid frame revolver could be easily removed and replaced in a matter of seconds by withdrawing the axis pin and lifting out the cylinder. In the case of the "break action" revolver the operation was slightly more complicated and required the use of a screwdriver. The safety or accuracy of the revolver would not be affected if this was done regularly. Revolvers which had a "swing out" cylinder also required the removal of a screw, in this case a fairly small one.

9.88   As I have already said Mr Penn expressed general agreement with Mr Paton. However, he pointed out that some revolvers of the "break action" were not designed to allow easy removal of the cylinder. Small parts, especially springs, could easily be lost. The majority of revolvers in current production had a "swing out" cylinder which, together with the arm on which the cylinder rotated, could be removed by undoing a screw set in the frame although it was not intended (for reasons of maintaining accuracy and avoiding undue wear and tear) that such removal be at all frequent.

9.89   At this point I should add that in their final submission the BSSC drew my attention to evidence which was given to the Home Affairs Committee at its hearing on 8 May 1996 on the subject of the dismantling of "guns". At that hearing Mr Jim Sharples, Chief Constable of Merseyside Constabulary and President of ACPO said that, as he understood it, there could be problems with dismantling guns. They could be damaged very easily. A lot of those weapons were expensive and he thought that there were some practical difficulties with dismantling weapons and keeping different components in different places. Inspector Brian Tolley, Firearms and Explosives Officer with West Mercia Constabulary, agreed and said that it was not advisable to pull guns backwards and forwards. They wore, they became loose and it would cause a few serious problems with target weapons. They could become a danger by becoming loose and worn very quickly, other than the bolts from rifles which could be stored elsewhere. Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie agreed and said that he thought that it was easy to separate them from the ammunition (Q37-38).

9.90   Whatever may have been covered by the expression "guns" I can find no suggestion in the evidence of Mr Paton or Mr Penn that dismantling and re-assembling self-loading pistols and revolvers could give rise to danger. Neither was any suggestion of possible danger mentioned in the relevant part of the Green Book (Part II, paras 109-115). Mr Paton and Mr Penn are both highly experienced firearms experts and I fully accept their evidence. I do not have the slightest doubt that if Mr Penn had considered that there could be danger he would have said so. I do not overlook the fact that in his written statement Mr Terry McCarthy, who gave evidence about shooting clubs and competition disciplines, stated that while many guns could be dismantled into separate major components, there were also many guns constructed in such a way as to make separation into components difficult, if not impossible, for anyone except a skilled gunsmith. He added that constant disassembly/reassembly would have an adverse effect on the durability and accuracy of the firearm and could present serious safety hazards if not carried out with exemplary skill and care. The guns to which this comment refers were not further specified and it may be that his statement referred to single shot handguns, to which different considerations may apply. In any event I prefer the evidence of Mr Paton and Mr Penn.

9.91   However, Mr Penn went on to observe that if it was accepted that there should be circumstances in which a shooter should be allowed to recover the "missing" component and take it away so that he or she could compete elsewhere there would have to be a system by which club officials or other responsible persons would check that he or she had indeed entered into the competition in question. However, it would be a simple matter for a shooter who was planning to kill to use his or her entry into a competition as an excuse for reassembling the handgun and thus circumvent the checks. Thus a requirement for separate storage of component parts - without an absolute and effective ban on their removal from the place of storage, which could not be justified - would never prevent a scheming, cunning and premeditating killer such as Thomas Hamilton from acquiring the component he needed to fulfil his purpose. Such a person could acquire the necessary component from the stock of illegally held firearms or from abroad. In the latter connection he mentioned the obtaining of components in the United States, Finland and certain cantons in Switzerland.

9.92   In their Report the Home Affairs Committee dealt with the dismantling of weapons as follows:

"Another possibility raised in evidence would be to ban the possession of assembled handguns at anywhere other than licensed premises (such as shooting ranges). Some parts of each firearm would have to be stored centrally, to prevent owners from re-assembling firearms illegally. This suggestion received little support. ACPO recognised that there was a danger of damage being done to weapons if they were to be constantly dismantled and re-assembled; weapons could become loose and worn, possibly becoming dangerous. Some types of firearm are almost impossible for anyone but a gunsmith or a very experienced owner to strip. Shooters would still carry assembled weapons when travelling to shoot elsewhere. We do not favour the proposal for possession of assembled handguns to be banned other than at licensed premises".

9.93   In the light of the evidence of Mr Paton and Mr Penn I am satisfied that the dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers would in general be practicable. The exceptions would be for those cases, which appear to be relatively few, in which the operation was either too difficult or would tend to impair the accuracy of the handgun. On the other hand, if shooters were still to retain the ability to use their handguns at other ranges, this would make it difficult to exclude all possibility of the misuse of the handgun by its owner.

9.94   Evidence was also given by Mr Paton about fitting barrel blocks which would fit and be locked within the barrels of self-loading pistols and revolvers. There was little doubt that it would be possible for them to be manufactured. Such blocks were already available for shot guns to prevent third parties using the gun. He had been unable to find anyone who manufactured blocks for pistols or revolvers but he was in no doubt that it would be simple for them to be made. One part of the device would fit into the chamber and the other into the front of the barrel with a locking device at the muzzle end. This would prevent ammunition from being placed in the chamber or fired. The design and tamper-resistance of such a device would be a matter of some importance. In addition there would require to be adequate provision of padding in order to limit any damage to the rifling inside the barrel which would impair the accuracy of the handgun.

The banning of the possession by individuals of multi-shot handguns

9.95   This is the course of action which is advocated by ACPO-S in the form of a recommendation that "all multi-shot pistols be raised to the prohibited category", ie so that they would fall within section 5 of the 1968 Act. However, as Chief Constable Cameron explained in evidence, ACPO-S envisaged that the Secretary of State would authorise such handguns to be possessed by shooting clubs where they would be stored. Both ACPO-S and ACPO recommend that the handguns in respect of which firearm certificates may be granted for target shooting should be restricted to a single shot and to .22 calibre. The Police Federation of England and Wales advocate that the private possession of all handguns should be banned. It may be noted that the position of ACPO has changed since the hearing before the Home Affairs Committee on 8 May. At that time their position was that a prohibition on the licensed possession of hand guns was impracticable. Giving ACPO's views to the Committee Mr Sharples acknowledged that Great Britain featured in national/international, European and Olympic events and that the use of handguns in connection with that sporting interest was extensive. A complete ban of handguns would cause significant difficulties for a very substantial law-abiding element in the country who pursued quite proper sporting activities (Q19).

9.96   The practicability of such a measure was not questioned save in one respect. It was suggested that the EC Weapons Directive (91/447/EEC) would prevent the implementation of such a ban. This Directive provided for the partial harmonisation of Member States' domestic firearms controls in order to reach consistency in regard to minimum standards. However, it allows Member States to maintain or introduce domestic controls which are more stringent than those standards, provided that the European Commission and other Member States are advised accordingly. Thus, as I understand the position, the Directive does not prevent this country from introducing such a ban. The Directive is due to be reviewed by the European Commission by the end of 1997. This will provide an opportunity for the Government to put its case for altering any of the prohibitions which apply to all Member States if it sees a case for so doing.

9.97   As I have already indicated in the first part of the chapter it was questioned whether any restriction on the legal availability of firearms would be effective. It was suggested that the owners of handguns which were currently in lawful possession might avoid confiscation by causing them to "disappear". Examples of this phenomenon were drawn by some commentators from the past history of firearms control in this country and in Germany. Even if the withdrawal of lawfully held handguns was achieved, professional criminals and others who were bent on mischief could obtain illegal handguns. Further there was a risk that by process of "displacement" they might resort to the use of other types of firearm, such as shot guns, which were capable of delivering shots which were more devastating; or to other methods of destruction such as bombs. There was nothing to suggest that the banning of self-loading rifles under the 1988 Act (which had led to the confiscation of Thomas Hamilton's rifle) had prevented the happening of anything that was worse than occurred. The same points also apply to the proposal that the handguns in respect of which firearm certificates may be granted for target shooting should be restricted to .22 calibre.

9.98   None of these points can be dismissed from consideration. However given that lawfully held handguns are identified in firearm certificates, the opportunity for them to "disappear" is much less than if they were not identified at all. I have already rejected the contention that legally held firearms are of no significance in regard to the commission of crime; and expressed the view that the arguments in support of weapon substitution are overstated. I am not convinced that a restriction on the availability of handguns would actually lead to an increase in injury. I am satisfied that a ban on the possession of multi-shot handguns would have some effect on the incidence of serious crime.