An extract from chapter 9

The availability of section 1 firearms

---

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.