Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 128:"Page 38, line 1, leave out ““In subsection (7) ““modern firearm”””” and insert ““For the purposes of this Act only, the term ““modern firearm”” in subsection (7)””" The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 128 deals with antiques and the definition of dates for antiques. Clause 34 seeks to define the term ““real firearm”” to include only modern firearms and Clause 34(8) defines the term ““modern firearm”” as,"““any firearm other than one the appearance of which would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before the year 1870””." Effectively, this includes as a modern firearm anything designed after 1 January 1870. If 1870 was an inclusive date, the reference would be ““designed in or before””. For the purposes of clarifying what might be a realistic imitation firearm, that dateline may be appropriate, but the definition creates a very real danger of imposing a definition on the term ““antique firearm”” as used in Section 58(2) of the 1968 Act. Whatever the intentions of the Government or of Parliament, it seems highly likely that the courts, in seeking to define the term ““antique firearm”” in a future case, will be referred to this definition and are likely to look at the term ““modern firearm”” as defining the difference between antique firearm and modern firearm. The courts will be supported in that view by the comments made by the Minister in another place:"““I am informed by my officials that that [1870] is the correct cut-off point between what is considered a modern firearm and what is considered an antique firearm””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 260.]" Appellate courts in England have long been regarded as willing to stand the English language on its head in seeking interpretations that strengthen the law on firearms. One might cite Cafferata v Wilson in 1936, et al, which the Scottish Court refused to follow in a detailed and cogent argument in Kelley v Mackinnon 1982 on the grounds that the English courts’ interpretation of the law was ““obviously wrong”” and,"““sought to ascribe to Parliament the intention that the words of these provisions should mean not only what they say but also the opposite of what they say””." There are many other examples. At present, the term ““antique firearm”” has been interpreted by the courts to include many firearms made long after 1869 and Home Office guidance makes it clear that a large array of later firearms should be considered to be antique. The matter was considered by the Home Office in its consultation paper Controls on Firearms of May 2004 at page 14:"““Nothing in the Firearms Acts applies to any ‘antique firearm’ that is held as ‘a curiosity or ornament’. ‘Antique’ is not defined in law but the Home Office provides published guidance on what might constitute an antique gun (also known as the ‘obsolete calibre’ list). This effectively covers those firearms which do not use readily available ammunition. Many antique guns are not particularly attractive to criminals and have not so far featured prominently in crime. Further controls on antiques would only be likely to penalise people with a genuine interest in collecting antique guns. We do not therefore believe that regulatory changes are necessary””." In its response to the 2004 consultation, the gun trade and many other organisations supported that view and until the day on which Clause 35(8) was tabled, that had been considered to be the current policy of the Home Office. The amendment seems to reverse that policy without a word of warning. The number of antique firearms in circulation that fall between the date of 1870 and the effective coverage of Home Office guidance or the current state of the law cannot be accurately stated, but it runs into many hundreds of thousands, with a value of many millions of pounds. All these have been acquired or possessed on the assurance by the Home Office that their possession is legal. A change in the law will reduce the value of these guns by 40 to 50 per cent and the market will rapidly collapse. Trade in this class of antiques will be limited to the export trade, museums and a very few collectors who are exempt. Existing collections or individual weapons will lose much of their value and their owners are likely to seek compensation. There is a general consensus, obviously shared by the Home Office as late as May 2004, that such antique firearms pose no significant hazard to public safety and that any such legislation would harm only the law abiding. It may be argued that the fact that the definition of ““modern firearm”” is used in a restricted context in this Bill only means that it can not be applied more widely. If that is the case, there is no reason not to make that clear in the Bill. This amendment seeks only clarity of interpretation and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.