18 Dec 17 – UKSN’s author has come across an illuminating blog post from a firearms barrister; the sort of lawyer who you absolutely wouldn’t want to have fighting your corner in a dispute with the State.
Barrister Stephen Twist published a post a couple of years ago on the Firearms (Amendment)(No.2) Act 1997, which came to UKSN’s attention while looking up a couple of the act’s provisions. It appears our learned friend thinks the pistol ban didn’t go far enough:
“Readers will be aware of this blogger’s preoccupation with guns as instruments of death. Its right to say that, as a former certificate holder, I was never fully comfortable with owning a firearm. As an English barrister dealing with a barrage of firearms cases for several police authorities, I became even more sensitive to the issues of ownership, use and abuse…”
“Restricting the lawful possession of handguns here in the UK after 17 deaths at Dunblane, has been of massive value in saving lives and changing public opinion. The Great British public have little issue with the fact that handguns are no longer permitted outside gun shooting clubs…”
“Perhaps, with regard to the ‘home gun market’, now is the time to insist (in addition to a gun amnesty) that every registered certificate holder has compulsory insurance against all of the implications of their weapon entering the wrong hands?”
Be sure to demand a change of barrister if you ever find your solicitor about to instruct this fellow. Doubtless his views are sincere, if not a little ill-informed. Equally, while all lawyers are more than happy to bore for England about how their personal views don’t flow into their work, would you trust this man to argue against a certificate revocation on your behalf, knowing what he really thinks about the shooting sports? UKSN’s author certainly wouldn’t.