Paul Murphy (Paul.Murphy@gemini-research.co.uk)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:23:58 +0000
>Will the line be to resist the imposition of any legislation, or to
>accept restrictions down the scale provided that there is no actual
ban
>per se?
There has to be a sliding scale on this, with a healthy dose of
reality.
To start with, any suggestion of a ban on edged weapons would perhaps
be resisted in its entirety using common sense arguments - there are
lots out there, it would cost a lot of money to compensate the owners
for their loss, it impacts re-enactment (which is a major tourist draw),
it also impacts martial artists and antiques collectors, and at the end
of the day, anyone can buy a 3ft length of sping steel, grind the edge
down, and turn it into an edged weapon. By a logical extension, the
purchase of steel plate, and angle or bench grinders, would have to be
made illegal. Making your own pistol is slightly more complicated
(though a basic matchlock is easy enough, which is why the propellant is
limited by licencing requirements), so a ban on these was seen as
workable.
If the government decided that it was determined to push through some
sort of ban despite these arguments, the next stage would be to agree
that some form of controls are necessary, but that these should be
addressing the main issue with as little fallout as possible on those
whose use of edged weapons is responsible. As a result, this may lead
to a licencing requirement, since a ban on the sale of sharp weapons is
ludicrous (anyone can use a grindstone or whetstone), and a ban on the
sale of all edged weapons affects the responsible owners as well. The
overheads of running a licencing scheme would be likely to result in
such a plan being blocked by the Treasury, but if it happened, it would
probably be better for re-enactment to argue _for_ such a scheme (which
included re-enactment as a legitimate use) than to argue against it if
it seems likely to go through despite our protests.
If it came to this, the licencing terms would probably be similar to
those for firearms, so anyone with mental health problems or a criminal
record would be banned from holding a licence. However, I would stress
that this is unlikely to happen.
>>Should it come to this, I would urge that any re-enactors and
societies
>>who will be affected should either join NAReS or get behind any
NAReS
>>action, as we are more likely to be listened to if we present a
single,
>>rational face with a consistent message, but which is backed by the
>>basic premise that we represent a total of 40,000+ adult voters.
>This is a refreshing change from the NAReS policy during the
firearms
>debate. Thank God someone has woken up to the fact that Governments
>don't like the people they represent owning ANY weapons!
I don't think they're overly bothered - the guy on Sunday was also
carrying a kitchen knife, but I doubt whether Sabatier, Richardson, et
al are quaking about the possibility of their product being banned. At
the end of the day, the only thing which bothers politicians is whether
they will be re-elected, and so it may very well be the case that they
can get more votes in a marginal constituency by advocating a ban.
Across the country as a whole, this may not hold true, and so the party
as a whole has tothink carefully about their stance. If we can
influence that stance even marginally, it may make a difference. That's
why I'm keeping an eye on the press and parliamentary proceedings...
Paul.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Murphy - Head of I.T., Gemini Research Ltd
162 Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0GH
Tel. 01223 435305 Fax. 01223 435301
http://www.gemini-research.co.uk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:30:52 GMT