Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Earl of Shrewsbury and Earl of Cork and Orrery

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th February 2019 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Cork and Orrery (CB)]

I object to some parts of the amendment. There are two or three areas where there is insufficient attention to detail for it to supersede the original Bill. For a start, there is a question about MARS and lever action which, as has just been raised, is used by target shooters in international competition. This is an important aspect of Paralympic competition and normal shooting competitions, so we do not want to catch those weapons in the amendment. Another item left out from the amendment, I suspect by mistake, relates to a prohibition on the use of .22 rimfire semi-automatic rifles, which are widely used for vermin control and the like. That certainly should be in the amendment. Another point is that although the amendment refers to,

“a calibre greater than .45 inches”,

there are quite large numbers of rifles out there—

[The Earl of Shrewsbury]

My Lords, I do not think that .22 calibres are caught. I think the noble Earl is incorrect there.

[The Earl of Cork and Orrery]

As I read it, the amendment does not refer to the .22 calibre whereas a similar paragraph in the Bill does.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Shrewsbury]

My Lords, I think that may be a typographic error. It should refer to the .22.

[The Earl of Cork and Orrery]

Typographic error or no, it is not in there. Going back to large-calibre rifles, quite a lot of people get much fun out of remarkable things such as black-powder, muzzle-loader and Snider .577 rifles, which are far larger but have very low effects. Again, more detail is required to ensure that these sort of things can be legally held.