Gun group sues Dunblane police over lost business

A gun lobby group yesterday announced plans to sue a Scottish police force for alleged negligence over the Dunblane shootings which they claim have cost their industry "millions" of pounds.

The Shooters' Rights Association, which represents gunsmiths and distributors, say the Central Scotland force should not have granted Thomas Hamilton licences for the weapons he used to kill 15 infants and their teacher last March. They claim that as a direct result of this failure on the part of the police the gun industry suffered lost orders and business.

Director Guy Savage said: "The Central Scotland police are the real culprits and have cost millions of pounds and affected thousands of jobs. We want to bring them to book over what they did; or rather what they did not do." Central Scotland police refused to comment on the association's claims.

The announcement, which caused anger among anti-gun campaigners, came on the eve of today's publication by the home affairs select committee of its report on firearms controls and is part of pressure being exerted by the gun lobby in the run up to next month's Cullen report.

A fighting fund, set up by groups representing Britain's one million gun enthusiasts, has so far raised tens of thousands of pounds, some of which has being used to hire a top London PR and lobby firm, John Kendall Associates.

The moves are seen by many observers as a calculated attempt by the gun lobby and industry - thought to be worth pounds 600m a year and employing up to 50,000 people - to influence key decision-makers at a time of great public anger over the abuse of firearms.

Conservative politicians in particular are thought to have been targeted. The six Tory MPs on the select committee are expected to come out against a ban on handguns in today's report, a stance which has already provoked public anger.

A senior Labour source on the committee told The Independent: "The gun lobby didn't come anywhere near me. They clearly have focused their attentions on the Conservatives and it appears to have worked."

Michael Yardley, a former army officer and leading author on weapons, said: "There has been lobbying, quite a lot as far as targeting the Conservative Party is concerned.

"But I think it's bad politics to have targeted the Conservative Party more than the Labour Party. The danger is that this becomes purely a party political issue and a manifesto issue for the Labour Party."

Apart from the behind-the-scenes lobbying at Westminster, gun groups have also adopted more obvious techniques. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has contributed pounds 40,000 to the "fighting fund", is one of a number of such organisations to urge members to write to their MPs, some of whom report fierce lobbying from their local gun clubs.

The decision of the Tory committee members not to call for a ban on handguns is seen as clear political kite-flying to test public reaction.

There is little doubt that if the Cullen report recommends such a ban the Government be hard-pressed to resist it in the face of the current public mood.

The Gun Control Network, which groups together relatives of the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies as well as academics and lawyers, insisted: "This is no time for a timid response ... It looks like a pre-emptive strike on behalf of the shooting lobby and, as such, should be dismissed."