mossberg-operator Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/gun-licences-the-future-49405 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Hmm indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Victims get flagged up and review your suitability? This article should be measured on the Bristol chart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 The great prince bishops county of Durham Is spreading south we were obviously the test county before it speeds to the rest of the UK I actually agree with it. If you are not medically or for some other fit to hold a licence it should be taken off you ..and if that involves you Dr informing the police so be it...why would anyone be against this unless they have something to hide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les*1066 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Bring it on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) The great prince bishops county of Durham Is spreading south we were obviously the test county before it speeds to the rest of the UK I actually agree with it. If you are not medically or for some other fit to hold a licence it should be taken off you ..and if that involves you Dr informing the police so be it...why would anyone be against this unless they have something to hide I believe some are concerned having your medical records tagged would divulge the fact you probably hold firearms at your address and that it could be a security risk. Also that it might put people seeking medical help because they fear losing their ticket. Surely a lot of those fears could be addressed by building a good and trusting patient \ doctor relationship? Have to say I agree with it too and especially the 10 year ticket, but then I trust my doctor and we get on well (he shoots). Edited November 16, 2015 by MartynGT4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenhunter Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) The great prince bishops county of Durham Is spreading south we were obviously the test county before it speeds to the rest of the UK I actually agree with it. If you are not medically or for some other fit to hold a licence it should be taken off you ..and if that involves you Dr informing the police so be it...why would anyone be against this unless they have something to hide There is, of course, the Big Brother aspect! Privacy and all that. My doctor shoots, so it goes without saying, he will be fully aware if I become unsuitable to hold licenses. There's also a principle too....the police are there to uphold the law as is deemed by parliament and not to make their own variation. GH Edited November 16, 2015 by Greenhunter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I believe some are concerned having your medical records tagged would divulge the fact you probably hold firearms at your address and that it could be a security risk. Also that it might put people seeking medical help because they fear losing their ticket. Surely a lot of those fears could be addressed by building a good and trusting patient \ doctor relationship? Have to say I agree with it too and especially the 10 year ticket, but then I trust my doctor and we get on well (he shoots). Would appear that we are to be put on a par with terrorists, the only difference being that we will be paying for the surveillance operation! Silly me always believing that us shooters were a national asset, got to watch out though it might be seen as an indication that my mind is going! “In God We Trust” all others are subject to various human failings regardless of their position within society! So did ‘Shipman’ but he apparently ‘Shot-up’! Edited November 16, 2015 by STOTTO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 I believe some are concerned having your medical records tagged would divulge the fact you probably hold firearms at your address and that it could be a security risk. Also that it might put people seeking medical help because they fear losing their ticket. Surely a lot of those fears could be addressed by building a good and trusting patient \ doctor relationship? Have to say I agree with it too and especially the 10 year ticket, but then I trust my doctor and we get on well (he shoots). I particularly enjoyed the bit about an encoded mark showing up you had firearms, a code that would need to be understood by everyone that used that database so rendering it's code status as moot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted November 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 On the 10 year licence, pls read back the article, it is a very vague promice. if, when, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The great prince bishops county of Durham Is spreading south we were obviously the test county before it speeds to the rest of the UK I actually agree with it. If you are not medically or for some other fit to hold a licence it should be taken off you ..and if that involves you Dr informing the police so be it...why would anyone be against this unless they have something to hide It has nothing to do with it being tested by Durham. Durham ****** up monumentally ( Atherton ) and tried to introduce the compulsory GP's letter in a cynical and contrived **** covering exercise to be seen to be 'on the ball', whereas if they really had been on the ball to the extent it is now belatedly being proposed, they wouldn't have returned firearms repeatedly to a person who was clearly extremely unsuitable to own them. 24/7 365 monitoring ? A helluva soundbite, obviously designed to impress the unknowledgeable media and equally unknowledgeable general public, and maybe one or two naively gullible politicians, but in reality, how is it going to be achieved? As I posted on here over a year ago following a conversation with BASC's Mike Eveleigh, the Police have been pushing for compulsory GP's reports, paid for by the applicant, for some time, with the full knowledge of our shooting organisations, and those organisations have been pushing for a 10 year licence, 'as a compromise'. The compulsory GP's report isn't something our organisations have been able to prevent; the Police have had this agenda for some time, and in the words of a senior BASC representative 'there is nothing we can do about it'. The only objection I have to it is that it is yet another obstacle ( with attached expenditure ) to face potential applicants, and a major obstacle to an existing firearms owner from seeking help when he or she is faced with redundancy/bereavement/marriage break up or any other temporary mental trauma which they feel may well reflect upon their licenses. How the hell are law abiding shooters going to be monitored 24/7 365? How is a compulsory GP's letter going to ensure the protection of the general public ( the sole purpose of the licensing scheme) to a higher extreme than it is already? 24/7 365 ? It's a joke, and not a very funny one. Chip chip chip....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 , or come to the attention of the police either as the perpetrator or a victim of crime, what should happen is that you will get flagged up to your licensing department, who should review your suitability. Hmmm indeed x 2. So a victim of crime should be screened to their suitability to possess firearms too? Does this somehow imply that being a victim is somehow culpable in some irresponsible way? it seems so or why would it have been so clearly stated. Any excuse to lower the number of firearms owners it seems. This is not helpful nor is it right and any moves along these lines should be hard fought through our shooting organisations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 , or come to the attention of the police either as the perpetrator or a victim of crime, what should happen is that you will get flagged up to your licensing department, who should review your suitability. Hmmm indeed x 2. So a victim of crime should be screened to their suitability to possess firearms too? Does this somehow imply that being a victim is somehow culpable in some irresponsible way? it seems so or why would it have been so clearly stated. Any excuse to lower the number of firearms owners it seems. This is not helpful nor is it right and any moves along these lines should be hard fought through our shooting organisations. Nope, it means they may be vengeful and after firearms for a bit of retribution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 When i read this stuff it reminds me of my time in Government or any work with Health and safety. Ask the question and everyone has to cover their back and pass responsibility. If these approaches were ever applied to more populous activities (driving) there would soon be uproar about interference of the state and the role of the police. The record of gun crime in this country is excellent but the more we review and refine the tighter the noose will get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeadWasp Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 As for the funding question why shouldn't the general public/state bear the burden? To start with it is the state, in the name of the 'public' which demands that we are licensed. Don't get me wrong as I think that licensing is absolutely the right thing, however there is a fundamental principle at issue here. Very little licensing activity within the UK is self funding so why pick on shooting specifically. Does your fee cover the real cost of administering your driving license or the change of address.....how about your passport, or your road tax actually paying for the cost of a motorway Km by Km. So yes perhaps in these times of a penniless state we need to look at the costs and fees of administering the licensing required by legislation but this has to be across the boards. Once more shooting is the easy target as largely we want to do shoot rather than having to do it. We are an unpopular minority which means there is very little political backlash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.