Jump to content

mick miller

Members
  • Content Count

    5,655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mick miller

  • Rank

  • Birthday 19/06/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    Herts
  • Interests
    Shooting, Pike Fishing, Carp Fishing, Fly Fishing, Fell Walking.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,544 profile views
  1. mick miller

    222 dies

    Used but perfectly functioning: Hornady 2 die set - FL and bullet seating die plus RCBS neck sizing die. £50 posted the pair.
  2. Please sign and share: https://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01750?fbclid=IwAR2cK7NUgzN8Ac7_nYzrVvCEhfpOAKbfcb5O0D_txjK9PrHKW3vVCbT_FKk
  3. Mate is down there with mountain rescue at the moment.
  4. Just popped back in. Have we left yet?
  5. The idea isn't too simplify the system, or improve it. The idea appears to be to add additional hoops and costs as a deterrent. The ultimate goal, whether anyone states otherwise, is a continual reduction in private (legal) firearms ownership. There is no argument that there any any additional benefits to this, other than increased bureaucracy and revenue generation for the health service. There was an argument from TVP that certain applicants had falsified medical records. However, the number was tiny, all were detected which underlines the efficacy of existing checks. No argument. Revocations, historically, are so low as to be statistically counted as nil. The only question remains, do you want tomato sauce with those hoops?
  6. Until and unless a firearms holder, refused a renewal due to the inability to supply medical information is prepared to (temporarily) offer themselves on the alter of freedom and supply their details to one of the orgs that represent us (PM for details if you wish to know whom to contact) then no legal challenge can be made. As the consultation is already underway the clock is ticking for some brave soul to do so. I am reliably informed that despite repeated requests by one organisation, from any complainant that has contacted them, to provide themselves and their details in a challenge to the misapplication of firearms law by local constabularies, none have come forward. Wait any longer and it will be too late. We are all so cowed into submission. Worst case the individual would have to reapply WITH the correct medical information, their application could not be refused.
  7. This exactly my thoughts on it too.
  8. https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/education/joy-as-22-hen-harrier-chicks-fledge-from-nests-in-forest-of-bowland-1-9907560?fbclid=IwAR2PG1rbzzo2OE2oy3Nn4g67ReEtqqt4WQMRSDEDcCKkuUEsGvpdMQnivFQ
  9. Points I have raised already. I think there has been concerns raised over the lack of honesty when filling in the medical part of the application, although that is just hearsay, I have seen no official documentation to back that claim up (but I would like to!). This is why this new proposal has been added. Voicing concerns though is hardly statistical evidence that the preexisting system was weak or a risk to public safety. BMA voices concerns, BMA generates much needed income for private surgeries (as all GP's surgeries are private, not public/nhs concerns). To me it just looks like more hoops for hoops sake, with a fat wad of cash thrown in and little genuine increase in 'public safety'.
  10. Well, that might be the case and, indeed, the likely outcome but without any avenue to legal challenge available to myself I thought I would just put my more considered, less angry suggestions forward. I see the outcome, as you do, as not being anything other than more 'stick'. But you know...🤞 Sadly, there isn't much other than politely requesting that the HO listens to this, without having either a Parliamentary debate or legal challenge.
  11. Okay, feedback was requested and we have descended into the usual, if not unsurprising, tub thumping (hands up here too). It is dull though, so in an effort to redeem myself these are my thoughts on the consultation proposals. • Whilst, broadly, most people accept the 'enduring marker', this should only be added if we are to move to the 10 year licence and, along with that, a reduced burden for the firearms teams, not a reduction in staffing levels. The aims should be threefold; increased public safety, reduced workload, increased efficiency in application/ variation/ renewal turn arounds.• The GP's assessment should be unbiased and honest based on a patients record. Due to the addition of the 'enduring marker' this should be a one-time only affair. On application a GP's referral is requested. This request should be from the licencing authority, not the individual. Once the GP signs off that there is no reason, from the medical records and not from personal bias, for refusal the relevant licence should be issued and the marker added to a patients records. There should never be a further requirement for GP involvement throughout the lifetime of the individual, not the lifetime of the certificate.• As this is touted as 'increasing public safety' then the majority, if not all the costs involved should be met by the public purse. As this is essentially a box ticking exercise then the costs should be reasonable (£20-£50), fixed and consistent across all areas. There should be no deviation or facility to 'invent' charges by either constabularies or GP's, that is to say that rather than having 'regard', all costs should be clear, fixed and transparent.• Should a GP refuse to reply on moral or personal grounds then there should be a national facility of GPs to whom referrals can be made, these should be at the same cost as a regular referral and should not take longer than average to process; no waiting month upon month for a reply. The applicant should not be 'punished' if their own GP's surgery refuses to assist.• The idea of consulting with neighbours, partners, wives is a non-starter I'm afraid. This needs to be scratched completely. The process of application relies on two referees of good standing and no criminal record. This is sufficient and there is no evidence that any other additional processes will increase the thoroughness of the check. Once the initial application is approved any subsequent renewals WILL NO LONGER REQUIRE the referees. There is no point if there have been no additional offences committed by the applicant. All that should be required is good reason (land authority, club or both).• Further to this last point, contacting of neighbours is a complete compromise to security. It also is biased toward refusal. Pick 10 people at random and ask them whether they would be happy for their neighbour to possess firearms and the results I would say with some confidence would be negatively biased.• Along with fixing the costs of the medical referral so too should the HO guidance be fixed. No longer should local constabularies be allowed to have 'regard' to the advice. It should be law, fixed and not subject to personal interpretation and bias in either direction. This would prevent the postcode lottery of licencing and force constabularies to apply the law evenly and fairly across the UK.• Whilst we are reforming the licencing it would be positive if we had a little carrot as well as stick. I propose a review of the processes of 'one for one', using the Northern Ireland model or other models with the key principle being freeing up the onerous demands on licensing authorities. The process should be simply to pass on a rifle to a licence holder (either gift or purchase) or RFD, notify the authority and then proceed to replace. This would free up time to do more thorough initial checks of new applicants and security reviews of existing applicants. Perhaps a series of open slots; 2/3 for vermin, 1/2 stalking, 2/3 target shooting should be the base with provision to revise for specific individuals on request. All should come with moderators added by default (although, see below).• The removal of moderators from licences. They are no different to a magazine, muzzle brake or other accessory and, provided it is allowed for under EU law, should be allowed to be owned freely without FAC requirement. A little carrot to the stick.• Ideally I would like to see the implementation of a national database, electronically managed and a move away from paper based certification. We have drivers licences that already manage multiple data entries, carry photo ID, addresses etc, I cannot see why a similar digitally based system can not be used. Police could quickly check a persons credentials when stopped in possession and it would allow the FAC holder to access his records and submit changes in circumstance (change of address, cabinet size, firearms added/ sold, requests to vary etc.) I can't think of anything else.
  12. I've gone away and had a little think, why do I resent the idea of having to have a GP to sign off on my application for a firearm? Is it because I believe it is a worthless nod in the direction of 'increased public safety'? Well, yes. But that isn't the main issue. Is it because this was seen as a trade off to get ten year certificates, which I now acknowledge will never happen? Yes, but that's still not the reason I'm finding myself so annoyed by this. Is it because its a complete drain on already stretched medical and policing resources? Yes again, but still the root cause of my ire is not addressed. I think its this; in a country whose law and legal system is based on the principle of habeas corpus, and of innocence until proven guilty, the idea of a GP having to attest to my mental or physical fitness to own firearms before my application is approved turns this cornerstone of democracy on its head. We are all now deemed nutters until we can prove otherwise. The problem is we have to ask people that barely know us, may not approve of us and can charge us any amount they deem fair or appropriate or, worse still, simply refuse to engage. I can live with the idea of an enduring marker, I can see the benefit, however insignificant it genuinely is, of that one concession. But the rest is simply an affront. Further, I will state, with some confidence, that unless the British Association of Shooting & Conservation starts dipping into that often lauded '£8 million fighting fund', puts down its pen and puts to bed its platitudes and instead is prepared to don a set of gloves and risk some of those cosy relationships it has formed over the last 50 or so years that, in the words of one fierce opponent to grouse and pheasant shooting, it is well and truly spent. You want us to 'stop bickering' and support the organisation? Then prove you have the guts and determination to challenge these amendments, to force constabularies to have more than simple 'regard' to HO guidance, put an end to the personal fiefdoms of Chief Constables, to advise on a fair set of laws with a basis in fact and proportionality, to ensure that GP's do not have the freedom to bring their own personal bias to bear, or better still, have no involvement other than to place the 'enduring marker' on an applicants record unless any medical conditions have been highlighted by the applicant in the application. Do that and you may just find you have more support and respect than you will ever need. Strongly worded letters are lovely, but they are just that. There can be no argument that a fair set of laws, fairly and uniformly applied, is desirable for all parties. For shooters, for the government, for constabularies, for public safety (what little existing risk there is). You just need to find the means to get there but none other is as well placed for the task, but perhaps, not yet well enough equipped? Your legal advice was that a JD was not going to succeed or make any difference? Find a new legal team. May I recommend the services of Leigh Day?
×
×
  • Create New...