BASC statement on findings of ACPO review into firearms licensing proc

[andythechicken]

Quick summary - Good news for all of us

 

Well done BASC

 

Andy

 

The UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), welcomes the detailed report of a review of the granting of firearms licences to Derrick Bird, who murdered 12 people in Cumbria in June.

 

The review was undertaken by the chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group, Adrian Whiting, who is also Assistant Chief Constable of Dorset Police.

 

The report states that the police, other agencies and the public had no information which should reasonably have led to the revocation of Bird’s certificates and that no immediately obvious changes need to be made either within the Cumbria constabulary or in the law which would have prevented the tragedy.

 

Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms, said: “The UK’s firearms laws are among the strictest in the world. The licensing process includes home visits by the police, background checks and may also involve medical checks. BASC will work through the details of the report and its recommendations with great care. UK gun owners go through an extremely rigorous licensing process to ensure as far as possible that they pose no risk to public safety and keep their firearms secure. As the Prime Minister said, you cannot legislate for the moment when a switch flicks in someone’s head.”

 

Got to BASC website to download full report

[the running man]

Quick summary - Good news for all of us

 

Well done BASC

 

Andy

 

The UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), welcomes the detailed report of a review of the granting of firearms licences to Derrick Bird, who murdered 12 people in Cumbria in June.

 

The review was undertaken by the chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group, Adrian Whiting, who is also Assistant Chief Constable of Dorset Police.

 

The report states that the police, other agencies and the public had no information which should reasonably have led to the revocation of Bird’s certificates and that no immediately obvious changes need to be made either within the Cumbria constabulary or in the law which would have prevented the tragedy.

 

Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms, said: “The UK’s firearms laws are among the strictest in the world. The licensing process includes home visits by the police, background checks and may also involve medical checks. BASC will work through the details of the report and its recommendations with great care. UK gun owners go through an extremely rigorous licensing process to ensure as far as possible that they pose no risk to public safety and keep their firearms secure. As the Prime Minister said, you cannot legislate for the moment when a switch flicks in someone’s head.”

 

Got to BASC website to download full report

youre mistaken mate,actully read the report,looks bad for all shooters,ALL SHOOTERS. CumbriaReportPart1.pdf

[the running man]

CumbriaReportPart2.pdfheres part two and if thiese recomandations go ahead,im giving up.

[Beardo]

I can't see anything in there that sounds unreasonable. If anything it clears up a few complicated and grey areas

[the running man]

I can't see anything in there that sounds unreasonable. If anything it clears up a few complicated and grey areas

read it again.

[Beardo]

Forgive me as read it on an iPhone during a conference, but what am I missing that you are so concerned about?

[al4x]

which bits don't you like running man as I'm with nb I can't see many problems with what has been suggested

[Sprackles]

On the whole it seems straight forward but as with most things, the devil is in the detail.

 

Justification for each type of shotgun is something I have read into the report.

The appeal process being reviewed is another not so good aspect.....suspension short of revocation with the same right of appeal.

How many of us could fund such an appeal knowing that you have to appeal to Crown Court at own expense with no mechanism for costs even if we win.

A suspension would be more readily applied by a force I feel, easier to justify.....not good.

[Beardo]

I don't have an issue with justifying each shotgun it's really not that much hassle, after all I have to do that with my firearms, the second point may be of concern But I still don't see it really causing issue with any sensible shooters

[al4x]

its also only proposals rather than anything else, giving the Home office guidelines a higher standing may actually help as well. The putting them on the same ticket is a BASC idea that may have spectacularly back fired. From Davids implication they were trying to do away with people having to justify firearms and make it the same as shotguns. The police have gone the other way and suggested you may have to justify shotguns as well as firearms and have them on the same license now that is one hell of an own goal

[Birdy]

I read it all yesterday and the author, a SGC and FAC holder himself, demonstrates a clear understanding of the whole subject. He makes the point that 'justifying' different guns on the SGC is not necessary. He proposes combining FAC and SGC but he doesn't, as far as I remember, propose anything different re justification of any shotguns, just FAC-qualifying firearms.

 

The biggest, headline proposal is the involvement of GPs. What if your GP is anti field sports? My GP knows I get gout but he knows f all about my mind. There is still much more talking to do about any such proposal.

 

Also, even Vaz's slanted conclusions don't become legislation without full Commons/Lords debates and votes.

[vampire]

Thats me up the swannie come renewel,i have had my gp retire,his replacement left,his stand in has moved and now i have seen a locum,so what will their computar say about me i wonder,not such a good idea me thinks

[the running man]

excuse me lads,been bit busy today, ok there are a few points that concern me, i must admit upon reading the report for a third time its wording can have been misconstude by me.

 

so point 1.Making formal enquiry of members of an applicant’s family at grant and renewal as to the applicant’s suitability.(what if uve a nutter in the family as i have who could put a spanner in the works for spite?)

 

point 2.3.5 Absolute prevention of murders and assaults of this very nature is, in my view, far more closely related to the fundamental question of the private ownership of firearms than the operation of the system of licensing. In short, very radical changes would be necessary to guarantee such circumstances could not occur again,[/size](this basicly leaves things open for a debate on an outright firearms ban for all)

 

point 3.The public seem to have an expectation that the possession of handguns by private individuals is now entirely prohibited. Largely this is the case although there has been a noteworthy increase in lawful possession of handguns for the humane despatch of animals or for pest control, there now being some 1700 handguns possessed for this purpose. This trend features handguns of varying calibres and without restriction to their magazine capacity. It seems to me that in some cases the reason for possession is not really so much humane despatch but the protection of the certificate holder from a dangerous animal being tracked. I suggest that greater clarity in law as to Parliament’s wishes in this area should be given,(if the bbc got hold of this the antis will go bannanas,and we all know they would. point 4.

 

It is important that the public are aware that public access to Section 1 firearms without the need for a firearm certificate or indeed supervision can be achieved reasonably easily. On behalf of ACPO I have expressed unease with the provisions under Section 11 (4) Firearms Act 1968 regarding miniature rifle ranges. Whilst there is only limited evidence to indicate that people otherwise refused a firearm certificate have subsequently gone on to possess .22”RF rifles under these provisions I believe that a clear risk exists that should be legislated for before a tragedy occurs.( dunno where hes going with this)............................

 

basicly im not happy with the whole thing,the select committee seem to be hearing much more favourable things towards our sport. anyhow there are many more points that are open to interpretation and twisting to our disadvantage.but i cant put them all down. suffice to say that change is on its way.

Edited November 3, 2010 by the running man

[scolopax]

Any chance of splitting that statement up with a few paragraphs RM??

 

Maybe its just me but I cannot read it as it is, meks me 'ed 'urt!

[the running man]

Any chance of splitting that statement up with a few paragraphs RM??

 

Maybe its just me but I cannot read it as it is, meks me 'ed 'urt!

yeah sorry used cut and paste,will try now.

[DSPUK]

With you there Scolopax -

[jonevo]

hope it doesnt go the same way as they did with pistol shooters

we will all be up in arms lol pardon the pun

[mossy835]

well its not going to get any better.thats for sure

[Breastman]

Call me an optimist but has everyone else over looked;

 

Changing the term 'occupier' when referring to the use of shotguns to 'owner, occupier or other properly authorised person' - yes please! I know of at least one police force that does not allow non-SGC holders to use shotguns in the prescence of their owner because of this wording.

 

"Amend s5(1)(ab) Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) to read “Other than one which is chambered for rimfire cartridges not exceeding .22””. This enables the use of smaller diameter rimfire cartridges, such as .17” to minimal public safety risk" - Semi-auto .17HMR anyone?

 

"Remove the restrictions created by s9 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 thus permitting expanding ammunition to be subject to s1 Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) control. This prohibition causes additional administrative work for police in exploring good reason for expanding ammunition and conditioning certificates accordingly. Minimal public safety benefit, if any, has been achieved by this prohibition" - Expanding rounds without the pointless (excuse the pun!) and OTT restrictions on them now, sweet!

 

Of course EVERYTHING, good and bad in these reports are recommendations, what actually happens when it comes to legislation is a completely different ball game

 

Mark

[J@mes]

Do they want owners to justify calibres of shotguns or mechanisms?

 

Can't really see how that is going to save lives - are they going to turn around and say you can't have a semi auto unless you rough shoot or a hushpower unless you shoot near horses, houses or anything else?

 

seems a strange one to me!

[jasons gold]

i cant see anything major in these recomendations that has'nt been said before so why be so alarmist.

They have been talking about asking your gp and relatives for ages now and it still has'nt happened for precisely the points been raised ie anti or fued

[the running man]

i cant see anything major in these recomendations that has'nt been said before so why be so alarmist.

They have been talking about asking your gp and relatives for ages now and it still has'nt happened for precisely the points been raised ie anti orf eud

Please excuse my suspicious nature,those of us who faced unfair and unjust legislation when they banned pistols,will remain forever embittered. I do think the laws need to be clarified or even scrapped and re-written,but if they are I doubt they will go in shooters favour. I'm all for tightening up of shotgun laws,some of the pond life I've seen with sgc I would not trust to run a bath.

[mossy835]

there is nothing wrong with the gun law as it is,they banned the knifes but there are still killings,change what they like it will happen again at some time, or another.

[Kes]

I appreciate this is a complex subject but having read the summary of Part 2, there are a number of areas where change can be introduced.

 

Humane despatch, medical records, close relationship input, the question of 3.5 inch magnums and 'more than 3' capability, marital comment, possible reduction for its own sake of the numbers of shotguns held 'to reduce the possibility of theft'.

 

There is a presumption in the report that all additional costs for (medicals) and for some presently typical 'no cost' variations should be transferred to the applicant - for example the report states that it should be the applicant who pays if a cert is NOT granted, rather than at present, the police. This is justified on the basis of the enquiries that have had to be undertaken to justify refusal are a real cost. Presumably also, if a refusal is challened unsuccessfully, the applicant would pay for the costs incurred rather than the police/courts.

 

So there is a distinct possibility of change for the worse and for costs to transfer to the applicant.

 

My concern is that BASC or others on behalf of BASC , claim this (the above) as a 'victory'.

I sincerely suggest the claim that this is a victory is to propose that all shooters are fools. This is an internally requested report, not subject to influence. It reflects the authors personal prejudices - it says so.

BASC may have done all it can - fine.

BASC might not be able to influence this report as I strongly suspect. If thats the truth then lets have it - pure and unvarnished.

 

I, for one, am sick of BASC claiming successes where only modest change has been achieved. I would rather MY shooting organisation was honest than fall into the modern need to hype everything, always.

 

This is not a success - it is damage limitation, if anything has been achieved.

 

I am a member of BASC but not so blind that I cannot see the truth.

[the running man]

I appreciate this is a complex subject but having read the summary of Part 2, there are a number of areas where change can be introduced.

 

Humane despatch, medical records, close relationship input, the question of 3.5 inch magnums and 'more than 3' capability, marital comment, possible reduction for its own sake of the numbers of shotguns held 'to reduce the possibility of theft'.

 

There is a presumption in the report that all additional costs for (medicals) and for some presently typical 'no cost' variations should be transferred to the applicant - for example the report states that it should be the applicant who pays if a cert is NOT granted, rather than at present, the police. This is justified on the basis of the enquiries that have had to be undertaken to justify refusal are a real cost. Presumably also, if a refusal is challened unsuccessfully, the applicant would pay for the costs incurred rather than the police/courts.

 

So there is a distinct possibility of change for the worse and for costs to transfer to the applicant.

 

My concern is that BASC or others on behalf of BASC , claim this (the above) as a 'victory'.

I sincerely suggest the claim that this is a victory is to propose that all shooters are fools. This is an internally requested report, not subject to influence. It reflects the authors personal prejudices - it says so.

BASC may have done all it can - fine.

BASC might not be able to influence this report as I strongly suspect. If thats the truth then lets have it - pure and unvarnished.

 

I, for one, am sick of BASC claiming successes where only modest change has been achieved. I would rather MY shooting organisation was honest than fall into the modern need to hype everything, always.

 

This is not a success - it is damage limitation, if anything has been achieved.

 

I am a member of BASC but not so blind that I cannot see the truth.

very well said my friend,im glad im not the only one on this forum who can read between the lines.