HASC on firearms

[David BASC]

BASC has submitted three sets of supplemental evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s enquiry into firearms law.

 

BASC attended each of the committee's evidence sessions in order to assess the arguments put forward by both opponents and supporters of shooting. Our representatives listened carefully to what was said and extracted themes and issues to elaborate on in order to assist the committee. These form the basis of the supplemental evidence.

 

The main themes of the extra evidence are:

 

BASC's opposition to: the separate storage of shotgun ammunition, the 'tagging' of medical records of certificate holders, shortening the life of firearm and shotgun certificates and a proposal to change the shotgun licensing system to that used for firearms.

 

There are also sections focusing on young people, air weapons and international comparisons.

 

Separate pieces of supplemental evidence concentrate on:

 

* Gun security - outlining the current system of security and BASC's objection to central storage of firearms and ammunition.

* The criminal use of firearms - focusing on deactivated weapons and the crossover from legally-owned weapons into the criminal pool.

 

BASC submitted its main evidence earlier this year. Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms, and Mike Eveleigh, BASC’s senior firearms officer, both appeared before the committee to give evidence.

 

Bill Harriman said: “We have done our utmost to inform the debate and to furnish the committee with the facts it needs to reach sensible conclusions and sustainable recommendations."

 

BASC's evidence can be read in full at

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/firearms/home-affairs-committee-inquiry-firearms-control-a-response-by-basc.cfm

 

David

[b682]

Hi David,

 

Was not the Home Affairs Select Committee’s enquiry as a result of the sad events in cumbria?

 

If so what has:-

 

There are also sections focusing on young people, air weapons and international comparisons.

 

Separate pieces of supplemental evidence concentrate on:

 

* Gun security - outlining the current system of security and BASC's objection to central storage of firearms and ammunition.

* The criminal use of firearms - focusing on deactivated weapons and the crossover from legally-owned weapons into the criminal pool.

 

Got to do with the events at cumbria - Bird was not "young" or used ilegal guns.

 

After watching the vidoe for one of the Home Affairs Select Committee’s meetings (posted on the web via this forum) I sent the email below, needless to say i did not get a reply. Sorry for the long post.

 

*** Email sent ***

 

Dear Rt Hon Keith Vaz,

 

Having read ACC Whiting’s report and watched the video for HOC Home Affairs Committee meeting Tuesday 16 November at 11.24am, one is reminded of the children’s story: The Emperor's New Clothes.

 

 

 

The Cumbria police had two opportunities to revoke Mr Bird’s gun licences long before the tragic incident on the 2nd June 2010. His 1982 conviction for "drink-driving” should have resulted in his gun licences being revoked as has recently happened to a member of my local gun club. so why do different police forces act differently?

 

Yes Mr bird may have appealed against this decision but the appeal would have been a matter for the courts not the police who would have been seen to have done their job correctly.

 

We have gun laws that are fit for purpose the issue should not be the type of gun, shotgun, rifle, pistol but the person who owns the gun.

 

Licencing should be about the individuals good character, metal state etc and not the firearm.

 

The video shows because no one will challenge the fundamental question why Cumbria police did not revoke the licence it only remains for the Home Affairs Committee to deliberate on issues that are irrelevant in this case i.e. the age that children can obtain a licence, do violent computer games have an effect or lets move the responsibility to the GP.

 

This was a tragic incident that should and could have been avoided.

 

We should be proud of what this country’s sports men and women achieve in shooting, for example England won five gold, one silver and one bronze medal in the recent commonwealth games for shotgun events. And in George Digweed we have the worlds best shot.

 

***

[Lez325]

The Cumbria police had two opportunities to revoke Mr Bird’s gun licences long before the tragic incident on the 2nd June 2010. His 1982 conviction for "drink-driving” should have resulted in his gun licences being revoked as has recently happened to a member of my local gun club. so why do different police forces act differently?

 

 

 

Man I ask, why you think a drink driving conviction should result in the loss of someones fire arms certificate?

 

 

Les

[al4x]

because it shows they can act recklessly, it does result in revokes round me but in 82 things were very different

[Sprackles]

I also think that a first time drink driving conviction is not sufficient reason to revoke.

Should a further conviction ensue then it could be successfully argued that the certificate holder is of intemperate habits with a low regard to the law.

I have a friend who did time a long while ago and was banned for 5 years...he is now a small business owner, settled down in family life and absolutely no threat to anyone....I trust him implicitly.

Its a dangerous road to go down when we start to agree with decisions such as that. Its chipping away at the corners and once that is enshrined, the next bit of legislation will come along to further limit entitlement.

Similarly, we hear talk of depression being sufficient to revoke yet depression covers a multitude of ailments from minor sleeping problems to major psychosis. A blanket ban on any form of depressive illness will result in people who should seek treatment, ignoring it and possibly exacerbating the situation.

Its a very fine and dangerous line we walk when we start agreeing with things like this.

[b682]

Fact:-

 

A member of my local gun club, was done for drink driving a few weeks ago, and within days Kent police revoked his shotgun certificate.

[Sprackles]

Fact:-

 

A member of my local gun club, was done for drink driving a few weeks ago, and within days Kent police revoked his shotgun certificate.

 

Had he been done before or was this a first.....I would be interested in BASC's attitude towards this and other points I have raised.

[b682]

No previous that I know about, a young lad in his twenties who shot with his father (his father has taken owership of his gun). A few days after the court case Kent police revoked the licence. He was told he could reapply after three years. he can still shot at the Clubs due to the "Section 11 excemption" that most clubs operate under.

 

Your licence is a privilege, make one error that brings in question your suitability to own a gun and in this day and age, it will be taken from you !!!

[al4x]

its simple if you are prepared to drive under the influence what is to say they will act sensibly with firearms after a drink. Its a serious offence why should you be allowed a second go. I'd lay money BASC won't defend you if you get revoked due to it

[Sprackles]

Your licence is a privilege, make one error that brings in question your suitability to own a gun and in this day and age, it will be taken from you !!!

 

I agree on some issues but for a first time offence such as this, I would not unless he was something like 3 times over the limit then that might raise issues of concern.

 

its simple if you are prepared to drive under the influence what is to say they will act sensibly with firearms after a drink. Its a serious offence why should you be allowed a second go. I'd lay money BASC won't defend you if you get revoked due to it

 

The amount of alcohol to take you over the limit might not affect your judgement and say you were only a couple of point over the limit then what.

If you took a breath sample of most of us here after we left a pub, or had a drink but with no driving involved I would wager we would all be way over that limit.

What then, are we of intemperate habits....this is what I mean by not being too keen to allow things like this to happen.

It could theoretically be argued that by allowing ourselves to go over the sensible driving limit, we could also have impaired judgement as to our gun ownership.

Totally hypothetical but I am sure you can see what I mean especially as you point out yourself......"what is to say they will act sensibly with firearms after a drink"

Edited December 3, 2010 by Sprackles

[b682]

I think the police are just not willing to take the risk, yes you could appeal to a court and then the reponsibility would be with the judge not the police.

 

You can see the newspaper heladline - poice ignore previous drinking problems that allowed the gun owner to go on and commit ....

[Lez325]

Fact:-

 

A member of my local gun club, was done for drink driving a few weeks ago, and within days Kent police revoked his shotgun certificate.

 

 

Ah SHOT gun cert not FAC theres is a vast difference

 

Les :yp:

[b682]

Ah SHOT gun cert not FAC theres is a vast difference

 

 

I can see no difference either one or both would have been revoked (he only had a shotgun).

 

In fact an FAC will be at more risk I suspect.

[Bloke]

I agree on some issues but for a first time offence such as this, I would not unless he was something like 3 times over the limit then that might raise issues of concern.

 

 

 

The amount of alcohol to take you over the limit might not affect your judgement and say you were only a couple of point over the limit then what.

If you took a breath sample of most of us here after we left a pub, or had a drink but with no driving involved I would wager we would all be way over that limit.

What then, are we of intemperate habits....this is what I mean by not being too keen to allow things like this to happen.

It could theoretically be argued that by allowing ourselves to go over the sensible driving limit, we could also have impaired judgement as to our gun ownership.

Totally hypothetical but I am sure you can see what I mean especially as you point out yourself......"what is to say they will act sensibly with firearms after a drink"

 

Totally different. As you say, we may all be over the limit when we leave the pub, the salient fact is we CHOOSE not to drive, as we would hopefully CHOOSE not to pick up a gun - THAT is the difference between sensible and reckless. In this day and age there is almost never any excuse for drinking and driving -I and others on this forum have spent too many years putting back together or cleaning up the blood after people who thought they were capable of judging if they were sober or not ! (rant over - sorry ! )

 

seriously though, rather than an automatic removal of cert after such a conviction, a full review of the individual could be of use - if we can find a truly 'impartial' person to judge.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Bloke

[Kes]

I'm with those who suggest that a single drink or drug driving conviction should be enough to lose a FAC or shotgun certificate.

Drinking and drugs is always a personal judgement, the chance of getting caught might be slight but the chance of killing or maiming someone as a result of drinking/drugs and then driving is not.If anyone has a choice, surely they would not wish to kill or maim or run the slightest risk of doing so.

Therefore they simply would not do what precipitates that risk whilst driving - they would not drink or take drugs.

(Drugs now present as a causitive factor in very many more road deaths than drink.)

 

How many shooting men 'pull through the line' - is that Ok, as long as you dont get caught?

If you shoot a centrefire without an absolutely certain backstop and get away with it, is that Ok?

 

The simple truth is by drinking and driving you are gambling with life and death as in each of the situations above.

Anyone who does that should not be allowed to own a weapon capable of killing.

Just the same as owning a deadly weapon at 60 mph and being unable to fully control it - isnt that so?

We would certainy think so if one of our own died at the hands of a drink driver.

 

To be trusted you must show always you are worthy of it.

[David BASC]

Yes the HASC was set up post Cumbria, and although the tragedy did not involve young people or airguns, the committee did look into this in the context of licensed and unlicensed guns under the Act and the ages that young people can and do start shooting, getting a license etc. In other words they took an overview of the Act not just one or two bits of it.

 

Not wishing to get side tracked, but frankly if you are going to break the law, to the extent that you put your life and the lives of other innocent road users at risk then frankly you are open to getting your license revoked. It demonstrates clearly you are of intemperate habits.

 

Its not my decision whether BASC would support you or not, but if it were up to me I you would be out of luck – I detest drink driving, I have seen how it destroys lives and it sickens me when the ****** driver claims he’s sorry and its not really his fault and its only one drink over, he thought he was ok….

 

Whether you are 5 points over of 20 points over the drink driving limit is irrelevant; you have broken the law.

 

No one is looking at a blanket ban for people suffering from depression, something I have suffered from so I am speaking from experience- my doc was fully up to speed with the fact I was a shooter, fully happy I was not a threat nor did I present a risk to anyone just because I was depressed ,and wrote a letter to that effect to support my renewal. But I am aware that not all doc are as practical or pragmatic as mine – hence one of the issues re medical ‘tagging’

 

David

[poontang]

 

 

 

The amount of alcohol to take you over the limit might not affect your judgement and say you were only a couple of point over the limit then what?.

 

If you were only a couple of points over the limit you'd be done for drink driving. That's why there's a limit.

 

If you steal a pound or a million pounds you're still a thief!

[sitsinhedges]

I am totally against drink driving but a conviction has to become spent at some time, you can't continue punishing someone for ever.

 

Maybe once someone has been granted their driving licence back their shotgun licence should be returned also, on the understanding that a further conviction will see it gone for good.

 

 

That all aside I didn't think the OP's letter to Vaz was helpful and refusing a licence due to a conviction decades past would see a large percentage of now responsible shooters banned.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[Sprackles]

I think I have not explained it clearly enough.

Yes a few points over is still breaking the law and if we choose to drive that is irresponsible however, at that level of alcohol, driving is impaired but general function is not.

The point has been made that if you drive above that limit then you may be reckless with firearms.

My point is that at some point, we may go out shooting when we feel all right but would in fact fail a breath test, ie, the morning after and with someone else driving us or perhaps a few sips from a hip flask whilst at the pegs.

If it is reckless to drive a car at that level and enough to lose your certificate over, is a few points over the drive limit but not driving also reckless enough to cost you your guns. I hope you understand where this is going. It is at what point is someone determined to be of intemperate habits....that phrase holds the key, it does not relate to drink drivers alone but to how much an individual has to drink.

Accepting such a low level could mean that anyone who has more than a couple of pints of weak lager 2 or 3 times a week could be deemed intemperate which is a far cry from a once only drink drive conviction.

 

Anyway, thread drift......I think this should be continued in a seperate thread as it is deflecting from BASCs work.

 

I apologise.

[David BASC]

I agree that convictions become spent and this is catered for as is, but you have to accept that if you break the law you will run the risk of saying goodbye to your fac / sgc.

 

You will get revoked, but will often be able to apply some time in the future without problem provided of course you have not served a custodial sentence where other criteria will apply to temporary or permanent prohibition.

 

David

[The Duncan]

I agree that convictions become spent and this is catered for as is, but you have to accept that if you break the law you will run the risk of saying goodbye to your fac / sgc.

 

You will get revoked, but will often be able to apply some time in the future without problem provided of course you have not served a custodial sentence where other criteria will apply to temporary or permanent prohibition.

 

David

So what it boils down to is- "if you don't want to risk your shotgun cert or FAC, avoid getting a criminal record".

Edited December 3, 2010 by The Duncan