Home Affairs Committee Recommendations

[DRTaylor]

In the next few weeks the Government will respond to the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations into firearms licensing.

The Countryside Alliance has concerns over some of the proposals made, specifically, young people, fees, ex partners and Section 1 certificates. A short film about our concerns can be found here:

 

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/shooting-campaigns/shooting-views/film-on-the-firearms-debate/

 

Obviously the government doesn’t have to accept and of the recommendations, but what are people’s thoughts regarding the recommendations? Does anyone agree with any the recommendations made? Does anyone have concerns about the future of firearms licensing?

[BlaserF3]

I've just watched the video and if shotguns become section 1 it will make it difficult for most of us.

 

"Something" will have to change as we all know, historically it always has.

[CharlieT]

Quite simply, if it ain't broke why change it.

 

The remit to the police is public safety. Nothing in the HAC report will increase this. FAC & SGC holders are amongst the most law abiding people in our society and demonstrably young people being encouraged into our sport are far more likely to become law abiding members of society due to the responsibility of FAC/SGC & gun ownership.

 

It really is about time the firearms licensing operation was taken away from the police and handed over to a private organisation........how about it CA.

[mudpatten]

The CA running firearms administration?

 

As a concept, that is so hysterically funny that I`m not going to say anything else, other than that,I`m rolling on the floor actually wetting myself laughing.

[Coolhead]

It could have been much, much worse.

 

Given the weak economy, the government is unlikely to remove people's livelihoods or massively expand licensing offices.

 

Almost certainly the final changes will be relatively modest in scope. It will hurt but the sports and commercial uses of firearms won't be ended on this particular occasion.

 

Time will tell just how much it is going to hurt.

[mossy835]

seen the video cant see the point of making shotguns sec 1,what good will it do.they can do all they want but in time it will all happen again.there is all ways some nutter waiting in the wing,lets hope the goverment dont do a knee jerk.

[DRTaylor]

Don't worry mudpatten - there are no plans to run a licensing system at the CA!

 

Although an ideal, there are several pitfalls like a regulator (OFFSHOOT maybe?) for one. Also, if anything serious event did occur, what is to stop an unfavourable government passing the responsibility to an anti shooting organisation?

[DRTaylor]

mossy835 - no one can see the logic in section 1 for shotguns. The whole idea was to reduce the cost and effort of the police, not increase it!

[David BASC]

BASC is certainly against moving shotguns to Sec 1, this was in our evidence and in our written recommendations. We also want to see appeals dealt with via a tribunal .

 

Having Sec 2 system for ALL firearms is far more efficient, and that was BASC’s recommendation.

 

I think its important to realise and indeed accept that the HASC investigation was into Firearm Licensing and NOT armed crime, so I see little point in Robs comments about how these proposals do nothing to prevent armed crime – they were never intended to!!!

 

There is certainly a long way to go on all this – and we must not be complacent – keep talking to your MP!

 

If you want to lobby your MP and want a few tips then look here: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/political-affairs/how-to-lobby-your-mp/

 

 

David

[al4x]

.

 

Having Sec 2 system for ALL firearms is far more efficient, and that was BASC’s recommendation.

 

 

 

thats definitely living in cloud cuckoo land but I suppose it gives you a position to start bargaining from.

 

What we have now is a complicated system but one that fundamentally works. I have no issue with having to demonstrate use to be able to have firearms and also no issue with them not handing out large centrefires to everyone uncontrolled. The issue is the interpretation of the rules by different departments rather than the actual rules themselves. Round here it works and it works pretty well,

[David BASC]

True enough, the ‘interpretation’ of the law is an issue, which is why ACPO issued their Best Practice and the Home Office issued their Guidance- but a few FLM’s still seem to ignore both of these and do their own thing!

 

David

[al4x]

exactly but making everything section 2 isn't going to help as you can't have a situation where anyone with no experience can go out and buy a 50bmg and start blatting rabbits from the bedroom window with it. as soon as you start classifying categories of gun then you end up with the same deal. at the moment SGC's have plenty of leeway for holders however when you move onto more serious tools you do have a few hoops and that is as it should be. However FLM's making their own rules up is where the problem is rather than the rules themselves. Your concept of everything section 2 runs the real risk of bringing everything onto one license where you have to justify everything

[Vermincinerator]

Moving shotguns to Sec.1 not only brings the need to prove good reason for acquisition, but other limitations which apply to other Sec.1 firearms.

 

i am thinking about written permission and land checks!

Will every shotgun user who shoots in the field have to have their permission cleared and approved as per rifle shooters?

This would be a logistical nightmare and would take many years to complete

 

Or will there be a blanket exemption for shotguns?

If this is the case it would create a section within a section. Once defined as a section 1 firearm, the same rules apply, you cant have one rule for one type of section 1 firearm and one for another type section 1 firearm, otherwise they cannot be classed as section 1.

 

Having said that a blanket exemption of land clearence for all Sec.1 firearms would be much easier apply but then brings into the equation the firearms handling experience, of individuals who have never shot on land before or even handled a rifle or shotgun.

 

Is it a good idea to give such shooters open tickets from the outset?

I dont think it is, so what should be done to make sure new shooters with open tickets can prove they have the correct apptitude to shoot safely in the field?

I am not one for compulsary training but in this instance i think it would be a good idea.

 

Ian.

[David BASC]

For all these reasons, and many more, i cannot see the police / ACPO going for shotguns on Sec 1, indeed with all the cut backs I am sure they will lobby hard for no increase in administration!

 

I cannot see compulsory training solving the issues that the HASC were tasked to look at, nor indeed has it been asked for by Government - it would only restrict newcomers taking up shooting which is something we need to be very aware of.

 

David

[CharlieT]

Moving shotguns to Sec.1 not only brings the need to prove good reason for acquisition, but other limitations which apply to other Sec.1 firearms.

 

i am thinking about written permission and land checks!

Will every shotgun user who shoots in the field have to have their permission cleared and approved as per rifle shooters?

This would be a logistical nightmare and would take many years to complete

 

Or will there be a blanket exemption for shotguns?

If this is the case it would create a section within a section. Once defined as a section 1 firearm, the same rules apply, you cant have one rule for one type of section 1 firearm and one for another type section 1 firearm, otherwise they cannot be classed as section 1.

 

Having said that a blanket exemption of land clearence for all Sec.1 firearms would be much easier apply but then brings into the equation the firearms handling experience, of individuals who have never shot on land before or even handled a rifle or shotgun.

 

Is it a good idea to give such shooters open tickets from the outset?

I dont think it is, so what should be done to make sure new shooters with open tickets can prove they have the correct apptitude to shoot safely in the field?

I am not one for compulsary training but in this instance i think it would be a good idea.

 

Ian.

 

 

S1 shotguns do not need land checks nor is written permission a requirement.

 

Yet I admit good need has to be specified but if all shotguns were S1 then surely Clay shooting or rough shooting could suffice. For instance my S1 shotgun which I use for vermin is conditioned for clays but I am not required to specify where or have to join a club.

[masterzone2]

Problem as it stands I can get a O/U for clays etc with no hassle I do have sec1 shotgun on my FAC

as I see it if you need an FAC to get a O/U shotgun the police will need to be very clear as to what shotgun you can/cannot have

ATM my fac just says shotgun 12 bore twice.

So I can get what I want so if the new ideas went ahead In theory at least I ask for a semi auto shotgun

I could go out and get the hi cap version oppose to O/U-they would have to be very clear.

Also SGC is the stepping stone to FAC you get a bit of understanding and savvy

 

Its more worrying for me, personally the only thing I like to see changed is to give SGC/Sec2

and extra shell or 2 before you have to go FAC MAYBE allow .22 bolts on there however that could confuse things.

 

system is good as it is just give us handguns back and all will be fine.

[poontang]

 

 

I think its important to realise and indeed accept that the HASC investigation was into Firearm Licensing and NOT armed crime, so I see little point in Robs comments about how these proposals do nothing to prevent armed crime – they were never intended to!!!

 

 

 

 

I'm not so sure about that David.

 

The whole review of the licencing procedure came about due to the Derrick Bird killings, (with legally held guns).

 

I'm sure the whole thing is designed to find ways of reducing the risk of any similar occurence in the future?

[Scully]

making shotguns section 1 would entail every shotgun holder(including existing ones)having to show 'good reason' each time they wanted another,and at renewal.There are shooters on here with four or more shotguns,ask yourselves if you can show 'good reason' for each one,because that's what you'll be asked to do if this proposal becomes a reality. :unsure: Just a thought.

[mossy835]

i know of some who have 28 shotguns,make a reason out for that lot.

[David BASC]

Dear All,

 

The issues the OP was trying to get over is this:

 

1. The Shooting orgs gave loads of great and positive evidence to the HASC - (see here for more info)

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/B8C7DD39-7DE7-4428-BFDB31972A4F617F

 

2. The HASC report contains some rather stark suggestions, not least of all shotguns onto Sec 1!

 

3. The HASC report is going back to the House of Commons soon for further debate.

 

4. It is important that shooters get in touch with their MP NOW and ask them to lobby against the daft restrictions that are within the report.

 

David

[DRTaylor]

DavidBASC is quite right.

 

The clock is ticking before the Government’s response to the report. It would be quite easy for an MP who doesn’t shoot to opt for the proposal to put shotguns on section 1. What would it matter to them?

 

As an organisation, the CA are currently lobbying MPs to ensure that they are aware of the issues.

 

However, it is also important that MPs also hear from their constituents which they represent. If they understood how it would affect you, they would easily change their mind.

 

David

[MC]

While I see Al4x's point about firearms being made Sec 2 I feel that it should be that ALL guns go on one licence.

 

If you have an FAC and have permission to own a particular calibre why should you have to do a variation if you fancy a diffent make or action type? They are free anyway and I have never heard of one being refused so as long as you only own the ammount of guns/moderators you have slots for I don't see why you shouldn't be able to swap them as you like.

The table 1/2 on the back of your certificate would show what you have anyway and once the police are notified you have disposed of/ acquired a new gun then they would know if you have over your allowance.

 

That would stop anyone buying what they couldn't have. It would also cut down the ammount of paperwork the police have to do and the revenue would be the same as I bet most people who have both tickets are co terminous so only pay £50 anyway.

[al4x]

If you have an FAC and have permission to own a particular calibre why should you have to do a variation if you fancy a diffent make or action type? They are free anyway and I have never heard of one being refused so as long as you only own the ammount of guns/moderators you have slots for I don't see why you shouldn't be able to swap them as you like.

The table 1/2 on the back of your certificate would show what you have anyway and once the police are notified you have disposed of/ acquired a new gun then they would know if you have over your allowance.

 

 

 

really that is a side issue and a possible problem with the FAC system rather than anything else. To my mind at the moment a SGC requires one set of criteria which is far more relaxed than the FAC system. No real issues with buying and selling guns, where you use them and proving need etc.

 

a FAC is a different ballgame and really the firearms you are talking about are very different to shotguns so I can see why they should be fairly tightly regulated and if you don't need them why have more about than need be as a certain number will always fall into the wrong hands each year through thefts and house burglaries etc

 

so basically we have the government in the public eye having to justify their licensing system and how it works and BASC trying to relax the system. the two don't go together start promoting one license and what will happen is the FAC system won't get easier but the shotgun system will suddenly be dragged into line and toughened up. That is what the media and public would like to see, no way will they accept it being made easier for all and sundry to get a rifle

[Coolhead]

While the shooting organisations do have an appropriate position from their constitutions, a couple of caveats would be wise;

 

1) Something WILL be done, and seen to be done, to tighten the law. This is inevitable and will justify the tax pounds spent on the process.

 

2) Cost savings through streamlining and clarifying the process WILL be made.

 

Any suggestions to the MP's will only be considered if they meet the above criteria. It's just politics.

 

Throw the MP's a bone. They must show that they have increased public safety and not inflated administration costs.

Negative campaigning WILL be self-defeating. Expressing opposition to change will give ammunition (pardon the pun) to the anti's.

 

Perhaps a rule that everyone must be a member of a recognised club. This allows industry self-monitoring and peer review of shooters' ability and state of mind. This could help limit damage.

[Sprackles]

Club membership ?.....for a die hard driven game only shooter.

Perhaps memberships of BASC or CPSA but club memberships....unless we create our own here and now...PW Shooting Society...there, how's that.

 

I too agree that some change will come and as ever, some of us may lose out, some may lose thier licence, who knows exactly.

 

I have written to my MP, Martin Vickers but have had no reply which sums up the attitude most MP's will have towards us, unless of course they are also shooters.