How would you change the firearm laws?

[gazzthompson]

Sorry if this has been discussed before , if so please direct me to the previous thread.

 

As the title asks, How would you change the firearm laws? Would you relax them in certain areas? all areas? tighten them? And if you was voting today, purely on the basis of voting for a party for their firearm laws, who would you vote for?

 

Would love to hear some opinions.

[Greymaster]

The major priority should be to take licensing out of the hands of the police. Sure they can have an input in supplying records checks, but they should not be judge and jury. Second, make the appeals process fairer.

[Kes]

To grab the obvious one first, I would remove discretion over the individual force allocation of calibres - .243 for fox deer and humane despatch would be a standard description. Experience guidelines would also be laid down i.e. Restricted for one year except on arranged stalking and opened after two years with good reason being defined for doing that.

We are all far too much victims of the vagaries of individuals who, whilst police officers, fail consistently to interpret similarly a standard set of guidance notes.

I would also insist each force produced a policy statement on firearms i.e. set out what they are trying to achieve within the very much improved home office guidelines. I would also set up an ACPO/shooting industry liason committee with balanced membership from both to review the guidelines every 5 years. I would remove parliament from the process entirely and ACPO as the dominant influence.

I would also insist on a course of police firearms training with Grandfather rights, paid for by shooters, the once, just prior to the approval of an open ticket and make it a test so that an open ticket could be refused if there are safety issues.

 

I would also make it a hanging offence for anyone to use a firearm in the planning, commission or execution of a crime, whether licensed or unlicensed, raise the penalty for posession of illegal guns or ammunition to 10-20 years depending on the type of firearm found.

I.e. I would try to make legal gun owners the good guys and illegal, the bad ones. In a case like the Norwegian incident, a single verdict of hard labour for life, life being ten years until the criminal and the crime has been forgotten and then proceed to the death penalty, denying anyone the 'oxygen' of publicity and for the families of the bereaved.

There are many other things but this is too long already.

Cheers

Edited July 11, 2012 by Kes

[wymberley]

The major priority should be to take licensing out of the hands of the police. Sure they can have an input in supplying records checks, but they should not be judge and jury. Second, make the appeals process fairer.

 

If I may, could I just add that the replacement staff should be properly trained and all local regions should sing from the same hymn book to which no unauthorised local amendments are permitted. Other than saying that out loud which is probably what GM had in mind anyway, this would make such a vast improvement that we could possibly live with this alone for a 'trial period' reviewing any other possible changes at the end of that time.

 

Then, an eminently sensible point raised in another thread regarding FAC holders being additionally permitted to have shotguns plus the possibility of combining both the SGC and FAC into one document (which works well in many other countries) would just about wrap it up.

[gazzthompson]

Some good points, thanks guys

[casts_by_fly]

change the FAC 'need' based system to a general 'safe to have' system. For instance, a shooter would be deemed safe to have rimfires, safe to have up to 22 centerfires, or safe to have large caliber centerfires (6mm up to .375" for instance). No limit on the specific number or specific reason to have a particular gun. If you're shown safe and trustworthy to have one (say a 6.5), then there is no point in restricting you from having a 243 or 22.

 

Thanks,

Rick

[AlistairB]

I think starting with a consistent execution of the existing law would be a start.

 

AB

[kent]

I think starting with a consistent execution of the existing law would be a start.

 

AB

 

100% agree, this comes down to 1 single thing though TRAINING OF THE STAFF THAT WORK IN THIS AREA. My recent thread were the numpty had to back down coz he was dead wrong illustates my point "actually there is no right and wrong" Now is that the most pathetic face saver you ever will hear

 

I am sick and fed up of having to correct them, it is they who should be the ones with all the correct answers. I doubt it will ever happen while the cops are in charge though, no intrest there you see

[shaun4860]

Hows about not having what you are able to shoot(obviously legal species only)on your licence.

 

You would need to keep the minimum calibres for certain species but if for instance you are out with, say a .243 but only have deer on your conditions and not fox, then a fox pops out, you should be able to kill it, not wish you had brought your "fox" rifle

 

This idea has been muted in various shooting publications

 

[wymberley]

 

"actually there is no right and wrong" Now is that the most pathetic face saver you ever will hear

 

 

There is always the exception to the rule, though!

 

Consequently, come to think of it, sorting out the "authorised person"/"occupier" situation which does no one any favours at present, may well be handy. I am aware that there's a train of thought that suggests it's better to leave this alone as it may be to our advantage. I, personally, would not like to go to court on, "may be"; with a definitive right or wrong you know where you stand.

Edited July 11, 2012 by wymberley

[kent]

Hows about not having what you are able to shoot(obviously legal species only)on your licence.

 

You would need to keep the minimum calibres for certain species but if for instance you are out with, say a .243 but only have deer on your conditions and not fox, then a fox pops out, you should be able to kill it, not wish you had brought your "fox" rifle

 

This idea has been muted in various shooting publications

 

 

The .243 fox and deer thing has many conotations. Is the person competant to shoot at night? are they after the biggest fox gun on the back of totally mythical deer? In fairness do we rely want every Tom, **** and Harry shooting bunnies with .243's and toughly constucted 100 grn bullets on the back of "deer stalking"? when all they realy need is a rimfire. Believe it or not there are a few numpties out there. There was a thread on here recently asking "whats the biggest foxing gun" Remember we have to legislate for numpties, Lancs now state "on the ground" for people who wish to shoot CANADAS as pests with rifles- who the hell might shoot at flying ones? obviously they fear someone might the way applicants are vetted currently.

[poontang]

A simple test on the first application for a SGC wouldn't be a bad idea.

It shouldn't cost and would consist of basic safety/shooting issues. A fail shouldn't mean no certificate, just that it's put on hold whilst the applicant does a bit of homework. Too many people seem to hold a SGC without knowing the first thing about them.

 

I also think insurance should be mandatory. No insurance, no gun.

Edited July 11, 2012 by poontang

[SneakyD]

Alaskan constitutional carry would be my preferred model.

 

But being realistic the Canadian pal system wouldn't be too bad

[cant hit rabbits 123]

I have to disagree with the no insurance, no gun idea. It will just create an unavoidable captive market that can be easily exploited, just like car insurance now. Compare first time driver, just passed test to a long term driver, 30 odd years of experience. The new driver has to pay (from recent personal experience, and that of friends may I add) over the £2500 mark to insure a car they got fot £500. Just swap driver for shooter and the exact same market could, and most probably would appear. That would be a crippling blow for shooting, because new shooters, especially young ones, would be forced out or discouraged from even starting on financial gounds alone, like the hasstle wasnt enough already.

[poontang]

I have to disagree with the no insurance, no gun idea. It will just create an unavoidable captive market that can be easily exploited, just like car insurance now. Compare first time driver, just passed test to a long term driver, 30 odd years of experience. The new driver has to pay (from recent personal experience, and that of friends may I add) over the £2500 mark to insure a car they got fot £500. Just swap driver for shooter and the exact same market could, and most probably would appear. That would be a crippling blow for shooting, because new shooters, especially young ones, would be forced out or discouraged from even starting on financial gounds alone, like the hasstle wasnt enough already.

 

There's no real comparison with car insurance.

 

Claims involving shooting accidents are miniscule compared to those of cars. Insurance premiums are based on risk, and those risks are based on claims.

 

Insurance is available for about £20 at the moment, I really don't see why it should go up dramatically if everyone was insured....unless of course everyone suddenly started making claims.

[cant hit rabbits 123]

There's no real comparison with car insurance.

 

Claims involving shooting accidents are miniscule compared to those of cars. Insurance premiums are based on risk, and those risks are based on claims.

 

Insurance is available for about £20 at the moment, I really don't see why it should go up dramatically if everyone was insured....unless of course everyone suddenly started making claims.

 

Becuase the market would become captive, so prices would inevitably rise in course with the greed of the insurers. Just my thoughts. Not saying it is fact, no wish for an argument over it.

[JonathanL]

The whole thing needs to be taken back to 'first principles, those being public safety and control of crime. These are the ONLY issues given consideration when formulating firearms legislation.

 

The police should not be ones who grant certs - it should be a national agency so that the law is administered in exactly the same way countrywide. A simple notification that a person has applied would suffice so they could have an input if there is something in their criminal investigation files which may be relevant.

 

Having the have 'good reason' for each firearm is pointless really. If you are suitable to have an FAC then you are suitable to possess as many firearms as you can securely store.

 

I'm rather against tests and qualifications because they will inevitably end up being used as a way to unreasonably restrict us. In principle it may be a good idea as once you have passed it there would be no reason to have territorial conditions applied to FAC's.

 

J.

[HDAV]

I would like to see a DVLA type organisation to regulate and track firearms with a credit card sized certificate that holds a link to a central database which all RFD's are connected for all transactions. This is then linked to the PNC so as you leave the shop the PNC knows if you own the gun in your slip or not.

 

1 for 1 can be done at RFD speeding up the process to sell a particular gun and buy another. Reducing backlog for the police (and ensuring database is more accurate and up to date) Transaction confirmation paper copies to be retained.

 

All RFD's linked to database (sorry to the chaps who operate from a shed time to join the 21st century) Card to have a PIN code to prove the holder is the holder (backed up by photo etc.)

 

DVLA type authority to audit RFD's, and ensure compliance as well as police security checks on premises and staff (staff who access Database/handle firearms and hold keys to be cleared to a similar level to a cert holder just like holding UK govt security clearance)

 

Police to do interview and security checks only.

 

a set of criteria for ownership universally applied perhaps with a Shooting Standards agency offering tests and approvals via clubs and BASC/SACS/CPSA etc for competency in a particular category.

 

Once you are a Certificate holder you can shoot anything under supervision of the holder (direct supervision none of this in sight nonesense). As you have passed the security tests and interview. Once you have the competency's you can purchase the type of firearm you wish to own in line with storage and security measures.

 

Then once you have passed a competency your database entry gets updated and you get the ability to own that type of firearm.

 

Firearms categories to be:

Air rifle (section 0) Same card but without all of the checks available from RFD on production of Photo ID competency required

Air pistol (section 0)

Air soft (section 0)

BLank firers, starting pistols etc (Section 0)

Obselete calibre/ collecting /heirlooms (section 0) with security checks for live firing capable guns

Shotgun (as currently section 2) Target (clay etc) or field with separate competencies

Short/shot pistol/Multi-shot shotgun (section 1) vermin/humane despatch, new category for re-enactment type stuff

RimFire rifle (section 1 to include FAC AIR upto 60ft/lbs) Field/target separate competencies

Centre fire rifle (section 1)(possibly split at up to .243 and over .243 or at some other differentiating factor) Field/target

LBR/BP pistol (section 1) Target only

rimfire pistol (section 5) Target only

centre fire pistol (Section 5) (magazine limit of perhaps 7/10?) Target/ Humane despatch

Re-enactment firearms (muzzle loaders etc) special category with competency and membership of an organisation

 

Shot/centre fire pistol to be available for humane despatch in conjunction with suitable rifle and competency

 

Exemption for clubs to hold intro days to be made easier (proof of photo ID, passport, drivers licence, firearms card) and signed declaration (with copy of ID) to shoot anything the club or its members have.

 

All legal species for the calibre to be universal (right or wrong make it clear if .22-250 is OK for fox and .17HMR isnt)

 

Templates form for permission to shoot on land not owned by the shooter. remove any abiguity over who can shoot where and who is trespassing.

 

EG the card would hold access to the info to say. You have the storage for 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 2 pistols. You currently hold competency for Shotgun, rimfire rifle and rimfire pistol, you currently own 3 shotguns, a .22lr rifle, .17HMR rifle and .22LR pistol you can go to RFD sell a shotgun or rimfire rifle and buy another, or buy another .22LR pistol only.

 

An end to:

moderators being in a separate slot, but all mods to require proof cert to max calibre and screw cutting to require reproof.

regional variations on good reason

Land checks (all certs are open for a specific type of shooting Target, Field(game or vermin, deer a tricky one), Night shooting and lamping to have a specific competency etc) No more you must be safe because in 5 years you haven't had a reported "incident" take a competency test.

Tighter rules on proofing and reproofing.

Relax planning restrictions on where shooting can be held, temp ranges and clay shoots etc

 

Well they are my thoughts, I know most wont agree but i think it could work, I can't see why if public safety is the primary concern why anyone who has a shotgun cert can't be trusted with a pistol...If they cant they shouldn't have a shotgun!

 

Air is the tricky bit as are some other minor categories. I would certificate Air over the "toy" category 1 joule? but make it much easier for people to try the full gambit. If your happy to spend £50-£500 on buying an air rifle for "kicks" surely you would pay £5-£50 to try rifles, pistols, shotguns, unless you are just out to "own a gun" or cause mischief?

 

The competency tests to be straight forward and cheap, administered by the central DVLA to allow clubs to run there own courses much as now and for the BASC/SACS/CPSA to be able to run them through a national network.

 

Foreign nationals to complete competency before being able to shoot in the UK perhaps have an equivalent for countries that do this already.

[guest1957]

A definition of occupier set down in law to mean anyone with lawful authority to shoot over the land. It is a simple change to the law and I still don't understand why BASC and other organisations haven't brought this up.

 

I would definitely NOT try and certify sub-12ft/lb air rifles.

Edited July 11, 2012 by guest1957

[Gordon R]

The only change I would make would be mandatory,very hefty jail sentences for those possessing illegal firearms or imitations - perhaps 20 years to be served.

 

Little wrong with the current laws, but every atrocity brings a call for tougher gun control. If it wasn't so serious it would be comical.

[Guest cookoff013]

A simple test on the first application for a SGC wouldn't be a bad idea.

It shouldn't cost and would consist of basic safety/shooting issues. A fail shouldn't mean no certificate, just that it's put on hold whilst the applicant does a bit of homework. Too many people seem to hold a SGC without knowing the first thing about them.I also think insurance should be mandatory. No insurance, no gun.

 

+1

 

someone i know used a 3" in a 2,3/4" chamber when out `fowling. one shot ant it was nearly game over.

 

gun shattered.

[wymberley]

A definition of occupier set down in law to mean anyone with lawful authority to shoot over the land. It is a simple change to the law and I still don't understand why BASC and other organisations haven't brought this up.

 

I would definitely NOT try and certify sub-12ft/lb air rifles.

 

Sorry, disagree with the occupier bit. This existing legislation was brought in to relax the stringent law regarding the requirement for a licence under exceptional circumstances. Anyone properly licensed and with permission to shoot over the land would qualify as an occupier. Therefore, Tom, licensed and with permission could take the unlicensed Richard and Harry shooting whenever it took their fancy. Richard and Harry could give Tom some money to buy their guns in Tom's name and never have need of a licence. Richard has just been released after serving 8 years for GBH and Harry, 10 for armed robbery. I think we do ourselves a dis-service if we cannot work within the spirit of the law even though it is often set against us.

[gazzthompson]

Good post HDAV, Thanks.

[HDAV]

Richard and Harry could give Tom some money to buy their guns in Tom's name and never have need of a licence. Richard has just been released after serving 8 years for GBH and Harry, 10 for armed robbery. I think we do ourselves a dis-service if we cannot work within the spirit of the law even though it is often set against us.

Both of whom would be "prohibited persons"?

[HDAV]

Good post HDAV, Thanks.

LOL didnt think anyone would read it, don't see it happening and the status quo will be maintained appeasing everyone but doing nothing positive nor applying any real thought. Eventually continuing to erode current freedoms with plenty of none legislation created by FLO's for the benefit of no one.