How would you change the firearm laws?

[kent]

Both of whom would be "prohibited persons"?

 

Dont you believe it i know a guy with convictions for poaching, illegal possesion and assult on police as well as other stuff. After having been inside a few times. My first FEO (when it was the cops) said they had to give guns to a convicted armed robber when he sucsessfully appealed

[HDAV]

Dont you believe it i know a guy with convictions for poaching, illegal possesion and assult on police as well as other stuff. After having been inside a few times. My first FEO (when it was the cops) said they had to give guns to a convicted armed robber when he sucsessfully appealed

 

He must have made a good appeal case. probably not been sentenced to a custodial term of 3 years (not sure if suspended counts) there ar elots of stories of people who shouldn't having FAC and SGC, it's all about who you know and how much money you have not the rights and wrongs.

 

But they would require a Judge to agree and repeal the prohibition:

 

Q: What is a prohibited person?

 

A: Section 21, Firearms Act, 1968 sets out restrictions on the possession of firearms by certain categories of persons convicted of crime. A person who has been sentenced to preventive detention or to imprisonment or to corrective training for a term of three years or more; or who has been sentenced to be detained in a young offenders' institution in Scotland, shall not, at any time, have a firearm or ammunition in his possession. This means for life and includes all firearms, even air weapons, air gun pellets and shotgun ammunition.

 

A person who has been sentenced to borstal training, to corrective training for less than three years, or to imprisonment for a term of three months or more, but less than three years; or who has been sentenced to be detained for such a term in a detention centre or in a young offenders' institution in Scotland, shall not at any time before the expiration of a period of five years, from the date of his release, have a firearm or ammunition in his possession.

 

It is also an offence for a person to sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to, or repair, test or prove a firearm or ammunition for, a person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to be prohibited from having a firearm or ammunition in his possession.

 

Edited July 11, 2012 by HDAV

[poontang]

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.

 

Still reading that book I see

[HDAV]

Still reading that book I see

Finished it ages ago poon, I believe i offered you my copy......I still agree with what i said and the gist of the book. I am all for protecting public safety and if anyone can show me a way to improve public safety I am all for it. Isnt it time we took responsibility and stopped laying it at the feet of other people? If we have concerns about a certificate holder or person in general we should raise them. There should be a right to appeal, the fact is firearms legislation and control is a thorn in the side of the police, they don't want to do it most don't understand it. As a specialist area with a lot of history, a lack of funding and some real difficulties I see the best thing to do is start again. It wont happen, the govt can't afford it, the suppliers can't administer it the wrong people will advise, there isnt enough passion and the public wont vote for it (not that they seem to bother voting for much these days.

 

 

 

The book referred to is avaiable here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trigger-Finger-Rational-Firearms-Kingdom/dp/1906174997 not the best written book in the world and does have some flaws

[njc110381]

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.

 

That's pretty much what I'd like to see. A single certificate set to the experience level of the shooter with far fewer silly restrictions. It would also be good if that certificate gave freedom to buy and sell with only a notification as is done with shotguns. The number allowed to hold should be limited by the level of security in the certificate holder's home. Say ten or more needing an alarm for example?

[guest1957]

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.

 

You would still have to have a certificate to supervise.

 

What I am getting at us the daft situation where many believe occupier means landowner and landowner only for supervising the use of yor shotgun by someone else.

 

The word occupier doesn't mean this and the law should be clarified to reflect that. As you know someone having served those sentences would not fall within the exemption either way as would be unable to shoot even at a s.11 clay ground.

Edited July 11, 2012 by guest1957

[bedwards1966]

There is a long list, here are the basics in a nutshell:

 

• Remove firearm licencing from the police farce. Apart from the checks, which the police need to be involved in, I'm sure there are far more competent people to do it (who hopefully won't keep issuing firearms to pedophiles, criminals and women beaters). It should all be in one organisation who follow the rules - we currently have every different force interpreting the rules as they like.
  
• Under the one body waiting times and fees should be improved. Why do we wait, pay and go through the legal system to have firearms? It does us no good, it's supposedly for the protection of the public so it can come out of their fund.
  
• Get rid of the silly caliber restrictions. If your a trustworthy enough person to have a .22lr you're trustworthy enough for an anti-tank gun.
  
• Get rid of the 'good reason' for each caliber. If I want another .243 why should I have to prove why? I'm no more likely to be a danger with 1, 2, 3 or 20.
  
• I think that land checks are pointless. There is no land safe for any caliber, even the .22lr, if the gun is pointed in an unsafe direction. There are only safe shooters.
  
• Pistols for target shooting should be brought back to section 1, banning them served no benefit to shooters or the public.
  
• I see no need for a separate system for S1 and S2 guns. While I am strongly against moving S2 to S1 under the current system, under the system I've put above the only difference would be in the level of checks done on a person applying - checks are important for safety.
  
• Compulsory insurance for people shooting over land might be worth considering. I don't think it's needed for clay shooters who only shoot at grounds with the appropriate insurance, but on land it's another matter.
  
• Compulsory training - something I'm generally against, but it keeps coming to my attention how little some people know about firearms and as a result are a danger to themselves and others. Perhaps that should be part of the system, but it would need to be done very carefully to avoid the government restricting us out of the sport, and to avoid it pricing us out of the sport.
  

 

Right, that should solve just about all the issues we have with the current system. However, as I'm quite sure I'm not going to be ruling the country any time soon it's not likely to happen, the current governments/parties sure won't go for it!

[wymberley]

You would still have to have a certificate to supervise.

 

What I am getting at us the daft situation where many believe occupier means landowner and landowner only for supervising the use of yor shotgun by someone else.

 

The word occupier doesn't mean this and the law should be clarified to reflect that. As you know someone having served those sentences would not fall within the exemption either way as would be unable to shoot even at a s.11 clay ground.

 

Yep, I only introduced Tom (he's not been caught yet) Richard and Harry to highlight the possible loopholes.

 

The 1981 W&CA has virtually sorted the occupier adding to the obvious landowner or tenant. As you rightly said in March, legislation to formalise this would be good. All that would be required is clarification of, "anyone having the right". Does this mean whoever holds the rights formally or just has permission to shoot pigeon/rabbit. As I've said, I'm of the opinion that the original legislation related to the former.

[HDAV]

[*] I see no need for a separate system for S1 and S2 guns. While I am strongly against moving S2 to S1 under the current system, under the system I've put above the only difference would be in the level of checks done on a person applying - checks are important for safety

I don't see how with the correct training you can make the s1 and S2 distinction without pistols all long guns are equally devastating at ranges up to 30 yds if your suitable to have a shotgun i can't see how you are then unsuitable to have a rifle.

Edited July 11, 2012 by HDAV

[Yarmite]

Slightly off the original question, however just wanted to try and make some people think about what they were proposing:

 

With freedom (freedom to use a gun on some land being one example, driving a car being another, going climbing on some rocks being another) comes responsibility....responsibility to yourself and others. There also comes risk.

 

- The responsibility to yourself is called self preservation or survival of the fittest.

 

- The responsibility to others is the whole point about licensing (in whatever form).

 

I personally don't want to live in a world where the meek (c.f. the weak) think everyone should be trained, signed off and insured against harm to themselves....we have already gone far too much that way already. I want to take responsibility for myself, and accept the consequences where it goes wrong (and learn from it).

 

I do however fully agree with objective and pragmatic checks, which are often a personal judgement in the real world (licensing) and cannot reasonably be prescribed, however long the rule book. These checks ensure, as far as is practical (not possible, practical) that someone knows how to take responsibility for others....and by a graduated process, allow them to build their experience. (If subsequently they don't take proper responsibility, then of course there are sanctions and people end up in court....their responsibility to make sure they don't).

Edited July 11, 2012 by Yarmite

[wymberley]

Don't knock the meek; rumour has it they're going to inherit the Earth.

[Scully]

Started reading this thread with a heavy heart but am pleasantly surprised!Common sense prevails largely.

[storme37]

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.

agreed a disaster, but this could be good 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.I would definitely NOT try and certify sub-12ft/lb air rifles.

Edited July 11, 2012 by storme37

[bedwards1966]

I don't see how with the correct training you can make the s1 and S2 distinction without pistols all long guns are equally devastating at ranges up to 30 yds if your suitable to have a shotgun i can't see how you are then unsuitable to have a rifle.

 

I think you've misunderstood what I meant. I think that the checks that are done for a FAC should also be done to the same standard for a shotgun or any other gun, I think that if someone can be trusted with any type of firearm they can be trusted with all firearms (hence doing away with the S1 and S2 system). The checks need to be thorough, as they can be lethal weapons if given to the wrong people, but once your confirmed as safe then it should basically be free reign to have what you want.

[gazzthompson]

Some good posts, thanks!

 

 

Based purely on Firearm laws, if you had to vote for a party, who would you vote for? again, considering only that parties firearm laws?

 

Any libertarian party people?

 

The Libertarian Party stands by the right of peaceful citizens to defend

themselves against violent attackers and burglars within the law, and

will make it a priority to bring the laws on self defence back into line

with common sense.

 

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Libertarian-Manifesto.pdf

[CharlieT]

Slightly off the original question, however just wanted to try and make some people think about what they were proposing:

 

With freedom (freedom to use a gun on some land being one example, driving a car being another, going climbing on some rocks being another) comes responsibility....responsibility to yourself and others. There also comes risk.

 

- The responsibility to yourself is called self preservation or survival of the fittest.

 

- The responsibility to others is the whole point about licensing (in whatever form).

 

I personally don't want to live in a world where the meek (c.f. the weak) think everyone should be trained, signed off and insured against harm to themselves....we have already gone far too much that way already. I want to take responsibility for myself, and accept the consequences where it goes wrong (and learn from it).

 

I do however fully agree with objective and pragmatic checks, which are often a personal judgement in the real world (licensing) and cannot reasonably be prescribed, however long the rule book. These checks ensure, as far as is practical (not possible, practical) that someone knows how to take responsibility for others....and by a graduated process, allow them to build their experience. (If subsequently they don't take proper responsibility, then of course there are sanctions and people end up in court....their responsibility to make sure they don't).

 

Thank the lord for common sense.

 

I'm more than happy with my licensing authority, other than their extended turnround times. Being completely selfish, I would not wish to see D&C contaminated by daft decisions made by some quango based in Islington.

 

There is little wrong with the legislation/administration we currently have, all that is required is that those licensing authorities who refuse to follow ACPO guidelines be brought to account. A CC appearing before a televised select committee, being quizzed as to why he refuses to follow ACPO/HO guidelines would soon focus his mind.

[HDAV]

I think you've misunderstood what I meant. I think that the checks that are done for a FAC should also be done to the same standard for a shotgun or any other gun, I think that if someone can be trusted with any type of firearm they can be trusted with all firearms (hence doing away with the S1 and S2 system). The checks need to be thorough, as they can be lethal weapons if given to the wrong people, but once your confirmed as safe then it should basically be free reign to have what you want.

I agree, miss used they are all equally dangerous. The rest is down to training/experience of safety.

[wymberley]

 

[*] Compulsory training - something I'm generally against, but it keeps coming to my attention how little some people know about firearms and as a result are a danger to themselves and others. Perhaps that should be part of the system, but it would need to be done very carefully to avoid the government restricting us out of the sport, and to avoid it pricing us out of the sport.

 

 

Education? Pah! Who needs it?

[Breastman]

Scrap;

 

1937 Firearms Act (And the associated parts of the 1968 Act)

1953 Prevention of Crime Act (parts pertaining to firearms)

1988 Firearms Act

1997 Firearms Act 1&2

 

Scrap firearms certification in its current form altogether, its a bureaucratic waste of money for the cost/public safety ratio. Have the same background checks you get in the US and the same list of prohibited people. Before anyone jumps on the oh but its too relaxed in America band wagon, the shootings in Peterlee would not have happened under the US system as wife beaters are prohibited persons.

 

Anyone wanting anything full auto would have to submit to annual psychometric testing, allow the body who is responsible for firearms (M.o.F.?) access to their financial records and the right to contact any person related/in a relationship with them for interview.

 

Anyone wanting a self-defence weapon (the correct usage of the word when talking about firearms as they would be used for defensive purposes and hence become an actual weapon by dictionary definition), would have to submit to the same as above plus an annual marksmanship, reflex/health and eyesight tests and pass a written/oral test relating to the lawful use of a firearm for self-defence.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Breastman

[JonathanL]

Some good posts, thanks!

 

 

Based purely on Firearm laws, if you had to vote for a party, who would you vote for? again, considering only that parties firearm laws?

 

Any libertarian party people?

 

 

 

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Libertarian-Manifesto.pdf

 

I know thhat the question is framed in respect of voting for a party but voting along those lines is pointless from our point of view. Shooters should vote for the candidate of whatever party who is the most pro shooting. There are no parties who are particularly pro-shooting, to be honest. People assume that the conservatives are the most pro-shooting lot but if you look back over the course of history then it becomes obvious that more bans and restrictions have been enacted under Tory regeimes than any other. Although Labour are clearly the most spiteful and vindictive after their post-Dunblane performance.

 

Voting by candidate is the only game in town, to be honest.

 

J.

[dicehorn]

Couple of things that I would like to see coming into the HO Guidance bearing in mind how long renewals are taking are:-

 

Scrapping of the one for one variation - if the police have granted you a Tikka 243 and you want to replace it with a Sako 243 - whats he big deal as long as they are advised and the RFD completes your certificate.

 

Scrapping the need to name the moderator on your ticket - that way you can swop without all the red tape.

[storme37]

"citizens to defend themselves against violent attackers and burglars within the law" i think we already have these laws its just not acceptable to use a gun for self defence in the case of an unarmed robber as i believe the defence has to be proportional

[HDAV]

"citizens to defend themselves against violent attackers and burglars within the law" i think we already have these laws its just not acceptable to use a gun for self defence in the case of an unarmed robber as i believe the defence has to be proportional

it's all at the courts/CPS discretion http://www.metro.co.uk/news/855891-man-praised-by-judge-for-firing-air-rifle-at-burglar and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-15194950

 

From last year. (shame they never tell you what happened....)

 

Last month, Vincent Cooke was held on suspicion of murdering burglar Raymond Jacob, who was stabbed with his own knife after targeting Mr Cooke's £350,000 home in Bramhall, Cheshire. He was later released on bail.

In June, Peter Flanagan, 59, escaped charges after he was arrested when an intruder was stabbed to death in his house in Salford. The following month, Cecil Coley, 72, was freed without charge after he stabbed an armed raider to death when a gang smashed their way into his florist shop in Old Trafford, Manchester.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045999/Malcolm-White-held-attempted-murder-shooting-burglar-home-raid.html#ixzz20W9bSjRq

[T-Bolt94]

I would like to see FACs all on a plastic card with a chip and pin system to purchase ammo/firearms. Insert card and BAMM up comes all your license details at least then you have Photo ID FAC (FireArms CARD) but without the worry of it getting wet or damaged, you wont run out of ammo slots would save the Police Forces a fortune in processing costs as everything could be carried out electronically. If the police wanted to see what was being bought in certain areas etc it would be dead easy and would help reduce the amount of hassle and red tape surrounding variations of same calibres and moderators. It would also make application trun around times so much quicker.