BBC - Licence applicants may need partners' approval

[gazzthompson]

Thoughts ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21051062

[washerboy]

Problem is?..

My wife Sat as i talked with FAO,he understood the wife had no Problems with me owning guns

[SneakyD]

Problem is?..

My wife Sat as i talked with FAO,he understood the wife had no Problems with me owning guns

The problem is, if you have an ex wife or partner that refuses to sign out of spite. Happens all the time in Canada, where this awful idea comes from.

[Greenhunter]

Thats fair enough, mine would be the same but what about the guy trying to get his life back on track after a recent nasty divorce and the ex decides to be vindictive?

Would possibly be ok in the end but might not!!

 

 

 

Beaten to it:(

GH

Edited January 17, 2013 by Greenhunter

[Steppenwolf]

This is going to be abused as people have said above. A very poor reccomendation.

[roundy]

Current partners - not a problem with that

 

Recent/ex partnets - no ******* way!

[al4x]

Indeed current ones isn't such a bad thing and I can see the logic in ex partners, if the question to them was purely had you been violent then its one thing but anything else would lay open room for a vindictive statement.

[JonathanL]

Never going to happen in respect of ex-partners and unlikely in respect of current ones. It's an invasion of your art.8 rights to respect for your private life which needs strong justification and I can't see what the justification is. There is also a very serious security issue here. An example; the wife does off and shacks up with the local drug dealer. A couple of years later she gets asked by the cops whether you should have an FAC or not. The local drug dealer now knows that you are going to be keeping guns in your house. Wonderful!

 

J.

[stumpy69]

Ha... Just read this comment,

 

Dear Farmer Palmer,

 

The following things also stop foxes:

 

1. A fence

2. A wall

3. A trap

4. A .22 air rifle

 

However Raul Moat or Derek Bird would have been lucky to kill anyone with some chickenwire or even a .22.

 

regards,

 

Mr A Townie

 

What planet are people living on that they think a .22 air rifle will cause anything other than suffering to a fox.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

From the BBC article:

 

In Canada, spouses or recent ex-spouses are required to sign gun licence application forms. If they decline, additional checks are carried out on the applicant.

 

It does not say that where, in the case where a current or former partner refuses to sign then the applicant is refused a license as a result, it says that more background checks will be carried out.

[Steppenwolf]

That is true but that is Canada, in Britain they will probably say that if your partner doesn't sign it will not be given. Then again they could be using this to scare you the proposals are "it MAY happen".

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

That is true but that is Canada, in Britain they will probably say that if your partner doesn't sign it will not be given. Then again they could be using this to scare you the proposals are "it MAY happen".

 

So now you're in the business of predicting the future? Impressive. This really is much ado about nothing. Only those tools with a history of domestic violence need be worried - and I suspect it's no bad thing that their 'type' get added to the existing list of criteria already on the application form: i.e. those with a history of depression, substance abuse, epileptics etc. And why shouldn't they be added to the list? if this move removes the prospect or opportunity for one hothead with an inability to control his temper towards women to use a gun when he's lost his rag, then it appears to be a good move.

[Paxtond]

I thought that kinda did this already.

 

My flo asked my parents and sister if they were ok living in a house with guns, all were fine after I took them to the club, totally changed their view on shooters.

 

As for ex partners, I can't see that working at all, the amount of friends I have at war over custody of children who can't even look at each other

[aris]

Every time Theresa May opens her mouth, you can be sure either your human rights, or privacy will be violated.

[mossy835]

if you have had a bad time with a x,then you have no chance a current one is ok,

[westmids1987]

Good idea in theory,similar situation is during an adoption/fostering application,i think the authorities 'should' be able to tell a vindictive ex from a genuine but that will be down to the idividual,my aunt foster sand her ex said all sorts of untruths but they took it with a pinch of salt and she passed through the process no problem

[bedwards1966]

Problem is?..

My wife Sat as i talked with FAO,he understood the wife had no Problems with me owning guns

From the BBC article:

 

It does not say that where, in the case where a current or former partner refuses to sign then the applicant is refused a license as a result, it says that more background checks will be carried out.

 

This could be a major problem to shooters - the thin end of the wedge again.

 

It is not unknown for an ex to have a go, and I can imagine there may be enough out there who would invent anything to prevent someone getting a certificate, that is a lot of power to put in the hands of a vindictive person.

 

Of course, they may say that if it isn't signed by a partner/ex that it does not prevent you getting one, only that additional checks will then be carried out. Seriously?

That has so much potential to be twisted whichever way the anti gun/vote hungry people inventing the rules want. They may make it so that it doesn't automatically stop you, but they may make it so difficult without that nobody can realistically get one without a glowing report from an ex. There is too much potential for it to misused.

Edited January 17, 2013 by bedwards1966

[bedwards1966]

Good idea in theory,similar situation is during an adoption/fostering application,i think the authorities 'should' be able to tell a vindictive ex from a genuine but that will be down to the idividual,my aunt foster sand her ex said all sorts of untruths but they took it with a pinch of salt and she passed through the process no problem

 

While it is often true that a vindictive person can be seen for who/what they are, there are still two problems:

 

1. This relies on the person looking at it having common sense. Something that is anything other than common.

 

2. This relies on the person looting at it wanting to do the right thing. If the person making the decision wants to be obstructive they will use whatever an ex says as the easy way to prevent someone getting a certificate, even when they know it is false.

 

 

I can't see a way that the system could ever work in a way that allows it to do any good, but without the possibility of misuse.

[bedwards1966]

Never going to happen in respect of ex-partners and unlikely in respect of current ones. It's an invasion of your art.8 rights to respect for your private life which needs strong justification and I can't see what the justification is. There is also a very serious security issue here. An example; the wife does off and shacks up with the local drug dealer. A couple of years later she gets asked by the cops whether you should have an FAC or not. The local drug dealer now knows that you are going to be keeping guns in your house. Wonderful!

 

J.

 

I can't see why it wouldn't happen here.

Our rights and any question of fairness or effectiveness seem to be ignored when someone pushes hard enough to restrict firearms in the name of public safety.

How did it get through in Canada, where the issue of security and rights is surely just as important?

[JonathanL]

I can't see why it wouldn't happen here.

Our rights and any question of fairness or effectiveness seem to be ignored when someone pushes hard enough to restrict firearms in the name of public safety.

How did it get through in Canada, where the issue of security and rights is surely just as important?

 

We have a specific Human Rights Act on which to base a precise claim on. Admittedly, I don't know if the Canadians a similar provision, perhaps they do. The government would have to show that the breach of your right to privacy was necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and I think that's a pretty high bar to clear in the case of firearms. There are very good reasons as to why you may not want people to know you have firearms, especially ex partners, and I think it would be difficult to make the case that it was a necessary thing to do because it would still be difficult to get usable information.

 

J.

[MartynGT4]

Seems very flawed to me, apart from the obvious vindictive ex issue, how are they going to prove an 'ex' even exists?

 

Do you have to have been married to someone for them to be considered an ex, plenty of people don't get married after all?

 

So will living with a woman, who may not even be a partner, be enough for the police to consider them an 'ex'?

 

Yet more poorly thought out legislation, thanks for that

[Gutty Boots]

Over 15 years ago, when I first applied for my SGC, my girlfriend (now wife,) was present when the Police came round for the initial interview, she was supplying the coffee & biscuits! At the end of his chat with me, he asked her about the following:

 

. my relationship with my ex wife

. her thoughts on guns in the house

. her political beliefs

 

After he left, about an hour in total if I remember rightly, I thought he had been very thorough & assumed it was that way for everyone on their first application, main thing is I got my ticket shortly afterwards.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Over 15 years ago, when I first applied for my SGC, my girlfriend (now wife,) was present when the Police came round for the initial interview, she was supplying the coffee & biscuits! At the end of his chat with me, he asked her about the following:

 

. my relationship with my ex wife

. her thoughts on guns in the house

. her political beliefs

 

After he left, about an hour in total if I remember rightly, I thought he had been very thorough & assumed it was that way for everyone on their first application, main thing is I got my ticket shortly afterwards.

 

And he had every right to ask all those questions - except the last one: a person's political beliefs are theirs and theirs alone. He blotted his copybook when he did that. The rest are perfectly reasonable and understandable questions which need to be asked.

 

When I had my FEO interview, because my wife is a SGC holder too (my guns are on her ticket and vice versa), and has access to the gun safe, it was imperative that she join me for the interview. Again, required and perfectly understandable.

[aris]

Over 15 years ago, when I first applied for my SGC, my girlfriend (now wife,) was present when the Police came round for the initial interview, she was supplying the coffee & biscuits! At the end of his chat with me, he asked her about the following:

 

. my relationship with my ex wife

. her thoughts on guns in the house

. her political beliefs

 

After he left, about an hour in total if I remember rightly, I thought he had been very thorough & assumed it was that way for everyone on their first application, main thing is I got my ticket shortly afterwards.

 

Just don't tell them if you are a UKIP member, though that line of questioning is way out of line.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

This could be a major problem to shooters - the thin end of the wedge again.

 

It is not unknown for an ex to have a go, and I can imagine there may be enough out there who would invent anything to prevent someone getting a certificate, that is a lot of power to put in the hands of a vindictive person

 

Fair point, but you have to allow the Plod the latitude to see vindictiveness for what it is - plus, unless a former partner can produce evidence that she reported the alleged 'offence' of which she speaks, then it will be seen for what it is - spite.

 

 

Of course, they may say that if it isn't signed by a partner/ex that it does not prevent you getting one, only that additional checks will then be carried out. Seriously?

That has so much potential to be twisted whichever way the anti gun/vote hungry people inventing the rules want. They may make it so that it doesn't automatically stop you, but they may make it so difficult without that nobody can realistically get one without a glowing report from an ex. There is too much potential for it to misused.

 

Aye, but conversely it has the potential to come to nought and the applicant being awarded his ticket. I wouldn't get too het-up about this until it's produced as a white paper to the House for debate. And even then you'll see some rare old anti-wallahs holding forth, but as we've seen in two recent House debates on gun ownership, the bills maintaining the status quo pass.