BBC - Licence applicants may need partners' approval

[mossy835]

just another way of getting the guns off you.

[-Mongrel-]

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.

 

On that basis I tend to agree, but at the same time I do worry that it's another erosion of our rights.

[bedwards1966]

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

In theory it could all be OK, and I do feel that an FEO needs to have a real say on whether or not to issue a certificate. However, it is difficult to have a system that isn't open to abuse (in either direction - making it hard to get a certificate, or granting them where it is inappropriate).

 

Relying on someone to dismiss something said by a vindictive person has a huge potential for problems - what about when the person making the decision is anti shooting, and wants to keep people from having them? They may not be common (thankfully) in firearms departments, but they are not unknown.

 

This has the potential to prevent people from getting certificates due to a malicious ex, and it is very unlikely that it will do any good. Because of this it should be opposed, and relying on the government doing the right thing when it gets in front of them is very dangerous - look what happened after Hungerford and Dunblane.

[HDAV]

look what happened after Hungerford and Dunblane.

On an interesting side note were hamilton, ryan, or bird married or in a relationship at the time of their crimes? Or in a serious relationship?

[pboro shot]

how many legal gun/fire arm holders have ever used or said they would use there guns/firearms agaist a partner or ex not many in the big picture i expect. seems to me there is not a problem id be looking more into illegal firearms mind you it is easier to make joe publics life hard work instead of some wannabe gangster how doesnt cooperate with the law but seems things wont get better just have to keep signing pertitions and ride the storm

[overandunder2012]

On an interesting side note were hamilton, ryan, or bird married or in a relationship at the time of their crimes? Or in a serious relationship?

i heard that shootings like these are almost always the work of single men

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

In theory it could all be OK, and I do feel that an FEO needs to have a real say on whether or not to issue a certificate. However, it is difficult to have a system that isn't open to abuse (in either direction - making it hard to get a certificate, or granting them where it is inappropriate).

 

Again, fair points.

 

Relying on someone to dismiss something said by a vindictive person has a huge potential for problems - what about when the person making the decision is anti shooting, and wants to keep people from having them? They may not be common (thankfully) in firearms departments, but they are not unknown.

 

We've got to stop this innate paranoia of the anti-shooting brigade as, in the example you cite, it matters not whether "the person making the decision is anti-shooting" or not - if they make a mess of the decision and try and reinterpret (for the their own ends) the current gun laws as they stand, or blatantly refuse an applicant without good reason, then it will be tossed out on appeal.

 

This has the potential to prevent people from getting certificates due to a malicious ex, and it is very unlikely that it will do any good. Because of this it should be opposed, and relying on the government doing the right thing when it gets in front of them is very dangerous - look what happened after Hungerford and Dunblane.

 

Not sure I see the issue there - there have been no school massacres or semi-auto town shootings since both these events, so where's the issue?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

i heard that shootings like these are almost always the work of single men

 

Correct - with "issues". Be it loners, social misfits or sociopaths - or worse. And yet, bizarrely, there are still those who whine about deeper background checks on applicants.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

how many legal gun/fire arm holders have ever used or said they would use there guns/firearms agaist a partner or ex not many in the big picture i expect. seems to me there is not a problem id be looking more into illegal firearms mind you it is easier to make joe publics life hard work instead of some wannabe gangster how doesnt cooperate with the law but seems things wont get better just have to keep signing pertitions and ride the storm

 

What, apart from Raoul Moat? Keith Johnson and ... the list goes on.

 

Scrotes offing each other never makes the news other than in passing - whereas those who own their weapons legally and use them to kill are the ones who make the news, and they are not infrequent.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Lock Stock & Barrel

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

On that basis I tend to agree, but at the same time I do worry that it's another erosion of our rights.

 

Well nothing's happened yet, it's only a proposition, not law. So this is all rather much ado about nothing.

 

just another way of getting the guns off you.

 

Care to add any actual thesis to that drive-by bumper-sticker rhetoric?

[BerettaEELL]

Biggest issue I see is that the anti gun lobby has its fingers in all the pies. For me personally the issue of my wife signing would not be a problem, however there will be at least a handful of holders who's certificates would be revoked as a result of this. Continual erosion of our sport and enjoyment.

 

What will come next, fingerprinting and DNA submission, drug testing for vitamin abuse.?

 

Hmmmm............

Edited January 20, 2013 by BerettaEELL

[gixer1]

As long as the FEO gives warning and you can give her a good round of jabs to ensure she knows what's what before he gets there - I think this could work! :yp:

[BerettaEELL]

As long as the FEO gives warning and you can give her a good round of jabs to ensure she knows what's what before he gets there - I think this could work! :yp:

 

Lol

[beeredup]

yeah mrs beeredup was present when i had my interview and was supplying the coffee an hobnobs and the FEO asked her a few questions on whats she thought about having firearms in the house and the likes. she is not too keen on guns herself (my fault taking her to an indoor machine range in vegas) but she has no problems with me owning them and keeping them in the house

[bedwards1966]

Again, fair points.

 

 

 

We've got to stop this innate paranoia of the anti-shooting brigade as, in the example you cite, it matters not whether "the person making the decision is anti-shooting" or not - if they make a mess of the decision and try and reinterpret (for the their own ends) the current gun laws as they stand, or blatantly refuse an applicant without good reason, then it will be tossed out on appeal.

This is the system we currently have. The issue I see is that if an ex is contacted and attempts to stop someone getting a certificate, potentially leading to an unfair refusal, you could have to prove that it was malicious and that the person dealing with it knew this but ignored it for their own gain or due to incompetence.

That could be very difficult.

 

 

Not sure I see the issue there - there have been no school massacres or semi-auto town shootings since both these events, so where's the issue?

I'm saying that we shouldn't relax (following your previous words 'but as we've seen in two recent House debates on gun ownership, the bills maintaining the status quo pass'). We never know what may be round the corner and we cannot assume that things won't change next time there is any kind of review.

 

 

On an interesting side note were hamilton, ryan, or bird married or in a relationship at the time of their crimes? Or in a serious relationship?

 

Derrick Bird was a father, he split from that relationship in the mid 1990's. It's claimed he had a relationship with a Thai girl who made a fool out of him (he apparently sent her money and it ended badly).

So yes he was single, it doesn't look like he had a serious relationship for at least a decade.

Hamilton was single, I doubt he had ever had a real relationship - his interest was young boys.

Ryan was single, again I don't think he had been in a serious relationship. He lived with his mother.

Edited January 20, 2013 by bedwards1966

[HDAV]

[/font][/size]

 

 

 

 

Derrick Bird was a father, he split from that relationship in the mid 1990's. It's claimed he had a relationship with a Thai girl who made a fool out of him (he apparently sent her money and it ended badly).

So yes he was single, it doesn't look like he had a serious relationship for at least a decade.

Hamilton was single, I doubt he had ever had a real relationship - his interest was young boys.

Ryan was single, again I don't think he had been in a serious relationship. He lived with his mother.

 

So how would these proposals have had any impact at all on the spree killers who have made the headlines and made consecutive govt's decide "something must be done" to me it looks like fitting air bags to bus stops.................

[castletyne]

So how would these proposals have had any impact at all on the spree killers who have made the headlines and made consecutive govt's decide "something must be done" to me it looks like fitting air bags to bus stops.................

 

It wouldnt its a stupid idea and will hopefully be binned

 

The only thing it will achieve is make it hard for some who have split on bad terms, any current partner is not going to refuse to sign

 

Plus i dont think the reason behind it is to stop the likes of Dunblane or Bird its more at stopping the likes of the Hordon shooting but the police have to take some responsibility in cases like that and have some kind of record of reported offences and those with SGC

Edited January 20, 2013 by castletyne

[bedwards1966]

So how would these proposals have had any impact at all on the spree killers who have made the headlines and made consecutive govt's decide "something must be done" to me it looks like fitting air bags to bus stops.................

 

 

Ssshhhhh.

You just can't say things like this. It's not fair to tackle anti's with any form of sense or logic. You have to ignore all the facts, all history and switch off your brain, and focus on one simple idea that you know best and if you don't like something then it's wrong and everybody should be stopped from doing it.

[JonathanL]

On that basis I tend to agree, but at the same time I do worry that it's another erosion of our rights.

 

It's a gross erosion of your rights. An application for an SGC/FAC is a metter between you, the police and no one else. That fact that it won't actually cause a problem for 99% of applicants is not relevant. If you don't want other people knowing your business then you have a right to keep it to youyr self.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

On an interesting side note were hamilton, ryan, or bird married or in a relationship at the time of their crimes? Or in a serious relationship?

 

Ryan had never even had a girlfriend as far as anyone knows, Hamilton was a homosexual paedophile and Bird was divorced a long time agao, I think. I think Birds' girlfriend had left some time previously and was foreign and I don't think there was every any suggestion that he had ever been violent. So, in all of those cases having the power to talk to previous partners would have made no difference.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Correct - with "issues". Be it loners, social misfits or sociopaths - or worse. And yet, bizarrely, there are still those who whine about deeper background checks on applicants.

 

None of the background checks proposed would have revealed anything of consequence with Ryan, Hamilton or Bird. You can't just take the position that more background checks will do any good because of the information isn't there to begin with you can't find it. Propose something which would have worked and people will back it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

What, apart from Raoul Moat? Keith Johnson and ... the list goes on.

 

Scrotes offing each other never makes the news other than in passing - whereas those who own their weapons legally and use them to kill are the ones who make the news, and they are not infrequent.

 

You aren't suggesting that Moat was a certificate holder, surely? He'd only just got out of prison the previous day!

 

J.

[demonwolf444]

Ask my family about shooting and they say this; from my mother "Since james sarted getting into shooting we all see the countryside in a very different way, we not only understand why certain things are the way they are but also have developed a life where we are much more involved in the countryside, through shooting, james has made many friends which will probably be life long friends, and we as a family have also benefited from these friendships. We also get an imense satisfaction from reducing the amout of money we spend on food by being more self sufficient, by growing and shooting more of our own food there is really nothing like sitting down to a sunday lunch that you have really earnt."

 

Also both my sisters have shown interest in shooting, which i endulge with air rifles in the garden, teaching them basic safety and muzzle awareness, as well as basic principles of shooting, furthermore my older sister has booked to do some clays with me soon, and wants to learn to shoot "properly".

 

When applying for my shotgun certificate it took a half year of pursuading her to countersign, all the things she wasnt sure she would be comfortable with (mainly just "having a gun in the house") has been overcome with a secure bond of trust between me and my family.

I have absoloutly no problem with your own family countersigning shotgun or firearm certificates. But not spouces, there is too much margin for spite and abuse, what if your partner is an out and out vegatarian and refuses to sign it on principle? nah not buying it, noone knows you better than your own family, and a father or mother or sister of brother i would be okay with, allong side your countersignatories, but not a partner

[JonathanL]

[/font][/size]

 

 

 

 

Derrick Bird was a father, he split from that relationship in the mid 1990's. It's claimed he had a relationship with a Thai girl who made a fool out of him (he apparently sent her money and it ended badly).

So yes he was single, it doesn't look like he had a serious relationship for at least a decade.

Hamilton was single, I doubt he had ever had a real relationship - his interest was young boys.

Ryan was single, again I don't think he had been in a serious relationship. He lived with his mother.

 

Hungerford could easily have been prevented if people had simply reported Ryan to the police for what he was - a lunatic, a fantasist and a criminal. His boss knew that he took loaded guns to work so why did he not report the fact? That alone would have got his ticket pulled. His neighbours had issues with him - I think he was shooting into their garden or something - and he was known to have threatened people.

 

J.

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

You aren't suggesting that Moat was a certificate holder, surely? He'd only just got out of prison the previous day!

 

J.

 

Fine, remove him - the rest of the mass shootings conducted in the UK have been done by those holding weapons legally.

 

Hungerford could easily have been prevented if people had simply reported Ryan to the police for what he was - a lunatic, a fantasist and a criminal. His boss knew that he took loaded guns to work so why did he not report the fact? That alone would have got his ticket pulled. His neighbours had issues with him - I think he was shooting into their garden or something - and he was known to have threatened people.

 

J.

 

We didn't even need to get to that stage - had there been proper background checks in place for Ryan, he would never have been issued a ticket in the first place.