bedwards1966 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Don't argue about Dunblane, Hamilton did an awful thing that makes me sick to my stomach. We are not talking about bans here just a potential signatory. As I remember there were quite a few pistol holders who voluntarily handed their firearms in to RFD's for sale after the massacre. I miss shooting a pistol but I sure as hell would miss my children more, pose that question to any mother/father firearms owner and you will get a similar answer. Yes Dunblane was awful, and it is important to do whatever can be done to ensure that such a thing never happens again. But are you suggesting that banning handguns is the right way forward for that? The 'proposed signatory' as you put it may not be a 'ban', but if an ex wants to be vindictive then it could result in them effectively being banned - if you can't get a certificate then they are as good as banned. I agree, you will probably remember as I do it was difficult to shout too loud at the time due to the horror of what had occurred. I felt pretty numb at the time especially when I took my pistol anywhere. Nonsense. Yes what happened was shocking, but what had it got to do with you? The only thing connecting you to a massacre was the fact that yourself and the perpetrator owned firearms that were in the same category. As Dunblane was able to happen through the fault of the police failing to do their job it made it very easy to make noise. All that was needed was a voice saying the reason it happened was not not because shooters own handguns, but because the police failed to act on information provided to them regarding the certificate holder. Had the police investigated the numerous complaints against Hamilton they would have found he did not fit the criteria for holding firearms, and they could have revoked his certificate, avoiding the tragedy. All that needed pushing for was the correct application of the law - which would have been able to prevent the shooting which have happened since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaEELL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Had the police investigated the numerous complaints against Hamilton they would have found he did not fit the criteria for holding firearms, and they could have revoked his certificate, avoiding the tragedy. This is why I have no problem with the issue of extra checks,including spouse/partner re domestic violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 This is why I have no problem with the issue of extra checks,including spouse/partner re domestic violence. But they didn't need extra checks - they already had all the powers they need. Being able to check with his ex partners would have gained nothing, as he didn't have any. They can already do as many checks as they like, so if an ex partner refuses to sign or says something bad to be vindictive, what checks can they then do that isn't already being done? As there isn't anything else available to check, what do you think 'extra checks' will be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaEELL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Do you honestly think unsubstantiated claims by a disgruntled ex would be taken seriously? my certificate took 5 weeks from posting to receiving it through the door. If your criminal background check is clear, you have an upstanding professional counter signatory (I used a Consultant Psychiatrist friend for mine) and you have no history of mental illness you will get a certificate. We must all remember that 'innocent until proven' is still the law in the UK. If you once hit your wife due to stress at work, losing your job etc and had a caution for it, I think that asking your wife/partner if they have an issue with a gun being kept in the house would not be unreasonable? It reads as if I may have beaten my wife, this has/would never happen. Edited January 23, 2013 by BerettaEELL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Do you honestly think unsubstantiated claims by a disgruntled ex would be taken seriously? my certificate took 5 weeks from posting to receiving it through the door. If your criminal background check is clear, you have an upstanding professional counter signatory (I used a Consultant Psychiatrist friend for mine) and you have no history of mental illness you will get a certificate. We must all remember that 'innocent until proven' is still the law in the UK. If you once hit your wife due to stress at work, losing your job etc and had a caution for it, I think that asking your wife/partner if they have an issue with a gun being kept in the house would not be unreasonable? It reads as if I may have beaten my wife, this has/would never happen. Yes they could be taken seriously. If they weren't what would be the point in the whole system - either everything is ignored, in which case it is completely useless, or everything is acted upon in which case a vindictive person could stop someone shooting because they want to. Although it is often obvious when someone is being nasty, there are a few people who can come over as normal. You are expecting whoever looks into the application to recognize a vindictive person and discount what they say. You are also relying on nobody in a position of power (such as an FEO) to use this as an excuse to refuse a certificate. That means that an FEO who is anti gun has the power to prevent anyone with a vindictive ex from getting a certificate - a rather concerning thought. Just because you don't have a vindictive ex doesn't mean it's OK for this to go through, at the expense of the sport and work of many people who could be affected. I'm starting to wonder if you've misunderstood the whole thing, based on your last quote: 'I think that asking your wife/partner if they have an issue with a gun being kept in the house would not be unreasonable'. They aren't just looking at current partners, they are looking at previous partners - who are no longer anything to do with you. Edited January 23, 2013 by bedwards1966 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 surely if there was a history with an ex if it was serious the police would already know about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Good for you! Ok....I'm pleased we've cleared that up! I think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaEELL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Ok....I'm pleased we've cleared that up! I think? Possibly, maybe Sometimes its good to ensure that the fuse is definitely lit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaEELL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) A quick question:- would you tell the police who your ex partner was if you had beaten her up and had not been cautioned for it? I can just see the new application form. SECTION F Relationship Abuse 1 Please state your last current partners name and address if not the same as your address, 2 Now please list all the partners you have had include all contact details, current address, telephone number, email address. please continue on additional sheets if the full blank page is not sufficient. 3 Do you beat your wife/partner yes/no please circle 4 Did you beat your ex partners yes/no please circle 5 Can we trust the testimony of your current/ex partner/s yes/no please circle 6 Are you having an extra marital affair yes/no please circle, give full details of address and all contact details please note:- we reserve the right to put conditions onto your certificate if you have not had a relationship at all (Loner) It is a sound-byte. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN! the Police are having numbers & budgets cut, do you think they will start searching out your ex partners and spend time interrogating them about your past relationship? Just think about it. Edited January 23, 2013 by BerettaEELL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 My suggestion is that you read the transcript of what occurred in Dunblane, don't suggest we could still be shooting pistols, I miss pistol shooting but my loss is nothing compared with the loss of those young children's lives (and the teachers). The issue of background checks are being considered as a result of the US shootings, they are only trying to ensure that mentally fit and non violent individuals are granted permissions. What transcript? Do you have a link? Have you read the Cullen report? Even the esteemed Lord Cullen who heard every second of evidence did not conclude that a ban was warranted. Like I said, if there were as many pistol shooters in 1997 as there were shotguners in 2010 then pistol shooting would not have been banned. If there were as many shotgunners in 2010 as there were pistol shooters in 1997 then shotguns would have been banned. We can argue that point all you like but I think we all know, deep down, that I'm right. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 This is why I have no problem with the issue of extra checks,including spouse/partner re domestic violence. Firstly, that would have made no difference in the case of Hamilton because he didn't have a partner nor had he ever. Secondly, the police ALREADY knew about him from the reports they had received. There was a report made by an officer (not a junior one, either) following a visit to one of the camps run by Hamiltons boys club. The officer was so disgusted with the state of the camp, and so disgusted with Hamilton him self that he put the following in his report (and this is from memory so won't be exact) 'He (Hamilton) is a deeply unpleasant, deceitful and devious individual with an unhealthy interest in young boys. Consideration should be given to revoking his firearm certificate' Deputy Chief Constable McMurdo marked this report 'No Further Action'. No explanation was ever given for doing so. So, if the police cannot even be bothered to act on information they already know, how are further checks and investigations going to make any difference? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Do you honestly think unsubstantiated claims by a disgruntled ex would be taken seriously? my certificate took 5 weeks from posting to receiving it through the door. If your criminal background check is clear, you have an upstanding professional counter signatory (I used a Consultant Psychiatrist friend for mine) and you have no history of mental illness you will get a certificate. We must all remember that 'innocent until proven' is still the law in the UK. If you once hit your wife due to stress at work, losing your job etc and had a caution for it, I think that asking your wife/partner if they have an issue with a gun being kept in the house would not be unreasonable? It reads as if I may have beaten my wife, this has/would never happen. Of course they will! That is the whole point of dong them! They will always be unsubstantiated unless they are recorded somewhere else. If they are then you don't need to ask the ex. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaEELL Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Read my last post! IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Read my last post! IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN For something that will never happen - why do firearm laws keep coming under review? Why is this idea being proposed if there is no chance of it ever happening? If some politicians think that it will gain them votes with the public who don't know any better (or indeed some shooters who live in another world) they will do so. Financial constraints, fairness and questions regarding the effectiveness of the proposed legislation won't come into it. Also, as there has bee talk of a 'full cost' recovery system where shooters have to pay several times as much as we currently do for a certificate, do you think they'll be interested if it suddenly costs another £500 to investigate all previous relationships? They may not be the ones paying for it, so it could easily happen without costing the police/public a penny. Edited January 23, 2013 by bedwards1966 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.