looks like changes are to be made for licensing

[ROBLATCH]

looks like changes are to be made in our area and possibly nationwide regarding gunlaws.

 

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10486786.Police_watchdog_calls_for_sweeping_changes_in_gun_laws_following_Horden_shooting_massacre/

 

most are already in place but it seems more are being pushed for.

[SakoQuad]

Interesting. I read the article and rather concluded that the IPPCC's recommendations amounted to saying that the Police should apply the rules already in existence with a bit more diligence and common sense rather than recommending any real sweeping changes.

[Steppenwolf]

Really? Look at the last sentence talking about"

"It called on the Home Office to streamline the current system to create one suitability and fitness test for firearms and shotguns, and said that a home visit and interview should be compulsory if an applicant's fitness is brought into question."

 

Is this a backdoor to psychological tests before getting a gun licence? We know how "effective" that is in other countries from stopping people going postal....NOT.

 

You might want to contact IPCC and tell them of thier very poor reccomendations that can discrimnate against a person from getting a gun license at the whim of a psychiatrist.

enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Edited June 15, 2013 by Steppenwolf

[njc110381]

Exactly. I know it's not the best example but I was watching cops the other week and a lad was caught shooting at people with an air rifle. He was charged with a general disorder offence?! Come on, they could have come down like a ton of bricks on the **** with the various firearms laws available to them. But no, he walked away with a caution. Then the next minute they want to ban air rifles. You couldn't make it up! They could have sent him down if they wanted to.

[Scully]

I regard this as an IPCC attempt to muddy the waters in a further attempt to distract the bureaucrats from the failings of Durham licensing authority and the Police force for that area.

If you're concerned you could email the HO and let them know what you think.

The Police have the authority to revoke a license and confiscate that persons firearms if they have sufficient reason or cause to do so.in this case they had sufficient reason on more than one occasion, but for reasons best known to them failed to do so.

I'm not too concerned at the moment but a letter from all those who are wouldn't go amiss.

Publish your HO responses on here; it will be interesting to see if there is a stock reply.

[David BASC]

As we said on Radio 5 yesterday in response to this, the UK already has some of the tightest gun laws in the world, and in this case it was not a failure of the law that let this man with a history of drunkenness and violence to have firearms, it was the application of the law.

 

It does not matter how tight laws are if the police or their agents fail to apply them properly there will be dire consequences. Give a violent drunken man a firearm and what do you think will happen next? It does not take a genius to work it out!

 

I am personally shocked the IPCC seem to brush the failure of the police under the carpet, ask why!!! I am

 

David

Edited June 15, 2013 by David BASC

[mossy835]

we are the ones that suffer, when they let people like this have guns,

[TopDown]

How are the IPCC brushing anything under the carpet? The reports are there for all to read.

[David BASC]

Sorry not to be clear, the IPCC are asking for a change/ tightening in law rather than concentrating on making sure the police deliver on the law properly as they should. It does not matter how tight a law is if the police or their agent don't apply it, that's what I meant.

 

David

[hawkfanz]

well said david,and thats only one instance where the law wasn,t enforced by the police,there are countless other cases were deaths have occured,because of lack of common sense and judgement by the police.

[SakoQuad]

Really? Look at the last sentence talking about"

"It called on the Home Office to streamline the current system to create one suitability and fitness test for firearms and shotguns, and said that a home visit and interview should be compulsory if an applicant's fitness is brought into question."

 

Is this a backdoor to psychological tests before getting a gun licence? We know how "effective" that is in other countries from stopping people going postal....NOT.

 

You might want to contact IPCC and tell them of thier very poor reccomendations that can discrimnate against a person from getting a gun license at the whim of a psychiatrist.

enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

 

I see what you mean. I guess I get stuck on the thought that there already is one system as per the FA Act and HO Guidance which if applied properly as a standard provides a consistent , possibly "streamlined" system etc. As far as I know all Forces already do a home visit / interview on initial grants and most police forces do a home visit and interview at every point of the grant, re-issue cycle whether or not they have any questions about a person's fitness to hold a SGC FAC. As usual the report merely highlights the authors lack of any detailed knowledge about a specialist field and what law / guidance is already actually in place.

 

There cannot be a single person alive who believes that granting a SGC/FAC to someone with a drunken physical abuse record, who claims not to drink alcohol but who has been clearly drinking on police visits to his home is anything but rank, incompetent negligence of the highest order. No changes to the rules will avoid such behaviour on the part of individual, or groups of, police officers.

 

Contacting the IPCC as you suggest possibly has merit. The more I think about this the more I think it should be responded to by the shooting community if only to ask exactly what they have in mind and how they think that would make any positive difference when it was so clearly the complete failure of the Police Force in this case to apply any judgement or competence that laid the foundations of the tragedy. It certainly wasn't anything to do with systems or any difficulty about assessment of fitness to possess guns was it.

 

I don't share your concerns about psychiatrists getting in on the act as I can't imagine they would touch it with a barge pole! Privately paid psychologists armed with personality testing might be interested but the cost would rule that out and there aren't enough of them to go round anyway so no real threat there either.

[TopDown]

I wouldn't worry too much about the psychiatrist issue. All I think that sentence meant was that they want SGC and FAC to have the same process rather than the differing standards there are at the moment. Of course the concern is that it will be a raising of the difficulty of getting a SGC and associated ammunition issues rather than a drop in the perhaps overly stringent FAC conditions.

[Scully]

Bobby Turnbull, whose mother,sister and aunt were all killed by Atherfon,met HO ministers today in his bid to tighten firearms legislation.

I can quite understand his intentions, to lose close relatives in any manner is bad enough, but to lose them when if was totally avoidable must be even harder to bear, and begs the question just what has he been told by the police regarding their actions/reasoning when it was decided to give Atherton back his firearms following their initial seizure following acts of domesfic violence.

Like I say,I can certainly understand his need to do something, but he is obviously unaware of current firearms legislation and can't help but think he has been badly advised if he was in fact advised at all.

One of the suggestions he mooted to HO ministers was a 'hotline' which members of the public could ring if they had any information regarding any firearms owners peculiar behaviour.

Despite the fact that there is nothing to stop the general public from doing this already(and its obvious potential for abuse) who suggested to him this was a good idea,or who failed to inform him it wasn't?

I feel the poor fellah has been terribly misled,but by whom?

Sorry for typos and spelling.still can't access site via pc so am on iPhone.fat thumbs and small keyboard.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Scully

[Steppenwolf]

I wouldn't worry too much about the psychiatrist issue. All I think that sentence meant was that they want SGC and FAC to have the same process rather than the differing standards there are at the moment. Of course the concern is that it will be a raising of the difficulty of getting a SGC and associated ammunition issues rather than a drop in the perhaps overly stringent FAC conditions.

I understand what you said and I also agree that they are trying to get a licencing system which is more stringent, eg making shotguns being able to be posessed "with good reason" per Firearm application standards. This would of course probably halve gun licence applications overnight which is the desired outcome. It is not going to affect people like me who are committed to shooting sports or others but will severly discourage newbies to the sport with extra red tape and checks. This is mentioned in Bobby Turnbull campaign here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41060

"3. A single, rigorous licensing system is introduced which includes shotguns and Sec 1 firearms and which requires a good reason for the possession of each and every weapon"

PLease for god sake DO NOT SIGN THAT PETITION! That is only included to show that what is being reccommended by IPCC is exactly what is in Bobby's petition.

 

What is actually interesting is that Bobby is and maybe still is a gun licence holder and a game keeper. He was the one who introduced Michael Atherton to guns and there is an article there which says that he is still kicking himself for putting "a gun in the hands of a man who killed my family" or something to that effect. So if he is still a firearms owner is a major HYPOCRITE, even though he has gone through a very personal tragedy.

[JonathanL]

I'd be astonished if shotguns were made subject to a good reason requirement as section 1 firearms are. There are simply far too many of the 'right' sort of people (if you know what I mean) who would not be able to meet the requirements and who would have to give up their family Purdeys and Hollands which they never or rarely use. The market for used shotguns would flatline over night due to the numbers coming up for sale.

 

It would be a pointless effort as regards the current discussion anyway as Atherton clearly had good reason to possess firearms as he had a section 1 certificate as well.

 

J.

Edited June 17, 2013 by JonathanL

[Kes]

It seems logical to apply a single test of 'fitness' for a person who wants to own firearms (section 1, or 2) it also seems logical to ensure each respective owner is visited before grant and renewal, It seems sensible for the police or whoever administers the system to have access to any red flags a family physician may have on his records - assuming they are separate from medical records and the doctor is challengeable for any diagnosis of non-fitness. If 'basic training' were available for new shooters, paid through a revised and streamlined licence fee, I would also be happy with that. I would also be happy if target clubs did that for rifles and clay clubs were contracted to do that for first time shooters. People could then 'try and buy' or walk away from each or either.

We all know first time shooters need a bit of guidance and knowledge.

Other than that it is how the system is administered and for me the police have shown themselves too one sided and occassionally incompetent - the massacre at Dunblane, these murders and D bird.

A better case can be made for removing the administration from the police than can be made for further stringency in the process. Streamlining is logical, it will save costs and make the process more understandable. It would be helpful for someone to develop proposals which strengthen confidence, remove incompetence and are a little fairer to sportsmen and also Olympians.

[Steppenwolf]

You don't get it, making it harder to get a firearm will not stop things like what Mike Atherton did from happening. Your recommendations would just stop a lot of people from taking up shooting and psychological testing has never worked in any country which has tried it. Mandating medical tests and training would mostly just put off people from taking up shooting, if that is your goal then you will achieve reducing the number of shooters. Since I presume you shoot yourself you can't possibly think like that!

[JonathanL]

You don't get it, making it harder to get a firearm will not stop things like what Mike Atherton did from happening. Your recommendations would just stop a lot of people from taking up shooting and psychological testing has never worked in any country which has tried it. Mandating medical tests and training would mostly just put off people from taking up shooting, if that is your goal then you will achieve reducing the number of shooters. Since I presume you shoot yourself you can't possibly think like that!

 

I agree with you in part. Making things harder missess the point in that it doesn't matter how 'hard' you make things, if the licensing authority don't apply the rules at the time then anything you do is pointless. You are correct in that the current way that things are done is perfectly adequate to prevent someone like Atherton from doing what he did.

 

No one is suggesting psychological testing, as far as I'm aware.

 

You are correct that medical tets would put people off taking up shooting but, again, that isn't being suggested.

 

I am no fan of compulsary training and testing for various reasons but you are wrong when you say that new shooters will be put off by it. We very often get enquiries from potential new shooters who ask specifically for training and instruction when joining the club - obviously, they get it anyway but they don't know that on first inquiry. Being taught how to do something properly and safely is one of the main reasons people join clubs (whether it be shooting, fishing, racing driving or whatever) and is one of the main reasons that lots of clubs exist.

 

The basic bottom line is that the police should not be the ones doing firearms licensing. They are designed and equipped to do it and have far better things to concern themselves with. It should be done by an independent, specialist, national organisation who only do firearms licensing.

 

J.

[fieldwanderer]

I've a friend who's not had his guns or license taken from him, he surrendered his licenses and signed his shotguns onto his dads license, and sold the rifle he had - he was / is going through a bit of a messy separation and wanted to avoid any untrue accusations from his ex leading to his licenses being revoked.

 

Long story short, her and her dad wound him up and he lashed out, that coupled with a history from years ago has made it nigh on impossible for him to get his sgc back.

 

I've known the lad for half of my life and I'd trust him with my life, I sympathise with him fully as having heard and seen what went on I think most of us would have lost it eventually.

 

However, if it was me making the decisions, the answer would still be no - simply to cover my own backside - in this case I think the police have done the right thing but I'm not sure it should be a lifetime ban, just plenty long enough for him to prove he's not a nutter.