Response to Diana Johnson MP on firearms licensing reform proposals

[RossEM]

Looks like Labour are still intent on ****ting on shooting. Mildly annoyed and feeling like a one-man BASC, I wrote a response to Diana Johnson:

 

Dear Diana

I've just read this.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/86409/labour_reform_of_gun_licensing_regime_is_needed_now_diana_johnson.html

It is one the most simplistic, disingenuous and misleading statements I have ever read on the subject of firearms legislation.

"Reform of the gun licensing regime is needed and needed now...we know that the vast majority of the shooting community are law abiding citizens who are very careful about how they use their weapons. But it is becoming clear that the licensing system is not working as well as it should to serve license holders and protect the public...the terrible crimes of Derek Bird and Michael Atherton show why we need a robust licensing system. Sadly in the last six months nine people have died in incidents involving licensed guns..."

Thank you for acknowledging that 99.9% of licensed gun owners are safe and law abiding, but the salient point here is that Derek Bird and Michael Atherton should NEVER have been given licenses. The failure is with Durham and Cleveland Constabularies, who issued licences despite having prior knowledge of both parties' obvious unsuitability. It is impossible to prevent these tragedies happening by tightening legislation; may I remind you that Thomas Hamilton, the monster responsible for the Dunblane Massacre, had Lord Robertson - a Labour peer - as a referee on his Firearms Licence.

"That is why Labour is proposing the biggest change to firearms legislation since the handguns ban in 1998. We want to enshrine in law a clear principle that those with a history of domestic or sexual violence, substance abuse or serious mental health problems should not be allowed a gun. We also want to shift the onus on to the applicant to prove their suitability.

The handgun ban was one of the most fraudulent piece of diversionary legislation passed by any UK government.

First the Conservatives then Labour effectively outlawed an entire community's way of life for the sake of being seen to take action, and by doing so deflected focus from the true and horrendous cost of crime committed with illegally held pistols. If the existing legislation had been followed to the letter, as it should always be, Thomas Hamilton would not have been granted a Firearms Licence. Sound familiar?

Obviously, I have no quarrel with your suggestion that those with convictions for domestic/sexual violence or substance abuse being banned from owning firearms. In fact, in my opinion no one with a criminal record should be allowed a firearms or shotgun licence. Those with mental health problems are already prohibited unless their GP advises that they have been successfully rehabilitated.

We also want to shift the onus on to the applicant to prove their suitability.

Why on earth do you want to shift the onus onto the applicant? Ever heard of Habeas Corpus? It is the Police's job to prove suitability. For shooters, this is sinister language to be confronted with. Why should we be considered to be unsuitable by default, having to then prove we're not mad, bad or dangerous?! This would be an completely unreasonable legal precedent.

"At the same time we want to make the system self-financing in order to give the police the resources they need to carry out proper background checks and provide a better service to the shooting community...after a decade without a fee rise, it is now time that the license fee reflects the true cost to the police. It is ridiculous that the annual cost of the firearms license is only a third as much as a fishing license. At a time when frontline police numbers are being cut by 20% we cannot continue to subsidise the firearms licensing system by ?18m a year from resources that could otherwise be keeping bobbies on the beat."

The Police do have the resources to hand -what is needed to cut costs is for them to follow the Home Office guidance to the letter. How much can it really cost for a FEO home visit (on application only, not renewal), completion of data entry from a four-page form, a CRB database check, to call the applicant's GP, and issue a license? If the Police cannot do this for £50, as a taxpayer I want to know why not!

If Police do not have the resources to complete proper background checks, as you infer above, please tell me which of the above tasks is proving so costly?

Firearms & Shotgun licences do not have an annual cost - they are issued once every five years. They do not cost £50 a year to administrate, there is no correlation with Fishing licences and it is dishonest to use these incorrect figures.

It is also arguably the case that the public should bear the majority of the cost, as they are the beneficiaries, as with all matters of law and order that their taxed income pays for.

A Firearms Enquiry officer would be quite useless "on the beat" as most of them are civilian.

You are a public servant, and I find it horrendous that you appear willing to mislead the public.

I'm not some upper class yuppy who likes blasting pheasants out of the sky. I am working class, and there are literally thousands of working class people who shoot and who would vote Labour if you would only SUPPORT THEM. Labour's record on mismanagement of the countryside is seemingly continuing and is one thing that's stopping me.

 

 

 

[r1steele]

Very good but it was Cumbria constabulary that issued Derek Birds license not Cleveland. Please keep us posted when (if) you get a response.

[Scully]

Excellent stuff! Feel an e-mail coming on....thanks for the heads up.

[Kes]

If we all reacted like you we might stand a better chance - I shall follow your example and write - Have BASC, SACS,CA etc commented and achieved anty press coverage in response ? Tell us what response you get.

Cheeers

[Sprackles]

Good stuff but you've given her ammo with your belief no one with a criminal record should own a gun.
Dont know the stats but depending upon what would be classed as a crime....bearing in mind currently all convictions, minor as well as major are counted then a good proportion of licence holders will be revoked.
Also how far back do you go to say someone has a history. ...should depression from say 10 years ago.....a few rows with a neurotic ex also from the past......
Think carefully what we say and wish for...it may come back and bite us royally on the backside.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Sprackles

[keg]

What is classed as a minor conviction, speeding?

[Sprackles]

What is classed as a minor conviction, speeding?

Thats my point.....its good to see politicians challenged but RossEM has given her further ammunition by not only agreeing to her views on what would be a barred applicant for a licence, but going further by declaring all criminals etc.

Since we have to declare ALL convictions no matter how minor..how long before using this approach that ANY conviction can be seen as someone not willing to live by the laws of the land.

Remember that a drunk driving first offence will now see you lose your SGC/FAC due to intemperate habits and irresponsible behaviour......see where I am going.

Do not give them an inch.....this suggestion has given them a mile.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Sprackles

[bruno22rf]

I have a criminal record, Armed trespass(x4),Holding a shotgun without a licence to name but a few. In my 35 years of SGC ownership and 15+ years of FAC I have never shot at anything that I was not legally allowed to-nor have I ever felt the urge to. I wonder, RossEM ,as you are local if you would like to meet up and explain why I should not have a gun (or,in fact,an explosives) licence? I love a good pint and a debate.

Edited October 16, 2013 by bruno22rf

[delburt0]

I have renewed about 6 weeks ago but forgot to put that I got done for speeding a couple of years ago,

Best buy some fishing tackle. :(

[Greymaster]

I think prospective MP's should have to prove that they are not mad, bad or dangerous?

 

And by the way, not intent on dishonestly claiming expenses...

[wymberley]

I have a criminal record, Armed trespass(x4),Holding a shotgun without a licence to name but a few. In my 35 years of SGC ownership and 15+ years of FAC I have never shot at anything that I was not legally allowed to-nor have I ever felt the urge to.

Just to clarify matters,are you saying it's legal to still use guns that are illegally held and also still shoot legally even though you are illegally carrying a gun in a given location? If you've never shot at anything, or indeed felt the urge to, illegally, what was the point of having the guns and taking them where you shouldn't? Or does the "never" apply to the days after the 'poacher' became the 'gamekeeper'?

Edited October 16, 2013 by wymberley

[Christopher Graffius]

From my perspective as the person responsible for BASC's political work It's a good letter and I wouldn't worry too much about the detail. It's important that the Labour front team receive comments from shooters giving their perceptions - politely - of what's happening, otherwise they'll only hear from the antis.

 

The amendments to the Anti Social Crime and Policing Bill were drafted some time ago and first debated during the Bill's committee stage. After many requests for a meeting I saw Diana Johnston and briefed her but they were reluctant to pull the amendments at a late stage. Their re-tabling for the Bill's Report Stage has more to do with the parliamentary role of the Opposition than practical legislation. They knew that the amendments would be defeated.

 

I saw Diana Johnson and her number 2 from the shadow team at the Labour conference and went through the details of the licensing system again. We've also given them written submissions on each of the amendments. In brief the amendment on domestic violence would have had no effect - checks are already in place for this 24/7. The amendment on full cost recovery ignores the regulations introduced by the last Labour Government and published in Treasury guidelines (Managing Public Money, and Class 20.10) that the licence fee is effectively a tax and the State can't charge for enforcement, defined by Hampton as form filling and inspection, or capital costs (ecommerce). Should Labour get into government they would have to moderate their line in the light of civil service advice and the responsibility of complying with the rules.

 

Johnston made a point during the debate of stressing Labour's support for shooting, as she did at the Labour conference "the future of shooting and fishing is assured under a future Labour government". We have much more work to do with them but the lines of communication are open. This debate taken in isolation does not give the whole picture.

 

For completeness we have also stopped the Home Office's attempt to force through an immediate increase in licensing fees on a full cost recovery basis and are now engaged with a government working group which is looking into the whole question of fees.

 

Christopher

[wymberley]

Good stuff but you've given her ammo with your belief no one with a criminal record should own a gun.

Dont know the stats but depending upon what would be classed as a crime....bearing in mind currently all convictions, minor as well as major are counted then a good proportion of licence holders will be revoked.

Also how far back do you go to say someone has a history. ...should depression from say 10 years ago.....a few rows with a neurotic ex also from the past......

Think carefully what we say and wish for...it may come back and bite us royally on the backside.

Good stuff indeed - and there is no "but". It is a superb opening gambit and any minor points could be clarified during subsequent discussions.

 

Ross has 'got of his bum' and showed his mettle - what are YOU going to do?

[Nikk]

Thats my point.....its good to see politicians challenged but RossEM has given her further ammunition by not only agreeing to her views on what would be a barred applicant for a licence, but going further by declaring all criminals etc.

Since we have to declare ALL convictions no matter how minor..how long before using this approach that ANY conviction can be seen as someone not willing to live by the laws of the land.

Remember that a drunk driving first offence will now see you lose your SGC/FAC due to intemperate habits and irresponsible behaviour......see where I am going.

Do not give them an inch.....this suggestion has given them a mile.

 

Agreed

[The Mighty Prawn]

It's a solid letter, she's produced a classic piece of rabble rousing rhetoric which conveniently ignores facts and present things already happening as new ideas. I remember my mum telling me not to speak if you have nothing to say, our politicians would be well advised to listen to her.

[Sprackles]

Good stuff indeed - and there is no "but". It is a superb opening gambit and any minor points could be clarified during subsequent discussions.

 

Ross has 'got of his bum' and showed his mettle - what are YOU going to do?

I have written in the past to my own MP....Martin Vickers...and got no reply I might add.

There most definitely is a but.....Shooting and indeed all Country sports are heavily in the Anti's spotlights and giving way on anything is in my opinion a bad idea.

The i'm all right jack attitude (not saying that applies here) means that small freedoms are whittled away because they don't affect the majority but once that issue has gone, they will come back for the next one and so on and so forth. Far from being able to clarify any points later, as an opening gambit he has already gone further than she has proposed and if it was taken up I fail to see how you can backtrack and say well perhaps I was a tad hasty.

Just to add, I think your reply to bruno22rf is somewhat condescending...I am sure you know what he meant.

[Scully]

Despite what most politicians tell you,it is the avowed intent of the majority to restrict and inhibit the legitimate ownership of firearms by members of the public in this country,and this has been the case since the early 20th century,and the foundations of this policy was laid even further back when it was decided that the right to self defence was unnecessary and should be undertaken by the state instead of the individual.History has proved this to be the case,and even though it may be denied,it is there for all to see.

Here's a little example from the Police Review of 1982,due to Government policy in response to a non-existant problem it was claimed legitimate gun owners posed by owning firearms:

'There is an easily identifiable police attitude towards the possession of guns by members of the public.Every possible difficuilty should be put in their way.No documentation can be too rigid,no security requirement too arbitrary,which prevents guns coming into the hands of criminals.'

I think it's a good letter,and will be composing one of my own.

[wymberley]

Just to add, I think your reply to bruno22rf is somewhat condescending...I am sure you know what he meant.

Such was not my intention. It looks as though I've missed something as (and having read it again several times for good measure) I can still only see what is written which is why I asked. I too got caught red-handed but I was lucky and the circumstances were such that I got away with just "buying" the licence which I should have had but didn't. Many of us have 'history', particularly when young and if it's relatively minor and 'spent' then it's only right that this should not affect our future. I still can't make sense bruno's first two sentences - I'm sure there's a logical explanation, but I just can't grasp it.

[njc110381]

Obviously, I have no quarrel with your suggestion that those with convictions for domestic/sexual violence or substance abuse being banned from owning firearms. In fact, in my opinion no one with a criminal record should be allowed a firearms or shotgun licence.

 

Thanks Ross. That would finish off my hobby for a start and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's not unheard of for decent folk to have records... Mine is for the one and only crime I committed about 14 years ago. But that of course makes me a terrible person who should never be allowed a gun? Well that's just great!

 

I appreciate that you're making an effort and it's good that you are. But be careful what you wish for fella. Some of us have really turned our lives around. If it wasn't for the FAC I love so much I'm sure there may have been the odd occasion over the time I've held it that problem people in my life would have been dealt with much differently. When it comes to the point I want to swing for someone I only have to remember what I've got to lose and I turn and walk away. My certificates encourage me to behave much more than any law ever will.

[JonathanL]

I have renewed about 6 weeks ago but forgot to put that I got done for speeding a couple of years ago,

Best buy some fishing tackle. :(

 

If it was just a fixed penalty you do not need to declare it. A fixed penalty is not a conviction.

 

J.

Edited October 16, 2013 by JonathanL

[r1steele]

In the notes at the back of the forms you are required to list all offences not just convictions.

 

You are not entitled to withhold information about any offence. This

includes motoring offences, convictions in places outside Great Britain,

and (by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions)

Order 1975) convictions which are spent under the 1974 Act. Both a

conditional discharge and an absolute discharge count as convictions

for this purpose.

[-Mongrel-]

 

Thanks Ross. That would finish off my hobby for a start and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's not unheard of for decent folk to have records... Mine is for the one and only crime I committed about 14 years ago. But that of course makes me a terrible person who should never be allowed a gun? Well that's just great!

 

 

+1 on most of the above. I too had a brush with the law but as an 18 year old hothead who took offence to a stranger grabbing a handful of his GF's most intimate area, which resulted in a conviction for ABH. That's over 25 years ago and nothing more than a speeding ticket since, am I really unsuitable to hold a certificate Ross?

[RossEM]

Thanks for all the positive comments. With regards to the criminal convictions comments, I meant (and can't believe I missed it out) violent crime. I stand by that. It's just my opinion...

[bruno22rf]

Wymberley-just to clarify-I have a record for 4 separate charges of armed trespass whilst using a gun and ammo that I did not have a licence for + a few other things that I am not proud of. These offences were previous to me being granted a SGC and later, an FAC. These offences were a long time ago but still have to be declared.

[wymberley]

Wymberley-just to clarify-I have a record for 4 separate charges of armed trespass whilst using a gun and ammo that I did not have a licence for + a few other things that I am not proud of. These offences were previous to me being granted a SGC and later, an FAC. These offences were a long time ago but still have to be declared.

bruno, many thanks. Poacher turned 'keeper it is then!

 

For me, unlike Sprackles, your first post made it sound far worse than what it was. I had more luck. I think that if we'd have carried on (or more to the point, been allowed to on the grounds that several arrests for a more serious offence would have done the copper's career no harm) we'd have been in real trouble but fortunately the gun was pointed towards the bush the copper was hiding in and at that point he lost his bottle and jumped out.