Response to Diana Johnson MP on firearms licensing reform proposals

[JonathanL]

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.

 

Here we go again - another 10 pages, no doubt.

 

The question on the form says 'convictions' that means that only convictions need be declared. The notes on the back (which do not even constitute part of the official form as they come after the declaration which concludes the form) refer to the content of the question. They cannot expand the remit of the question. The notes refer to 'any offence' but that has to be read in the context of the question; it means, 'any offence for which you have been convicted.'

 

J.

Edited October 17, 2013 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

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...

 

And the chap who has the ABH conviction from yearsa back?

 

J.

[wymberley]

 

And the chap who has the ABH conviction from yearsa back?

 

J.

I was caned at school and if you look at its (rather vague as we've learned to expect from our law makers) definition I suffered ABH. My stepson was also done for exactly the same thing as has been detailed here and the little wimp of a scroat wasn't man enough to accept his punishment and pressed charges. Because punishment is simply what it was but the real crime was dishing it out when in fact that is the preserve of the courts and we simply can't have anyone doing their job for them, can we? Same as a clip around the ear from the village bobby. I know who is the better man between said scroat and Stephen.

 

Ross made a determined effort and did well and does not deserve all the futile nitpicking that he's been subjected to.

[r1steele]

 

Here we go again - another 10 pages, no doubt.

 

The question on the form says 'convictions' that means that only convictions need be declared. The notes on the back (which do not even constitute part of the official form as they come after the declaration which concludes the form) refer to the content of the question. They cannot expand the remit of the question. The notes refer to 'any offence' but that has to be read in the context of the question; it means, 'any offence for which you have been convicted.'

 

J.

Yes and you are required to read the notes before filling the form in so I would have thought that once you have read the notes you would be obliged to fill the forms in accordingly. In theory you aren't supposed to sign the declaration until the notes have been read and complied with.

[Sprackles]

I was caned at school and if you look at its (rather vague as we've learned to expect from our law makers) definition I suffered ABH. My stepson was also done for exactly the same thing as has been detailed here and the little wimp of a scroat wasn't man enough to accept his punishment and pressed charges. Because punishment is simply what it was but the real crime was dishing it out when in fact that is the preserve of the courts and we simply can't have anyone doing their job for them, can we? Same as a clip around the ear from the village bobby. I know who is the better man between said scroat and Stephen.

 

Ross made a determined effort and did well and does not deserve all the futile nitpicking that he's been subjected to.

 

Not knocking him at all for his willingness to reply.

Just pointing out that maybe his wish list has given fuel to the Anti's fire.

[keg]

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.

 

That is very true, sadly most politicians love the sound of their own voice

[silver pigeon69]

Looks like Labour are still intent on ******** 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.

 

 

 

What are you? a lower class peasant who likes blasting pigeons out of the sky? Phrases like these are used by Antis!

Regardless of who you are or what you shoot we should stick together!

(ps. i am working class and never been on a peg in my life!)

Edited October 17, 2013 by silver pigeon69

[Scully]

Am drafting a letter to her; does anyone have any info regarding the nine incidences she mentions involving licenced guns in the last six months?

[demonwolf444]

Hello Diana,

I have been disenfranchised towards voting Labour due to your recent comments on shooting and the community. The content of what you said, showed the clear and continued neglect and misunderstanding of the shooting community that the Labour party has shown in the past. The Labour party seems intent on further alienating and restricting its sources of support, from within the shooting community.

The vast majority of crimes committed with firearms are committed by criminals with firearms that are illegally held and have no connection with the law abiding shooting community. Therefore further restricting shooting sports will only serve to, alienate the shooting community, disenfranchise would be Labour voters, and show yet another prime example of the labour partys mismanagement of rural affairs in a misguided attempt to stamp out gun crime.

As a law abiding citizen i welcome and encourage a reduction in crime however this would be better done through increasing expenditure on the budget for the police force to allow them to more effectively tackle gang cultures, and organized crime. Not by penalizing a law abiding section of society, that is greatly misunderstood.

The high profile events in the last few years that involved legally held guns were committed by individuals, that were granted shotgun and firearm certificates in situations when them selves as applicants previous behavior clearly showed a "red flag" in terms of their unsuitability to be certificate holders had the home office guidance issued to police firearms departments been properly followed and implicated.

I strongly believe that the crimes committed by the high profile mass murderers, Derek Bird and Michael Atherton could have been completely avoided, had the current home office guidance been followed, indeed i said as much when their background behavior prior to committing their crimes became widely publicized in the media, and it begs the question that if an 18 year old can understand this, why do our MP's who so often claim to act in the public interest, insist on alienating a whole sector of that public by insisting on tarring those who's use firearms legally and safely, with the brush that rightly belongs with the criminals. Failing to reduce crime and making it harder for the law abiding citizens to enjoy their pass times will not gain votes for the Labour party. Readdressing a priority to stamp out organized crime and tackle gang cultures that plague communities however will.

With what i have said in mind i strongly urge you to reconsider the statements you have made with regards to shooting sports.

Best wishes.

James.

[wymberley]

Magic, James, another cracker. It seems we may be on a roll.

[demonwolf444]

I probably would not vote Labour but i thought it might spark her interest so i called the email "First time voter. In regards to recent comments on shooting."

[remmyman]

 

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.

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.

 

+1

 

Regards Remmyman

 

• Back to top

[njc110381]

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...

 

I think I see where you're at, but it's still a bit too generalised.

 

Say for example you were at the pub and a drunk indecently assaulted your other half and was pushy so you applied force to the situation that was later deemed excessive by a court. Would you let him carry on to avoid getting into trouble, or are you suggesting that you shouldn't have guns?

 

I know what I'm saying is unlikely, but it's not unheard of. I know a thoroughly decent chap who has served time for manslaughter - all he did was apply a single punch to a chap who had done just what I said above. Unfortunately the guy he smacked fell and hit his head on the kerb and it was game over.

[RossEM]

I don't think anything I've said has 'fuelled the antis' fire.' I stated my opinion. Literally anyone with half a brain (and I include Diana Johnson in that) will realise that the opinion of one shooter will not be the opinion of all.

 

I understand and agree with the concept that wanting to keep your FAC/SGC keeps you out of trouble, as has been the case with me, and probably most of us.

 

At the moment, it is down to Licensing departments to research and deliberate suitability, and it is down to them to make the right decision if the applicant has a conviction or history of illegal activity of any sort - it is not always the case that they get it right. If the decision was in my hands, I know I could not approve any application submitted by someone with a history of violent crime, as I could not have the worst case scenario on my conscience.

A one off conviction from 20 years ago? Maybe not - it depends on the severity of the offence. I think it would be safer to have a policy of denial, and a clear and transparent appeals process. That is my opinion, and I do not think it is harmful to shooting to put it to an opposition MP.

 

For the record, I have seen a lot of upper class yuppies blasting pheasants out of the sky, with no appreciation, knowledge or understanding of the countryside whatsoever. They are as much our enemies as the antis.

[RossEM]

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.

PM inbound mate

[timmy1146]

Typical labour, hypocritical air heads.

 

They deliberately choose to forget every person who has gone on a shooting rampage, under current and past last shouldn't have had a certificate in the first place due to past convictions or more often, mental health problems.

Again, the ruling parties use any excuse to further disarm law abiding people and control their lives.

 

I've found the most people who I've met and talked to, when they've found out I do shooting they have always been surprised and found it really interesting. Most have eventually asked how to get into the sport. So I don't really think your average person knows the current situation with the current gun laws. I find most people just say "I thought guns were illegal over here"

 

Always said it, the shooting communities need to stand together and push for less restrictions on the laws and what firearms are available, even thought I shoot shotguns only, I signed the petition to stop air rifles being classed as firearms in Scotland. Wouldn'nt have made a difference to me but I signed it anyway because it stood a chance of helping air rifle shooters in Scotland a lot of trouble.

I find most shooters here only support there area of shooting and don't give a damn about any other areas of the sports. Maybe that's why we've been trampled on for so long and continue to be trampled on.

[12boreblue]

Divide and Conquer! Has anyone else noticed how society has changed, our communities have declined, neighbours that don't know each other, estates controlled by drug gangs, and those perpetual dictates from the Police and Authorities, 'Don't get involved' 'Do not approach' etcetera etcetera.

 

There should be one society for shooters in this country, not BASC and CPSA and Countryside Alliance. They should merge and we would have one strong focused voice to lobby Government, and put the case for shooting in one fully encompassed policy. But that will never happen, too many businessman making money. For an example if you fit gas boilers in this country, you have to belong to '1' licensed governing body GAS SAFE. If you are a sparks, you can be a member of NICEIC, NAPIT, ELECSA, now I do not know the reason why there is only one governing body for gas, but aren't they both just as dangerous to life?

[Vipa]

Hello Diana,

 

I have been disenfranchised towards voting Labour due to your recent comments on shooting and the community. The content of what you said, showed the clear and continued neglect and misunderstanding of the shooting community that the Labour party has shown in the past. The Labour party seems intent on further alienating and restricting its sources of support, from within the shooting community.

 

The vast majority of crimes committed with firearms are committed by criminals with firearms that are illegally held and have no connection with the law abiding shooting community. Therefore further restricting shooting sports will only serve to, alienate the shooting community, disenfranchise would be Labour voters, and show yet another prime example of the labour partys mismanagement of rural affairs in a misguided attempt to stamp out gun crime.

 

As a law abiding citizen i welcome and encourage a reduction in crime however this would be better done through increasing expenditure on the budget for the police force to allow them to more effectively tackle gang cultures, and organized crime. Not by penalizing a law abiding section of society, that is greatly misunderstood.

 

The high profile events in the last few years that involved legally held guns were committed by individuals, that were granted shotgun and firearm certificates in situations when them selves as applicants previous behavior clearly showed a "red flag" in terms of their unsuitability to be certificate holders had the home office guidance issued to police firearms departments been properly followed and implicated.

 

I strongly believe that the crimes committed by the high profile mass murderers, Derek Bird and Michael Atherton could have been completely avoided, had the current home office guidance been followed, indeed i said as much when their background behavior prior to committing their crimes became widely publicized in the media, and it begs the question that if an 18 year old can understand this, why do our MP's who so often claim to act in the public interest, insist on alienating a whole sector of that public by insisting on tarring those who's use firearms legally and safely, with the brush that rightly belongs with the criminals. Failing to reduce crime and making it harder for the law abiding citizens to enjoy their pass times will not gain votes for the Labour party. Readdressing a priority to stamp out organized crime and tackle gang cultures that plague communities however will.

 

With what i have said in mind i strongly urge you to reconsider the statements you have made with regards to shooting sports.

 

Best wishes.

 

James.

Why oh why do people use big words in letters.... is it to come accross more intelligent? well educated? from classier stock? all that happens is you come accross as exactly the opposite!

 

If you dont FULLY understand the meaning of a word please do not use it.. particularly when a word has a specific political meaning and you are addressing an MP! If you just can't resist, at least pick up a dictionary!

 

Unless you have been locked up, been committed under the Mental Health Act, have suddenly regressed to under the age of 18 or have been found out to be an illegal alien...... YOU HAVE NOT BEEN DISENFRANCHISED!

Edited October 20, 2013 by Vipa

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Oh Vipa that's wonderful! :lol:

[12boreblue]

I can hear the pages of dictionaries flicking frantically to the 'd' section, and google servers buzzing as I write. But hey!... I see your point, but also admire anyone who does something rather than nothing and will forgive literacy errors. And by no means take for granted that the recipient of these letters is so well versed in our written language, or a words meaning or even it's grammatical content that they themselves would notice.

 

A Panda walks into a restuarant, eats, shoots and leaves!

Edited October 20, 2013 by 12boreblue

[Vipa]

I can hear the pages of dictionaries flicking frantically to the 'd' section, and google servers buzzing as I write. But hey!... I see your point, but also admire anyone who does something rather than nothing and will forgive literacy errors. And by no means take for granted that the recipient of these letters is so well versed in our written language, or a words meaning or even it's grammatical content that they themselves would notice.

 

A Panda walks into a restuarant, eats, shoots and leaves!

You are wrong... It does matter... I agree, doing something is great but don't do it I a way that makes o E look like a dork.

 

I would like to think anyone with the intelligence and education required to get into to parliament would know what emancipation meant and any other word associated with it.. After all, it is the reason they are in the job they are in (or not in the case of disenfranchisement!)

 

Don't undervalue the impact, or lack of, of good grammar but this is not grammar, this is basic understanding of the words being used and written down.

 

It devalues the letter, it devalues the author... 4th word in and I would be thinking.... Here we go... Another one.. Can't even be ***** to look a word up on Google.. Why should I be bothered to read it and take it seriously..

[victorismyhero]

If you REALLY want to be pedantic, the error in use of disenfranchised, is NOT in the use of that word, but in the context of the sentence, following it with "towards"

 

If you take the strictly correct view that being disenfranchised, means being prevented from voting, then the poster would have been quite correct to say "I have been disenfranchised FROM voting labour", which would make the point quite clearly, that, had it not been for the MP's absurd stance, the poster probably WOULD have voted labour. And thus would make the point that her stance on this has lost a potential labour vote...which is EXACTLY i feel the point the poster was making.

 

Nothing wrong with his use of language, merely a point of context.

[David BASC]

The law and the best practice as guided by the HO is plenty adequate enough to ensure public safety as demonstrated clearly with hundreds of thousands of certificate holders with over a million firearms and millions of rounds of ammunition shot every year in sport and a fantastic safety record proves the point.

 

When there have been tragic murders by licenced certificate holders, they have always highlighted some level of failing by the licencing authority, would you agree?

 

So as I said, the emphasis by the political parties should not focus on targeting us law abiding shooters, but they should be putting more pressure on the licencing teams to deliver a better and more efficient and thus more effective service under the current law and guidelines.

 

Once we have a uniform and efficient system then and only then can we review the actual cost rather than the licencing teams grabbing figures out of the air based on their demonstrably inefficient practices with no benefit to public safety, its as simple as that!

 

David

[Vipa]

If you REALLY want to be pedantic, the error in use of disenfranchised, is NOT in the use of that word, but in the context of the sentence, following it with "towards"

 

If you take the strictly correct view that being disenfranchised, means being prevented from voting, then the poster would have been quite correct to say "I have been disenfranchised FROM voting labour", which would make the point quite clearly, that, had it not been for the MP's absurd stance, the poster probably WOULD have voted labour. And thus would make the point that her stance on this has lost a potential labour vote...which is EXACTLY i feel the point the poster was making.

 

Nothing wrong with his use of language, merely a point of context.

Nope... it means having the 'RIGHT' to vote removed and therefore has no place in any letter to any MP or otherwse unless belonging to one of my afforementioned group

[Scully]

The law and the best practice as guided by the HO is plenty adequate enough to ensure public safety as demonstrated clearly with hundreds of thousands of certificate holders with over a million firearms and millions of rounds of ammunition shot every year in sport and a fantastic safety record proves the point.

 

When there have been tragic murders by licenced certificate holders, they have always highlighted some level of failing by the licencing authority, would you agree?

 

So as I said, the emphasis by the political parties should not focus on targeting us law abiding shooters, but they should be putting more pressure on the licencing teams to deliver a better and more efficient and thus more effective service under the current law and guidelines.

 

Once we have a uniform and efficient system then and only then can we review the actual cost rather than the licencing teams grabbing figures out of the air based on their demonstrably inefficient practices with no benefit to public safety, its as simple as that!

 

David

Good points well made.