Response to Diana Johnson MP on firearms licensing reform proposals

[demonwolf444]

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!

Well that's a little embarrassing, I can not really remember where i first picked up the word from, but i did not use it to try to sound "intelligent? well educated? from classier stock?" but it is a word I have used quite often, although obviously in the wrong context, and without a full understanding of its meaning. Thanks for pointing it out anyway, at least now I understand

[Vipa]

Well that's a little embarrassing, I can not really remember where i first picked up the word from, but i did not use it to try to sound "intelligent? well educated? from classier stock?" but it is a word I have used quite often, although obviously in the wrong context, and without a full understanding of its meaning. Thanks for pointing it out anyway, at least now I understand

ach.. it wasn't a criticism of you... I get job enquiries in from time to time and nothing makes for a speedier filing process in the cabinet marked B1N than poor grammar and incorrect wording.. just me being me.. lol

 

I salute you for taking the time to write and bang the letter off to her, it just upsets me some that you have probably undervalued yourself in her eyes for no other reason than incorrect use of words... you have done yourself an injustice in the process.

 

Good on ya for doing it though

[Blunderbust]

And good on you for taking the criticism and advice on the chin .

[demonwolf444]

ach.. it wasn't a criticism of you... I get job enquiries in from time to time and nothing makes for a speedier filing process in the cabinet marked B1N than poor grammar and incorrect wording.. just me being me.. lol

 

I salute you for taking the time to write and bang the letter off to her, it just upsets me some that you have probably undervalued yourself in her eyes for no other reason than incorrect use of words... you have done yourself an injustice in the process.

 

Good on ya for doing it though

Please don't get me wrong, I completely understand where you are coming from!

Unfortunately proper use of written language has never been a strong point of mine.

 

As far as i am concerned the more people who write to Mrs Johnson about the issue the better, but just out of interest has anybody received a reply?

[JonathanL]

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.

 

Yes and the question asks you to declare convictions and nothing else.

 

As I say above, the notes do not constitute a legally binding part of the form. Besides, even if they did, they cannot alter the question. They must be read in the context of the question and the question only asks you to declare convictions. The notes say to mention every offence but it only means offences for which you were convicted. A fixed penalty is not a conviction so does not need to be mentioned (although that is changing I believe with the new form on 1st December). Nor is a caution a conviction even though it is an admission of guilt.

 

I have never, as far as I recall, declared fixed penalties and I have never been hauled up on it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

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

 

I would agree with that but with the exception of Hungerford. I really don't see how the police could have flagged Ryan as a potential nutter because they weren't aware of his behavior. He was known as a gross fantasist and liar and was known to take loaded guns to work with him. He had also threatened his neighbors and other people on several occasions. The problem is that none of this was ever reported to anyone who could have done anything about it.

 

J.

[The Croc]

Well done Ross, thought that was a good letter, will be interested to see the reply.

I have done the same in the past, and will do again, cost me a fortune in stamps

 

Brian

[r1steele]

 

Yes and the question asks you to declare convictions and nothing else.

 

As I say above, the notes do not constitute a legally binding part of the form. Besides, even if they did, they cannot alter the question. They must be read in the context of the question and the question only asks you to declare convictions. The notes say to mention every offence but it only means offences for which you were convicted. A fixed penalty is not a conviction so does not need to be mentioned (although that is changing I believe with the new form on 1st December). Nor is a caution a conviction even though it is an admission of guilt.

 

I have never, as far as I recall, declared fixed penalties and I have never been hauled up on it.

 

J.

I was picked up on a fixed speeding penalty many years ago that I had genuinely forgotton about. No problems with it but the FEO did mention it when he came out to do my interview. It wasn't for a grant either but for a renewal of my sgc. Not looking for an argument but I have had it happen and was told by the FEO (I know most don't know their ***** form their elbows to be fair) that it should have been put down on the forms. Mind you, the same FEO had to ask me what a carbine was as he had never heard of one before.

[JonathanL]

I was picked up on a fixed speeding penalty many years ago that I had genuinely forgotton about. No problems with it but the FEO did mention it when he came out to do my interview. It wasn't for a grant either but for a renewal of my sgc. Not looking for an argument but I have had it happen and was told by the FEO (I know most don't know their ***** form their elbows to be fair) that it should have been put down on the forms. Mind you, the same FEO had to ask me what a carbine was as he had never heard of one before.

 

I've heard several stories of people getting a 'telling off' for not declaring things like fixed penalties, the story usually ends with something like; "Well, on this occasion I can see that it was a genuine mistake so I'll let it pass this time but you came very close to being refused or even prosecuted" - or some variation on that. It's complete rubbish though. No one has ever been refused, revoked or prosecuted for not declaring a fixed penalty. As I say, I have had a few fixed penalties over the years and have never declared any of them as far as I can recall and nothing has ever been said.

 

J.

[wymberley]

 

I would agree with that but with the exception of Hungerford. I really don't see how the police could have flagged Ryan as a potential nutter because they weren't aware of his behavior. He was known as a gross fantasist and liar and was known to take loaded guns to work with him. He had also threatened his neighbors and other people on several occasions. The problem is that none of this was ever reported to anyone who could have done anything about it.

 

J.

Do you happen to know whether or not Ryan was issued with an FAC prior to him completing the specified probation time with his local club?

[Scully]

It seems accurate info' regarding Ryan is difficuilt to come by; one account I read has him down as an ex-para' ,another that even though he was a member of a handgun ONLY club, he was granted the AK 47 clone and an M1 carbine. The facts surrounding the events of that day are pretty substantiated,and readily available,but about Ryan himself,I know little.

[JonathanL]

Do you happen to know whether or not Ryan was issued with an FAC prior to him completing the specified probation time with his local club?

 

The rules as to probationary membership periods weren't in place that far back. I don't think they came about until the 1997 Act. It may have been as far back as the 1988 Act but that was a reaction to Hungerford so wouldn't have applied to him.

 

I don't know what the rules were back then but as far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that his FAC was issued improperly

 

J.

[JonathanL]

It seems accurate info' regarding Ryan is difficuilt to come by; one account I read has him down as an ex-para' ,another that even though he was a member of a handgun ONLY club, he was granted the AK 47 clone and an M1 carbine. The facts surrounding the events of that day are pretty substantiated,and readily available,but about Ryan himself,I know little.

 

He was a member of an indoor club which had a range in a disused rail tunnel which was suitable for using full bore rifles. He was known to have used all of his guns and was specifically seen using the rifles at the tunnel range. I think he also visited other clubs too.

 

Having said all that; this was the early '80's and there weren't really any rules distinguishing between types of club - or at least if there were they were never applied.

 

He wasn't an ex-para or ex-military anything. What he was known to be was a serial fantasist and liar with very little of a life. He was well known to many people for spinning fantastical stories - being para probably being one of them. I'm sure he claimed to be ex-SAS. He also said that he'd been semi-adopted by some kindly old gent with pots of money who was going to buy him a Ferrari, big house, lots of guns and such like.

 

The problem with all of this though was that the police were never told about any of it so had little opportunity to do anything about him. If his boss had told someone that he regularly took loaded guns to work or hsi neighbours told the police that he'd threatened them then he could have been dealt with.

 

There is a very good article called, I think, Hungerford: One Man's Massacre. It was written by a freelance journalist and used to be free on his website but it seems to be charged for now. I thought I had a copy but can't seem to find it. It doesn't really come a conclusion as to why he did it but the suggestion seems to be that it was an attempted armed rape which ended up with him losing his rag and going off one a rampage. Seems plausible as the first victim was a single woman found in a forest, I think.

 

The bottom line is that he was almost certainly very seriously mentally ill and probably had been for a long time.

 

J.

Edited October 23, 2013 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

Link to book.

 

http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/en/books/article4.asp

 

J.

[Scully]

Thanks for that.

[RossEM]

No response from Diana Johnson, and no surprise...

[wymberley]

 

The rules as to probationary membership periods weren't in place that far back. I don't think they came about until the 1997 Act. It may have been as far back as the 1988 Act but that was a reaction to Hungerford so wouldn't have applied to him.

 

I don't know what the rules were back then but as far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that his FAC was issued improperly

 

J.

Even as far back as when Moses stumbled down a mountain laden with a load of stone tablets, sensible good folk have never required written rules in order to behave in a certain fashion. Consequently, many clubs back then were practising a voluntary probationary membership system simply because it made sense to do so. You may not be aware of any suggestion that his FAC was issued improperly just as Joe Public was similarly unaware of the circumstances relating to Hamilton. It does not mean to say that such was not the case and as we now know, if the sergeant whose opinions were over-ruled by a superior officer had got his way and his opinions been acted upon, the Dunblane massacre would not have occurred. At least, that is, with legally held guns.

 

If in the event such a system of 'checks' was in place at Ryan's club and they failed to recognise such abnormal behaviour as we are lead to believe he exhibited, then what is the point of the those now required by legislation? Hence my question: Was his application subject to a probationary period and was it served in full because if not and somehow his application was 'fast tracked' for whatever reason by whatever means, then it is not possible to fairly judge the effectiveness of the probationary system in this instance.

 

Now, you may have spotted where I'm going with this. If a six month probationary period, assuming a satisfactory attendance level, can not detect a severe mental impairment, what chance of your GP getting it right if the only time you've seen him in the past five years was eighteen months ago for an ingrowing toenail?

Edited October 23, 2013 by wymberley

[JonathanL]

Even as far back as when Moses stumbled down a mountain laden with a load of stone tablets, sensible good folk have never required written rules in order to behave in a certain fashion. Consequently, many clubs back then were practising a voluntary probationary membership system simply because it made sense to do so. You may not be aware of any suggestion that his FAC was issued improperly just as Joe Public was similarly unaware of the circumstances relating to Hamilton. It does not mean to say that such was not the case and as we now know, if the sergeant whose opinions were over-ruled by a superior officer had got his way and his opinions been acted upon, the Dunblane massacre would not have occurred. At least, that is, with legally held guns.

 

If in the event such a system of 'checks' was in place at Ryan's club and they failed to recognise such abnormal behaviour as we are lead to believe he exhibited, then what is the point of the those now required by legislation? Hence my question: Was his application subject to a probationary period and was it served in full because if not and somehow his application was 'fast tracked' for whatever reason by whatever means, then it is not possible to fairly judge the effectiveness of the probationary system in this instance.

 

Now, you may have spotted where I'm going with this. If a six month probationary period, assuming a satisfactory attendance level, can not detect a severe mental impairment, what chance of your GP getting it right if the only time you've seen him in the past five years was eighteen months ago for an ingrowing toenail?

 

All this was a long time ago. I don't know what specific rules were in place relating to clubs at the time. To be honest, I have looked through the legislation and I can't find anything which would make a club member's possession of firearms and ammunition legal at that time as there was no provision for Home Office approval which, today, acts to legalise possession by members without a personal FAC. There must have been something but I don't know what that was. Perhaps there wasn't anything at all?

 

As to the issuance of his FAC. No evidence has ever come to light of any impropriety in the issuing of it. In the case of Hamilton we know that the police knew of Hamilton's unsuitability and did nothing. In the case of Atherton we know that the police there also knew that he was unsuitable and even removed his guns on at least one occasion. There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that Ryan should not have been issued an FAC.

 

There is no suggestion that any probationary period was 'fast tracked' if there was one in place. Even if he had served a full probationary period there isn't much to suggest that it would have flagged up his behavior to fellow members as they would have only seen him at the club and as far as I recall his behavior there wasn't really in question.

 

The probationary period isn't there to show up severe mental ilness. A lot of mental illness cannot be readily spotted anyway. Ryan wasn't a gibbering loon. He was a Walter Mitty type fantasist and I think that most people who knew him probably just thought he was quite eccentric rather than being actually dangerous.

 

J.

[Sprackles]

Changed her tune a bit........

http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/540902/Labour_gun_applicants_must_quotprove_suitabilityquot.html?utm_source=cheetah&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=131023

[Vipa]

 

The rules as to probationary membership periods weren't in place that far back. I don't think they came about until the 1997 Act. It may have been as far back as the 1988 Act but that was a reaction to Hungerford so wouldn't have applied to him.

 

I don't know what the rules were back then but as far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that his FAC was issued improperly

 

J.

 

I had to legally serve out 6 months probation in 1994 when I joined my first gun club.. when that was up I got my FAC and handguns

[Scully]

 

I had to legally serve out 6 months probation in 1994 when I joined my first gun club.. when that was up I got my FAC and handguns

Did mine in 1988 but can't recall whether I was legally obliged to or not. Applied for FAC along with two handguns literally the day after the shootings at Hungerford.

[Gunman]

So vote UKIP .Party leader Nigel Farrage shoots and fishes