Law Commission - Firearms legislation

[CharlieT]

The CA has today emailed members regarding the above "scoping consultation" to look into problems with the current firearms legislation.

 

It's good to see that the CA are on the ball and keeping members in the picture.

 

The Law Commission's proposal can be found here.....http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/firearms-making-the-law-more-balanced-and-more-effective/?ct=t(141023_e_newsletter10_23_2014)&mc_cid=5a718e1fd3&mc_eid=2946764e3d

Edited July 23, 2015 by CharlieT

[grrclark]

Interesting, I shall have a look shortly.

[neutron619]

Can I ask all PW members to make themselves aware of both the issues this document potentially raises (thankfully few, which should be handled by our shooting organisations) and the major opportunity it contains also.

 

Here's an extract from section 9.22 of the consultation document:

 

Consultation question 7

Do consultees have any examples of the additional and unnecessary costs or any dangers to the public that are attributable to the defects with the current law governing the acquisition and possession of firearms?

 

This is a question asked by a people who are going to recommend what any new law should look like and have huge influence on writing any resulting legislation; it is therefore a big opportunity for law-abiding shooters to have a bit more freedom to shoot and hunt on our terms, rather than those dictated to us by the police.

 

I would argue that unnecessary cost #1 is the practice of licensing by firearm rather than licensing of the person (or by class of firearm). The adoption of either of the latter approaches would be a huge improvement and reduce substantially the need for land checks / clearances, arguments with FEOs about why a .270 is no more dangerous than a .308 (a recent example of FEO "competence" from another popular forum) and all the many and various kinds of **** we have to deal with to get and keep our FACs.

 

Please can I urge all members to contact their shooting organisations to request that they argue for this suggestion to be included in their respective responses to the consultation?

 

Thanks,

 

Adam.

Edited July 23, 2015 by neutron619

[deadeye18]

doesnt sound too promising for antique collectors.I cant remember the last time i heard of anyone robbing a bank with a martini henry or brown bess.i do hope that no ones toes will be stepped on when all this is done and that common sense will be applied to all of this and there wont be any more restrictions brought in quietly,Everyone should keep a keen eye on this.

Adam thats a good point you made there fella.

[bluesj]

Not read it all yet, but is it just me or do others think that smoeone is making a meal of it?!

I can think of a few things that would help clarifie the law and a few more that would help gun owners without causing any problems for joe public plus save tax payers money!

[neutron619]

I can think of a few things that would help clarifie the law and a few more that would help gun owners without causing any problems for joe public plus save tax payers money!

 

Perhaps we can list them here so that people like David BASC can see the sort of things they should include in their replies?

[J_Edwards]

I agree with Neutron, hopefully, this will make the application and renewal system simpler, faster and more uniform.

 

By getting rid of closed tickets they could probably save a lot of money from not using as many FEOs, and as much of their time, which could be spent actually processing applications. Rather than driving around the countryside, to look at a piece of land and say "No, not safe for a .22LR!", when someone with an open ticket can theoretically walk straight onto it with their .308. To me, this beaurocracy is a waste of time, effort and taxpayer's money.

[CharlieT]

I agree with Neutron, hopefully, this will make the application and renewal system simpler, faster and more uniform.

 

By getting rid of closed tickets they could probably save a lot of money from not using as many FEOs, and as much of their time, which could be spent actually processing applications. Rather than driving around the countryside, to look at a piece of land and say "No, not safe for a .22LR!", when someone with an open ticket can theoretically walk straight onto it with their .308. To me, this beaurocracy is a waste of time, effort and taxpayer's money.

 

You must remember that the purpose of this consultation is, basically, to re write the Firearms Act and has nothing to do with firearms licensing administration by the police.

[bluesj]

 

Perhaps we can list them here so that people like David BASC can see the sort of things they should include in their replies?

Right then my little list, I'm sure I'll think of more.

1. Do away with like for like variations for rifles etc. I've been cleared to own and use a .22lr what is the point of having to ask the police if I can get rid of one and buy another. It would save me time and the police money

2. Take moderators off ticket just have the fact that I can use one on a particular rifle on the ticket. For the same reasons as above.

3. Put shot gun cartridges on ticket. I don't know of anywhere around here that will sell them to you with out seeing your ticket, and if you haven't got a shotgun why would you need cartridges.

4. Replace the “lethal” bit in the law to an agreed kinetic energy level. And not at a level that is needed to kill with the barrel up some ones nose or in their ear, if I shove a screw driver up your nose I wouldn't be surprised if you died. I'm sure that hours of testing have been done on this and would think the level is known.

5. Have a registration system for air rifle ownership, not a license to own just your name and address on record. I would not have a problem with it and I can't see why anyone would and it might put one or two scrotes off of shooting at swans, people pets and windows if they had to tell the police their names before the could get an air rifle.

[bluesj]

Just thought of another that I believe is use in other parts of the world.

6. Have a ballistic report of all rifles etc so in the event of a shooting the police could check any bullets found against a data base. Ok this will take some doing and cost money but it could be done at proofing. And I know that any bullets the police dig out of someone won't have come from my rifles.

[neutron619]

 

You must remember that the purpose of this consultation is, basically, to re write the Firearms Act and has nothing to do with firearms licensing administration by the police.

 

Did you read the quote I posted above taken directly from the consultation document?

 

To save you the bother of reading the document, they first lay out the well known and broad legal issues with the texts and definitions contained in the Firearms Acts. They end each chapter with proposals about how to "fix" that law. After 6 chapters of that, they address a range of general, less significant issues and make similar suggestions. Finally, they summarise the questions and proposals into a short 9th chapter and include the question I posted above, which strongly suggests that they are interested in:

 

Consultation question 7

... the additional and unnecessary costs or any dangers to the public that are attributable to the defects with the current law governing the acquisition and possession of firearms.

 

 

Seems pretty clear to me that "acquisition and possession" includes licensing as a necessary (if you buy the whole licensing argument) part of it.

Edited July 23, 2015 by neutron619

[neutron619]

 

Right then my little list, I'm sure I'll think of more.

1. Do away with like for like variations for rifles etc. I've been cleared to own and use a .22lr what is the point of having to ask the police if I can get rid of one and buy another. It would save me time and the police money

2. Take moderators off ticket just have the fact that I can use one on a particular rifle on the ticket. For the same reasons as above.

3. Put shot gun cartridges on ticket. I don't know of anywhere around here that will sell them to you with out seeing your ticket, and if you haven't got a shotgun why would you need cartridges.

4. Replace the “lethal” bit in the law to an agreed kinetic energy level. And not at a level that is needed to kill with the barrel up some ones nose or in their ear, if I shove a screw driver up your nose I wouldn't be surprised if you died. I'm sure that hours of testing have been done on this and would think the level is known.

5. Have a registration system for air rifle ownership, not a license to own just your name and address on record. I would not have a problem with it and I can't see why anyone would and it might put one or two scrotes off of shooting at swans, people pets and windows if they had to tell the police their names before the could get an air rifle.

 

 

Agree with 1. and 4. (the US army has always had 63ftlbs - or the energy required to drive a bullet through an oak board of known thickness as their lethal "minimum" energy). Maybe 2. would be a good idea - I don't know - and I could live with 5.

 

On the other hand, forcing loaders, spouses and other people who don't much shoot but tag along to shooting events to have a certificate to carry a box of cartridges is ridiculous, so 3. is certainly not a suggestion I'd put forward myself.

 

We are, generally, in favour of less restrictive law, rather than more restrictive law, are we not? Seems a bit counter productive to make life more difficult for ourselves whilst we're at it. Not to mention situations like losing a cartridge in your car when you're unloading your kit: if you don't find it before your wife next drives it, is she committing an offence worth a 5 year jail term by being in possession of it in the same way that a knife in a glove box in a car counts as possession? Very bad move all round I'm afraid.

 

I'd think the only way shotgun cartridges are really dangerous without the tube is if you eat them.

Edited July 23, 2015 by neutron619

[bluesj]

 

Agree with 1. and 4. (the US army has always had 63ftlbs - or the energy required to drive a bullet through an oak board of known thickness as their lethal "minimum" energy). Maybe 2. would be a good idea - I don't know - and I could live with 5.

 

On the other hand, forcing loaders, spouses and other people who don't much shoot but tag along to shooting events to have a certificate to carry a box of cartridges is ridiculous, so 3. is certainly not a suggestion I'd put forward myself.

 

We are, generally, in favour of less restrictive law, rather than more restrictive law, are we not? Seems a bit counter productive to make life more difficult for ourselves whilst we're at it. Not to mention situations like losing a cartridge in your car when you're unloading your kit: if you don't find it before your wife next drives it, is she committing an offence worth a 5 year jail term by being in possession of it in the same way that a knife in a glove box in a car counts as possession? Very bad move all round I'm afraid.

 

I'd think the only way shotgun cartridges are really dangerous without the tube is if you eat them.

On your first point if some one is tagging along to a shoot with you they would be covered for having cartgidges in the same way as they are when and or if they use your gun without having to have a certificate of their own.

And on your seconed, Well made . I'm pretty sure there isn't but couldn't say 100% that there isn't a cartridge hiding under the seat of my truck.

I suppose the problem in cases like that would be the law is the law and wouldn't / couldn't allow for situations like that but on the other hand that is the way it is with rifle ammo, your wife or mine could be in trouble if you have a stray .22 down the side of the spare wheel.

Edited July 23, 2015 by bluesj

[CaptainBeaky]

 

Right then my little list, I'm sure I'll think of more.

• Do away with like for like variations for rifles etc. I've been cleared to own and use a .22lr what is the point of having to ask the police if I can get rid of one and buy another. It would save me time and the police money

• Take moderators off ticket just have the fact that I can use one on a particular rifle on the ticket. For the same reasons as above.

• Put shot gun cartridges on ticket. I don't know of anywhere around here that will sell them to you with out seeing your ticket, and if you haven't got a shotgun why would you need cartridges.

• Replace the lethal bit in the law to an agreed kinetic energy level. And not at a level that is needed to kill with the barrel up some ones nose or in their ear, if I shove a screw driver up your nose I wouldn't be surprised if you died. I'm sure that hours of testing have been done on this and would think the level is known.

• Have a registration system for air rifle ownership, not a license to own just your name and address on record. I would not have a problem with it and I can't see why anyone would and it might put one or two scrotes off of shooting at swans, people pets and windows if they had to tell the police their names before the could get an air rifle.

1. No problem

2. Eminently reasonable, so probably won't go anywhere.

3. What good would that do? You need to show entitlement already to purchase, putting ammunition on ticket as per section 1 just adds more bureaucracy and cost to the public purse.

4. Again, sensible and quantifiable - probably too sensible to happen.

5. Haven't we already had this argument over airgun licensing in Scotland? If it won't persuade Scots scrotes to register, why think it would work with English scrotes?

Edited July 23, 2015 by CaptainBeaky

[bluesj]

1. No problem

2. Eminently reasonable, so probably won't go anywhere.

3. What good would that do? You need to show entitlement already to purchase, putting ammunition on ticket as per section 1 just adds more bureaucracy and cost to the public purse.

4. Again, sensible and quantifiable - probably too sensible to happen.

5. Haven't we already had this argument over airgun licensing in Scotland? If it won't persuade Scots scrotes to register, why think it would work with English scrotes?

As far as i know and willing to be corected, by law you don't need to show any entitlement to purcase shotgun cartridges. I don't know of any where that will sell you any without showing your license and I wouldn't give ant to anyone that i didn't konw had a license but you don't need a licinse to have cartridges.

I wasn't thinking of a system the same as section 1, just I you haven't got a liecense the you cant have cartridges. I know there are poeple that collect cartridges but don't shoot or even have a gun but i'm sure that something could be done for collectors

[panoma1]

Increase the certificate/licence duration to ten years! Once an individual has been cleared, assuming nothing changes and no problems have arisen? Why do we have to go through further costly, time consuming renewals every five years?

A ten year renewal requirement would halve our outlay!.........and the police would make corresponding savings in their resources........

They will not like it because it erodes the chief constables empire! By cutting police income from firearm Licencing by 50%!

 

But the arguement would be that they would only need half the staff to administer a ten year licence!........or they could actually use the doubling of time between renewals to offer us a decent, quick service rather than the abysmal, deliberately poor, slow , so called 'service' some forces are cynically getting away with now!

[CharlieT]

 

Did you read the quote I posted above taken directly from the consultation document?

 

To save you the bother of reading the document, they first lay out the well known and broad legal issues with the texts and definitions contained in the Firearms Acts. They end each chapter with proposals about how to "fix" that law. After 6 chapters of that, they address a range of general, less significant issues and make similar suggestions. Finally, they summarise the questions and proposals into a short 9th chapter and include the question I posted above, which strongly suggests that they are interested in:

 

 

Seems pretty clear to me that "acquisition and possession" includes licensing as a necessary (if you buy the whole licensing argument) part of it.

 

With respect, your assumption is incorrect. This consultation has nothing to do with the mechanics of how police implement the Firearms Act, rather it is all about Firearms Law, consolidating it and bringing it upto date.

[Savhmr]

Seems to me that there's little agreement from the few replies about what should or shouldn't be done, but it seems dafet to add to admin burden. Surely the opportunity is to i) leave well alone on the principle if it isn't broken, don't attempt to fix it, but with a few sensible suggestions for simplification where such simplifications place less restriction on applicants and Police without in any way lessening the burden of responsibility on either party, namely;

 

1) end "closed" tickets which are an out-dated idea. If the FEOs were tasked with ascertaining suitability to possess and good reason for use checks, then part of those checks can simply include suitable questioning about the land intended for use and the suitability of the calibre/backstops. They will still have to record or have details of land to which the application relates as due diligence and no getting away from that, and quite rightly so imho. Providing applicants can offer primary land pertaining to an application and use, then it can be left up to the individual about where else said calibres can be used, as with the present open ticket system.

 

2) Have a more consistent approach country-wide in place of the postcode lottery on how the police interpret guidelines, and better training for FEOs regarding various calibres so the nonsense spouted in certian quarters can be nipped in the bud.

 

3) leave bleeding shotguns and cartridge ownership/buying alone. It doesn't need fiddling with!

 

4) allow a like for like trade in place of the need for variations

 

5) End the practice of FEOs stating what ammo you can buy and use. It should be up to me whether I choose to shoot hollow point subs or standard high velocity non expanding, depending on use.

 

6) remove the weird restrictions on zeroing. I remember my FEO specifically stating that I could have my calibres for vermin control as reasonable need had been established but that the ticket didn't include for "zeroing practice". I politely asked how the hell I then get any rifle hitting point of aim if I couldn't zero the bloody things! Stupid nonsense.

 

7) Take mods off the FAC. I can't see the point of having to list or apply for a variation when my mod's shot out and needs replacing. It's a consumable item and not dangerous in its own right so I can't see any need for having the additional burden of the admin concerned. I dont need a ticket to buy extra mags for my rifles and they're part of the rifle, so why should I need one for a mod?

 

8) leave air rifles be. lets have some freedoms remaining. All this "if you haven't anything to fear" **** is just a thin end of a control wedge which is unnecessary and unwanted. Ownership of an air rifle remains a right, not a restricted right. Leave it that way. The current 12ft-lbs is both sensible and adequate. Leave well alone.

 

9) Agree with Kinetic energy comment re a replacement for "Lethal"

Edited July 23, 2015 by Savhmr

[CharlieT]

Seems to me that there's little agreement from the few replies about what should or shouldn't be done, but it seems dafet to add to admin burden. Surely the opportunity is to i) leave well alone on the principle if it isn't broken, don't attempt to fix it, but with a few sensible suggestions for simplification where such simplifications place less restriction on applicants and Police without in any way lessening the burden of responsibility on either party, namely;

 

1) end "closed" tickets which are an out-dated idea. If the FEOs were tasked with ascertaining suitability to possess and good reason for use checks, then part of those checks can simply include suitable questioning about the land intended for use and the suitability of the calibre/backstops. They will still have to record or have details of land to which the application relates as due diligence and no getting away from that, and quite rightly so imho. Providing applicants can offer primary land pertaining to an application and use, then it can be left up to the individual about where else said calibres can be used, as with the present open ticket system.

 

This isn't even mentioned or covered in the Firearms Act and is something that the Police (ACPO) themselves have dreamed up.

 

2) Have a more consistent approach country-wide in place of the postcode lottery on how the police interpret guidelines, and better training for FEOs regarding various calibres so the nonsense spouted in certian quarters can be nipped in the bud.

 

Again, not someting covered by the Firearms Act but all to do with the individual Police CC.

 

3) leave bleeding shotguns and cartridge ownership/buying alone. It doesn't need fiddling with!

 

Agreed.

 

4) allow a like for like trade in place of the need for variations

 

The ACPO have been discussing this and seem warm to the idea, looks like it may happen. Again, it is not something specific to the FA.

 

5) End the practice of FEOs stating what ammo you can buy and use. It should be up to me whether I choose to shoot hollow point subs or standard high velocity non expanding, depending on use.

 

This is how it used to be until a few years ago, regrettably I can't see it coming back as the HO would view it as a relaxing of current law.

 

6) remove the weird restrictions on zeroing. I remember my FEO specifically stating that I could have my calibres for vermin control as reasonable need had been established but that the ticket didn't include for "zeroing practice". I politely asked how the hell I then get any rifle hitting point of aim if I couldn't zero the bloody things! Stupid nonsense.

 

He's talking rubbish, see the guidelines. Zeroing does and always has covered reasonable practice.

 

7) Take mods off the FAC. I can't see the point of having to list or apply for a variation when my mod's shot out and needs replacing. It's a consumable item and not dangerous in its own right so I can't see any need for having the additional burden of the admin concerned. I dont need a ticket to buy extra mags for my rifles and they're part of the rifle, so why should I need one for a mod?

 

Agreed, thats something that they could do.

 

8) leave air rifles be. lets have some freedoms remaining. All this "if you haven't anything to fear" **** is just a thin end of a control wedge which is unnecessary and unwanted. Ownership of an air rifle remains a right, not a restricted right. Leave it that way. The current 12ft-lbs is both sensible and adequate. Leave well alone.

 

Agreed

 

9) Agree with Kinetic energy comment re a replacement for "Lethal"

 

Best way forward, and simple.

[Scully]

I would like to see licensing of the person and not the firearm; the present system has nothing to offer the general public in the name of safety, and if there has to be 1 for 1 variations then these should be administered by RFD's at the point of sale. What does the present system offer in the way of public safety?

Moderators off ticket; it's a metal tube for crying out loud. Why it is regarded as a firearm is simply idiotic. Again, how is the safety of the general public served by these being on ticket?

I see nothing to be gained for the sake of public safety by putting shotgun cartridges on ticket either, nor the licensing of air rifles.

Oh yeah, while I'm at it, if .223 is fine for Roe in Scotland, why isn't it in England?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Scully

[bluesj]

See that didn't take long, chuck a few ideas in a bit of a chat about the pros and cons and we've just about got it sorted!

Just a shame that the people that will actually be doing it couldn't do the same.

[neutron619]

 

With respect, your assumption is incorrect. This consultation has nothing to do with the mechanics of how police implement the Firearms Act, rather it is all about Firearms Law, consolidating it and bringing it upto date.

 

Well, with respect, I disagree.

 

The police do not have the ability to "license the person" now and simply choose to implement a "licence the gun" system in it's place. Rather, for that to happen (which I would consider to be an instance of both bringing the law up to date and reducing the administrative burden on the police), the Act would have to be rewritten, which is precisely what this consultation appears to be about.

 

Ultimately, the Law Commission will consolidate the acts in one way or another, reducing the 12-13 pieces of legislation they reference in their consultation document, down to a single piece of primary legislation which will be put before parliament and voted on. It is therefore probably the best opportunity any shooters, be they game shooters, clay shooters, target shooters or otherwise, will have in the next decade or two to have the law amended in a way which is favourable to their particular branch of the sport.

 

Politicians will not, for example, allow legislation to re-instate .22 RF pistols as Section 1 firearms, because the people asking, whilst genuine in their wish to practice target shooting, are not considered "ok" by the general public. On the other hand, if the Law Commission says "this needs to be re-written" then politicians will probably allow any resulting bill to go before the house. Therefore, we - as a shooting community - ought to do as much as we can to persuade the people bringing this forward that "piggy-backing" some of our wishes and ideas into the consolidated legislation is both desirable and no risk to public safety.

 

Frankly, even if 100,000 of us agreed on something we all wanted and signed a petition to get a debate in parliament, this would still represent a better chance of undoing some of the tedious, unfair and unjust parts of the Acts which the police use as a stick to beat legitimate, safe shooters with.

[Andy135]

I'd like to see responsibility for licensing removed fom the respective police forces and granted to a single national firearm licensing authority, staffed by qualified, knowledgeable representatives who apply the legislation in a consistent, logical way. Think of it like the DVLA for firearms. The police don't award driving licenses, so why firearms licenses...?

 

Centralising the responsibility for licensing would also be more cost effective as well as more efficient and consistent.

[Harry136]

I would like to see all shotguns on an SGC, not SGC and FAC. If you have 2 shots or 10 and you intend causing harm, the only difference is the reloading time. I would also like to see one centralised national body for firearms licencing.

[CharlieT]

 

Well, with respect, I disagree.

 

The police do not have the ability to "license the person" now and simply choose to implement a "licence the gun" system in it's place. Rather, for that to happen (which I would consider to be an instance of both bringing the law up to date and reducing the administrative burden on the police), the Act would have to be rewritten, which is precisely what this consultation appears to be about.

 

Ultimately, the Law Commission will consolidate the acts in one way or another, reducing the 12-13 pieces of legislation they reference in their consultation document, down to a single piece of primary legislation which will be put before parliament and voted on. It is therefore probably the best opportunity any shooters, be they game shooters, clay shooters, target shooters or otherwise, will have in the next decade or two to have the law amended in a way which is favourable to their particular branch of the sport.

 

Politicians will not, for example, allow legislation to re-instate .22 RF pistols as Section 1 firearms, because the people asking, whilst genuine in their wish to practice target shooting, are not considered "ok" by the general public. On the other hand, if the Law Commission says "this needs to be re-written" then politicians will probably allow any resulting bill to go before the house. Therefore, we - as a shooting community - ought to do as much as we can to persuade the people bringing this forward that "piggy-backing" some of our wishes and ideas into the consolidated legislation is both desirable and no risk to public safety.

 

Frankly, even if 100,000 of us agreed on something we all wanted and signed a petition to get a debate in parliament, this would still represent a better chance of undoing some of the tedious, unfair and unjust parts of the Acts which the police use as a stick to beat legitimate, safe shooters with.

 

This latest post of yours makes me think that we are both speaking from the same hymn sheet and that you may have misunderstood me. This consultation is only concerned with re writing the firearms act.

 

Whilst anything, within reason, can be enshrined in the firearms act, what this consultation will not address is as I said, and I quote from the Law Commision.........(4) This review will not be concerned with either the existing firearms licensing regime, or sentencing tariffs for firearms offences except 2 where some consideration of them is necessary to analyse properly the rest of the relevant law.