Gun Regulation: Here we go again.

[Vince Green]

Its mud slinging, deflecting criticism away from the fact that the firearms teams are underfunded.

[Sprackles]

In the papers too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234650/Police-gun-checks-chaos-risks-lives-Failure-adequately-vet-owners-mean-easier-shotgun-drive-minibus.html

[remmy1100]

were more at risk from gun massacres by allowing thousands of people from war torn countries in that could be isis operatives or sympathisers ,

[fruitloop]

Radio 4 had a spokesman from the police saying that they want to bring in compulsory med checks by the appicant before application

[Katzenjammer]

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/publications/targeting-the-risk/

 

A more direct link already posted above.

 

I read this topic over an hour ago. I have just read the full report. It is a critique of the forces, their performance, their inconsistency in working etc. I can only suggest you read the report rather than sensationalist or the "anti" press and try and make a reasoned judgement as to its fairness or effect on you and other licence holders. From my own perspective and experience in Cleveland I have few worries tbh even if this function was merged with Durham! Only those with something to hide or worry about will feel concerned? If you put yourself in the shoes of Atherton's relatives would you not have been worried about him getting his guns back given his threats etc in the past?. He was on the radar! You cannot regulate for those who may suddenly snap who are not on the radar. GP's may be able to give advanced warning of this but if you read the report that profession don't come out too well imo.

 

We all know police forces are under pressure and under resourced. Firearms licensing is a small part of what they do and the teams will have to be bolstered or resourced better to undertake some of the points and recommendations. Chief Constables will have to take this into account along with all the other demands to improve across the board. There are recommendations to the Home Office as well to streamline procedures and guidance.

 

The BASC was consulted - again I say read the report rather than make assumptions.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Katzenjammer

[Dave-G]

Might not be as foreboding as it sounds. If there is a slacking (or otherwise compromised) force that leads to someone going off on one the kneejerk reactions will be worse for all of us.

[Katzenjammer]

Well Durham is the recent prime example. They failed not only in the Atherton case but in regard to other procedural or honesty incidents. Now they have tightened up. As I commented to my shooting partner the other day, Durhams Website info on Firearms etc is greater than say Clevelands. But that is the classic closing the stable door syndrome? Cleveland, though not scrutinised in depth clearly had input on a wider level and I am pleased to say they appear to be performing well and in accordance with guidance etc. I felt that anyway from my contacts with the FEO.

 

To me as an ex central govt department employee who worked on import licensing for some years and that included import licensing of guns I see the need for a national licensing office rather than a devolved regional one. Yes you would need trained "agents" in the field but having it centralised with one policy interpretation equals consistency in my experience.

[Dave-G]

Well Durham is the recent prime example. They failed not only in the Atherton case but in regard to other procedural or honesty incidents. Now they have tightened up. As I commented to my shooting partner the other day, Durhams Website info on Firearms etc is greater than say Clevelands. But that is the classic closing the stable door syndrome? Cleveland, though not scrutinised in depth clearly had input on a wider level and I am pleased to say they appear to be performing well and in accordance with guidance etc. I felt that anyway from my contacts with the FEO.

 

To me as an ex central govt department employee who worked on import licensing for some years and that included import licensing of guns I see the need for a national licensing office rather than a devolved regional one. Yes you would need trained "agents" in the field but having it centralised with one policy interpretation equals consistency in my experience.

Very well put.

[Rewulf]

The way I read it,it was no fault of FAC and SGC holders or applicants .

 

It was the way firearms licensing applied the HO guidelines ,or didnt as the case may be.

Too many differences in the way each force granted,refused or revoked.

Medical checks after the certs were granted and delivered.

And the hole in the law that doesnt actually require the doctor to divulge it at all.

 

Lets just remember,its more often than not blunders by firearms licensing that causes tragedies like Dunblane.

Legitimate gun owners pay the price.

 

Ultimately ,legally held firearms account for a very small percentage of gun crime or deaths other than suicide.

If the sentences for illegal gun use or possession were even applied, or made far more harsh,then some progress could be made in getting the guns ,and the thugs using them off the streets.

 

Unfortunately ,We are the easier target.

[shaun4860]

I have merged the 2 topics as they were running together, and this one started first

 

[neutron619]

I skim-read the whole report earlier.

 

I've nothing to add to the comments above on the conflation by HMIC and the media between legal gun ownership and the fact that we're (certificate holders) all obviously just waiting for the right moment to shoot up a shopping mall with an Uzi bought on the black market, but I did find some of the case studies that they published interesting.

 

The most interesting was about the ex-soldier who had depressive issues and eventually punched his girlfriend and had his certificates taken. No argument with the revocation there. However, the HMIC standpoint taken on that case is telling.

 

The HMIC report interpreted the aforementioned situation as "man with mental health issues had guns for five years when unsuitable" (and therefore the licensing department failed, blah blah). However, like all of these things, taking the facts as presented, it would be perfectly possible to argue that "man with mental health issues had guns for five years and harmed no-one" (and never did subsequently because they were removed when a real issue arose). This would suggest that the licencing department - as much as we hate them sometimes - actually read the situation correctly and acted appropriately.

 

The problem is, that HMIC are - by their own admission - trying to achieve the unachievable. They say that everything is fine in most cases, but that there are a few where mistakes are made and these should be cleared up. Fine - an admirable sentiment.

 

However, as someone said above, you can't regulate or predict "nutty", which they almost admit themselves, so they instead resort to the catch-all justification of "something, somewhere, might go wrong" and leap from their own conclusion that "the issues are minor" to "AAAARGH GUN MASSACRE!" in the space of a paragraph.

 

If the licensing departments implicitly criticized issued a polite rebuttal saying "we do our best to manage the risk or civilians owning firearms appropriately", I suspect that a fair number of shooters, including myself, who recognize that you can't legislate for / regulate everything​ would be on their side... (in this case, anyway).

[panoma1]

The way I read it,it was no fault of FAC and SGC holders or applicants .

 

It was the way firearms licensing applied the HO guidelines ,or didnt as the case may be.

Too many differences in the way each force granted,refused or revoked.

Medical checks after the certs were granted and delivered.

And the hole in the law that doesnt actually require the doctor to divulge it at all.

 

Lets just remember,its more often than not blunders by firearms licensing that causes tragedies like Dunblane.

Legitimate gun owners pay the price.

 

Ultimately ,legally held firearms account for a very small percentage of gun crime or deaths other than suicide.

If the sentences for illegal gun use or possession were even applied, or made far more harsh,then some progress could be made in getting the guns ,and the thugs using them off the streets.

 

Unfortunately ,We are the easier target.

I agree this report is only saying what the shooting community has been saying for some time....that the police are taking too long to process grants or renewals of certificates, the Police are from force to force failing to interpret/follow home office guidelines properly and/or even-handedly and there are too many errors being made in police firearm recording processes!

 

The shooting community has also roundly blamed the Police for granting certificates and allowing Ryan, Bird, Hamilton, Atherton et al to legally hold guns, these people all had records of criminality,social and/or mental health issues, the report attempts to highlight these police failures and suggest how any repetition of these atrocities can be minimalized in the future.

[crowdie2013]

Having worked with a couple of folk over the years who suffered with forms of mental health I can fully see why the authorities may want to crack down on granting licenses to some if it avoids future incidents. They were both steady, sensible good folk when well but when things wernt good they could be completely irrational and sometimes a danger to themselves/others. These ex colleagues wernt shooters but Id have been concerned had they had access to a gun while ill.

[Sco77w]

Increased checks will need more Firearms Licensing staff, strange that just about every force has just had cuts, some quite sizable. I've heard (don't know how true it is) that South Yorkshire has gone from 7 to 2 people in the firearms licensing dept.

 

I might get my CV in.

[DaveyTed]

I wonder how accurate the figures in the report are and when they were obtained.

Renewal times for Essex are over double the quoted figure.

[Scully]

Absolutely no mention of any of this on the BBC1 One O'clock news. Not sure if I'm pleased or disappointed really.

[wymberley]

The donkey is dead and has been dropped in favour of Hungary and N Korea.

 

Edit: Wrong country corrected

Edited September 15, 2015 by wymberley

[Davyo]

I have had a lad join my shoot from Teeside 1st application for SG, 10 days,yet another in North Yorks has been told 4mth.So whats teeside doing that N Yorks are not.Agree with a prev post that it should be centralized.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Davyo

[Katzenjammer]

I have had a lad join my shoot from Teeside 1st application for SG, 10 days,yet another in North Yorks has been told 4mth.So whats teeside doing that N Yorks are not.Agree with a prev post that it should be centralized.

Don't forget Teesside (Cleveland Constabulary) is smaller than North Yorkshire and despite its fairly large compact population clearly has fewer shooters than North Yorkshire. You would expect a lot there given it is a great shooting county with traditional moorland shooting areas? Cleveland gives the number of holders etc, maybe North Yorkshire does the same on their website? I know Cleveland follows up on the referee checks and the docs for new and renewables. Cleveland did have a shake up of its force over other matters so maybe that also affected the Firearms bit?

[arjimlad]

Seems like "the Police aren't applying the existing laws thoroughly enough so we want to pass a load more laws which the Police won't be able to administer either."

[Katzenjammer]

I don't think it will result in more laws going through parliament? The Home Office may in time combine all the relevant firearms legislation into one but in the meantime much of this report deals with procedural and handling changes which may mean some redraft of the police guidance to firearm law - their handbook so to speak.

[30-06hunter]

this whole "its easier to get a minibus licence" is a load of tosh

 

i quickly googled minibus licence and got this from the Gov website...

 

Driving a minibus

You might be able to drive a minibus if you hold a car driving licence and meet certain conditions - otherwise you’ll need to apply for a minibus licence.View your driving licence information to see what vehicles you can drive.

If the minibus is not for ‘hire or reward’

You might be able to drive a minibus with up to 16 passenger seats using your current car driving licence as long as there’s no payment from or on behalf of the passengers (it’s not for ‘hire or reward’).

Conditions you must meet

You can drive a minibus within the UK as long as the following conditions apply:

• you’re 21 or older
• you’ve had your driving licence for at least 2 years
• you meet the ‘Group 2’ medical standards if you’re over 70 - check with your GP if you’re not sure you meet the standards
• you’re driving on a voluntary basis and the minibus is used for social purposes by a non-commercial body
• the maximum weight of the minibus is not more than 3.5 tonnes - or 4.25 tonnes including specialist equipment for disabled passengers, eg a wheelchair ramp
• you’re not towing a trailer

so according to the government i can be let loose behind the wheel of a mini bus without even needing a minibus licence.

yet in the meantime my friend waits 6months for his FAC and has been interviewed by the police and they have checked his medical records..

I wish newspapers were like dissertations and they have to show there sources of information. Because they seem to be plucking stats out of thin air.

 

[mossy835]

look out anther way of getting your guns off you,they dont want us to have them,but the bad men will all ways have them.it still wont stop shooting,

[Zenduri]

One thing they should be doing is trying to sort out knife crime, 16yr old stabbed to death in london is another story on bbc news today, yet the watchdog focus on licencing for firearms...

Because its easier to demonize and ban firearms than it is kitchen knives.. thats your answer

[Liamey]

I guess it is only a matter of time and you guys will be trusted with nothing more than a plastic spork. Are BASC on top of this? A united front of firearms related disciplines seems to be distinctly lacking with each specialty form of shooting remaining within their own silos. Hope things come together for all of you before it's too late and yet more of your rights are eroded.