David BASC Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Dear All Info on the Bill here: http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-welcomes-firearms-provisions-in-new-policing-and-crime-bill/ David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 "A new legal requirement for the police to have regard to the Home Office guidance when carrying out their licensing function". I`m pleased to see that there. All too often on here we read about constabularies adding non legal requirements to SGC and FAC applications. Time it stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddler Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 "A new legal requirement for the police to have regard to the Home Office guidance when carrying out their licensing function". I`m pleased to see that there. All too often on here we read about constabularies adding non legal requirements to SGC and FAC applications. Time it stopped. That's NOTHING Police Scotland (Edinburgh office) are not complying to the current HO Guidance - they're working to the NEXT (unpublished) set of HO Guidance! Not making this up, they (Edinburgh FEO staff - an Inspector & a PC) told me in person on one of their many un-anounced home visits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Not sure how the police can comply with something that's not yet been published...never the less my colleagues in Scotland will look into this. I do not think there is a brand new set of HO guidelines in prep, more likely to be a Scotland variation due to some slightly differing laws - e.g. airguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddler Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Already lodged a formal complaint over it last week - my second about the office in almost as many months! The Edinburgh office flat refuse to allow S.1 shotgun (Target/Game) to have the automatic condition for "clay pigeon" added to an FAC - yet other parts of Scotland DO add the condition as standard practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Sorry to be the voice of disappointment here, but there's more harm in some of these proposals than there might appear at first. For example - let's say that the police do now "have regard to" the HO guidance (which is not the same as being made to follow it, I hasten to add) in some way that means practice changes from the varied interpretations the guidance gets now. What is the practical effect? Whilst it could be that shooters are more able to get the rifles and shotguns that they want to buy, rather than the ones the police want to allow them to buy, it could also be the case that the room for discretion on the part of Chief Officers when granting certificates is now reduced, because the guidance is seen to have greater weight. This could be as damaging to shooters as it is helpful. Likewise, whilst the simplification of the legal definition of the word firearm and an energy threshold could be useful in prosecuting criminals, it could also quite easily be the case that a child's pea-shooter meets the definition, since a decent pair of lungs could easily launch a pea (or anything else) down a small pipe with energy exceeding 1 Joule. Will we now see 11-year olds being arrested in school for firing spit wads at their teacher, then forced to repeat the exercise over a chronograph to prove the offence? The provisions about tools are ridiculously broad and though intent is specified, we all know how well the CPS has been doing lately - how long until someone has to defend themselves against that provision on trumped up charges? As for antique firearms - well - ok - but they're still convertible and still potentially pressure-bearing. I'm not sure those provisions will make any difference. The scariest thing though, is that the Home Secretary can change almost any of this on a whim, without much reference to parliament. Frankly, I'm surprised BASC have come out supporting any of this. Whilst it might have been difficult (and counter-productive) to oppose the changes, I suspect not taking an opinion at all might have been the better option. Much like these new laws - no change is usually better than any change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddler Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 ... it could also quite easily be the case that a child's pea-shooter meets the definition, since a decent pair of lungs could easily launch a pea (or anything else) down a small pipe with energy exceeding 1 Joule. Will we now see 11-year olds being arrested in school for firing spit wads at their teacher, then forced to repeat the exercise over a chronograph to prove the offence? Bit of a grey area I suppose - esp. as blowpipes are banned & classified as Section 5 (unless a historical significance exemption can be applied) So, these "sawn off blowpipes"....pea-shooters you say? I feel an All Party/FELWEG/continuity ACPO all expenses paid month long conference should be immediately formed to look into these potentially fatal devices.... W.H.Smiths can sponsor the end report Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenduri Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) One for David. Doesnt the inclusion of provisions to class anything firing 1 joule or above as a firearm pave the way for The UK to bring in the licensing of all air weapons just like the dozy Scotts? If so im against this Edited February 10, 2016 by Zenduri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainBeaky Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 The whole thing appears to be very shoddily drafted - far too much discretion for the Home Secretary, and an almost complete lack of checks and balances. And that is without starting on the thoughtcrime sections regarding tools capable of de-converting deactivated firearms. Yet another attack on law-abiding firearm users, turning them instantly into criminals, because that is easier than doing something that is actually effective in reducing crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 No, nothing here paves the way for airgun licencing in England Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Although i don't do any work/modifications on my guns that requires any kind of 'specialist' tool, that provision for making it an offence to own such equipment is pretty shocking. I understand they're trying to minimise harm from rouge gunsmiths, or at least try to get harsher sentences when they're caught, but the potential for virtually any gun tinkerer to get punished because of an over zealous FEO is there. I can see people ending up hiding angle grinders and lathes in the garden shed come renewal time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Lets all calm down , simple possession of tools is NOT an offence, it has to be possession and intention to use or of course use for illegal purposes that's an offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) 'Intention', bit thought-crimish though isn't it? Other 'intention' offences usually require something to have actually occurred e.g. Intention to cause fear of violence requires the offender to have actually threatened/aggressively postured/berrated the victim. Unless they break down the workshop doors just as the person is knocking up a batch or Uzi barrels on the lathe how is that offence going to be prosecuted? Prosecution, "Do you own these tools with the intention of making guns/gun parts" Accused, "No" Judge, "Not guilty" Unauthorised manufacture of licensed gun parts is already an offence, so whats the purpose of this? Just trying to get my head around it, if it isn't going to be used in the manner my inner cynic thinks it will Edited February 11, 2016 by Breastman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 'Intention', bit thought-crimish though isn't it? Other 'intention' offences usually require something to have actually occurred e.g. Intention to cause fear of violence requires the offender to have actually threatened/aggressively postured/berrated the victim. Unless they break down the workshop doors just as the person is knocking up a batch or Uzi barrels on the lathe how is that offence going to be prosecuted? Prosecution, "Do you own these tools with the intention of making guns/gun parts" Accused, "No" Judge, "Not guilty" Unauthorised manufacture of licensed gun parts is already an offence, so whats the purpose of this? Just trying to get my head around it, if it isn't going to be used in the manner my inner cynic thinks it will Lets be rational, to be convicted of such an offence it would need to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was intent to convert. Is it not sensible to provide the legal framework to prossecute those who convert replica firearms which then go on to be used to kill and injure. This is a growing problem and addressing it now seems highly prudent to me. Having a FAC and a Dremel hardly constitutes intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) To repeat; "Unauthorised manufacture of licenseable gun parts is already an offence, so whats the purpose of this?" Edited February 11, 2016 by Breastman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 it could also quite easily be the case that a child's pea-shooter meets the definition, since a decent pair of lungs could easily launch a pea (or anything else) down a small pipe with energy exceeding 1 Joule. Frankly, I'm surprised BASC have come out supporting any of this. It is interesting to see which organisations support the energy threshold of one joule. Kinetic energy (KE) tells you nothing about lethality unless you also know the size, shape and hardness of the projectile. A football dropped from a height of 9 inches has KE of about 1 joule, but probably wouldn't even kill a very small mouse. Possibly the 1 joule threshold makes sense when comparing bullets between 0.2 and 0.3 diameter, if they are all of fairly similar hardness and shape. In professional sports, darts typically have KE of less than 1 joule, tennis balls can have KE of almost 150 joules, cricket balls are bowled with KE up to 160 joules, and footballs are kicked with KE of up to 290 joules. Which of those would least like to face? The provisions about tools are ridiculously broad and though intent is specified, we all know how well the CPS has been doing lately - how long until someone has to defend themselves against that provision on trumped up charges? Lets be rational, to be convicted of such an offence it would need to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was intent to convert. Prosecution, "Do you own these tools with the intention of making guns/gun parts" Accused, "No" Judge, "Not guilty" Does denying something in court prove innocence? I think not. No, my lord, I had no intention of making a bomb, the fertilizer was for my garden, the alarm clock was to wake me up in the morning, the other items were just for my hobby of experimenting with electronic control systems... No, my lord, I was carrying this wrecking bar in the boot of my car in case I might want to dismantle some old pallets, I never had any intention of using it as a jemmy... And life can be made extremely unpleasant for those who are accused, even where no evidence is ever produced against them (Lord Brammall, Leon Brittan, Cliff Richard, Christopher Jefferies, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 That's NOTHING Police Scotland (Edinburgh office) are not complying to the current HO Guidance - they're working to the NEXT (unpublished) set of HO Guidance! Not making this up, they (Edinburgh FEO staff - an Inspector & a PC) told me in person on one of their many un-anounced home visits! Did they shout it through the door then? I hope you don't keep letting them in. that's borderline harrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/breaking-policing-and-crime-bill-will-criminalise-possession-of-common-tools/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I'm starting to wonder why these reviews and the subsequent findings and suggested amendments are always such a balls up? Is no-one capable of actually getting a well considered handle on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.