Changes to gun licensing

[Harnser]

According to the news this morning ,the government wants to instigate more restrictions on gun ownership . I am not surprised after the horrendous shootings last week . 
harnser

[Rob85]

2 hours ago, Harnser said:

According to the news this morning ,the government wants to instigate more restrictions on gun ownership . I am not surprised after the horrendous shootings last week . 
harnser

I saw some woman talking about that on BBC news this morning, she was something to do with licensing in Cumbria after the shootings there. She did clarify that the guy did not hold a firearms licence but rather a shotgun certificate. which she said is easier to obtain and hinted you didn't have to jump through as many hoops to obtain.

 she said they had came up with all these new rules and suggestions for parliament and the government did not take on board any of them. (And didn't need to in my opinion)

From what I've read most of them were absolute tosh. Consulting the domestic partners before issuing a licence? Like that wouldn't be abused! Tagging the medical record of anyone who owns a gun, well that one is pretty much covered by the pro forma that you guys in the mainland get your wallets bled for.

Minimum age limits for licensing like a suggestion of 18yrs old. Well when was the last time a 15yr old with a licence went on a shooting spree with a legally held shotgun?

And of course the talk of making it much more expensive to obtain a licence to fund these changes.... About 10 years ago they practically  doubled the price of our firearms licence in northern ireland, did we get double the service? NOPE!! we actually have taken steps/people out of the process now that it's all handled online yet it didn't get cheaper.

I just hope Bojo's bint and all her luvvies don't try to have Bojo's ear to pursue their anti-shooting agenda through bans

[Scully]

It goes without saying that restrictions will be mooted, but whether anything will come of the proposals is far too early to say. Anything else is mere speculation. 🤷‍♂️

[samboy]

I don't think any new restrictions will make any difference. If someone is going to flip they will flip license holder or not.

[Newbie to this]

23 minutes ago, samboy said:

I don't think any new restrictions will make any difference. If someone is going to flip they will flip license holder or not.

This 100%

[phaedra1106]

I wish that one of the shooting organisations would stand up for once and say that this was not a result of poor or insufficient licensing/guidance.

Like the previous Horden shootings here in Durham it was a failure of the licensing department to enforce the current guidance correctly.

He should never have had his firearms returned, they were given plenty of evidence of his unsuitability, even his own family told them he was unfit and were ignored.

Edited August 16, 2021 by phaedra1106

[Sporting5]

10 hours ago, phaedra1106 said:

I wish that one of the shooting organisations would stand up for once and say that this was not a result of poor or insufficient licensing/guidance.

Like the previous Horden shootings here in Durham it was a failure of the licensing department to enforce the current guidance correctly.

He should never have had his firearms returned, they were given plenty of evidence of his unsuitability, even his own family told them he was unfit and were ignored.

Isn't this a contradiction? Given sufficient licensing and guidance he wouldn't have been given his firearms back!?

I welcome further restrictions, within reason. If the police want to be increasingly vigilant with who they give shotgun licenses to, more power to them. If they're the right restrictions, they won't impact those that are suitable to hold them.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[TIGHTCHOKE]

18 hours ago, samboy said:

I don't think any new restrictions will make any difference. If someone is going to flip they will flip license holder or not.

Except if they flipped without an FAC or a SGC they should not have access to firearms.

[wymberley]

30 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

Isn't this a contradiction? Given sufficient licensing and guidance he wouldn't have been given his firearms back!?

I welcome further restrictions, within reason. If the police want to be increasingly vigilant with who they give shotgun licenses to, more power to them. If they're the right restrictions, they won't impact those that are suitable to hold them.

No, I don't believe that it is. The legislation is in place and is sufficiently robust. Somewhere along the line someone - possibly plural - failed to do what they should have done and all concerned have a let out clause known as 'guidelines'. Further restrictions? The buck passing has already started with one very senior retired officer explaining that it was all due to a lack of resources - ie, they want more dosh now, so how much more will they want to cover these extra restrictions?

Edited August 17, 2021 by wymberley

[clangerman]

17 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

 

I welcome further restrictions, within reason. If the police want to be increasingly vigilant with who they give shotgun licenses to, more power to them. If they're the right restrictions, they won't impact those that are suitable to hold them.

since the days of the ten bob ticket we have seen nothing but a increase in restrictions and why? because the police keep handing maniacs firearms and will continue to do so until tickets are issued by a agency who can tell fact from fiction 

[TK421]

25 minutes ago, wymberley said:

No, I don't believe that it is. The legislation is in place and is sufficiently robust. Somewhere along the line someone - possibly plural - failed to do what they should have done and all concerned have a let out clause known as 'guidelines'. Further restrictions? The buck passing has already started with one very senior retired officer explaining that it was all due to a lack of resources - ie, they want more dosh now, so how much more will they want to cover these extra restrictions?

Agree with this entirely. Fact of the matter is due to his mental health conditions from being a kid, he should of failed to meet the criteria for a medical viewpoint on his very first application. Multiple cockups along the way.

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

Isn't this a contradiction? Given sufficient licensing and guidance he wouldn't have been given his firearms back!?

I welcome further restrictions, within reason. If the police want to be increasingly vigilant with who they give shotgun licenses to, more power to them. If they're the right restrictions, they won't impact those that are suitable to hold them.

Ok, so what kind of further restrictions would you welcome? Spell them out, and how they would benefit both the general public and law abiding gun ownership. 

[Sporting5]

 

38 minutes ago, wymberley said:

No, I don't believe that it is. The legislation is in place and is sufficiently robust. Somewhere along the line someone - possibly plural - failed to do what they should have done and all concerned have a let out clause known as 'guidelines'. Further restrictions? The buck passing has already started with one very senior retired officer explaining that it was all due to a lack of resources - ie, they want more dosh now, so how much more will they want to cover these extra restrictions?

It can't be that robust if this d1ckhead's content was in the public domain for everyone to see yet he was given his firearms back after being explicitly warned? Re cost - I don't think this should come into it, happy to pay over the odds for the privelege of carrying my SGC if it means the world's even a little bit safer. If the cost is to cover resources of police forces doing their due diligence (which nobody can disagree was not done in this case) then I don't mind.

36 minutes ago, clangerman said:

since the days of the ten bob ticket we have seen nothing but a increase in restrictions and why? because the police keep handing maniacs firearms and will continue to do so until tickets are issued by a agency who can tell fact from fiction 

Again I'm not sure if I follow, since this seems like a contradiction.

Just to be clear - what I'm saying is that if the police were to act increasingly vigilant around those who hold SGCs, and it was effective (rather than further restrictions for further restrictions sake), how can you argue that that's a bad thing?

This case is a textbook example of how further vigilance by the local police force could've possibly helped prevent this altogether.

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Ok, so what kind of further restrictions would you welcome? Spell them out, and how they would benefit both the general public and law abiding gun ownership. 

This guy attended an anger management course, explicitly (and very publicly) expressed support for an incel movement with keen interests in mass shootings, and produced social media content that would've been a red flag for anybody with their head screwed on.

It was pretty much already spelt out all on it's own.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[timps]

1 hour ago, Sporting5 said:

This guy attended an anger management course, explicitly (and very publicly) expressed support for an incel movement with keen interests in mass shootings, and produced social media content that would've been a red flag for anybody with their head screwed on.

It was pretty much already spelt out all on it's own.

But what specific legislation and/or restrictions would you put forward to combat this?

Employing an army of FEO’s to scroll daily through every social media platform checking names and potential aliases against a central database of every licence holder in the country and reading hours of drivel, “you ok hun” posts and pictures of last night tea just in case?

Or are you suggesting we now as licence holders hand over our internet privacy to the police where everything we do online is monitored?

Looking at someone’s digital footprint after they have done something is easy,  my Facebook is locked down to friends only, my presence here is a nickname the police would be unaware of. However, if I was to commit some kind of atrocity someone on my social media friends list would give the media access and as plenty on here know my real name that would also be guaranteed to be passed on as well.

People will always come forward after an event stating they ‘knew’ but strangely they never thought to come forward before to preempt it.

Im not saying the police acted correctly in this case, I genuinely don’t know, I just don’t see how you can legislate to search the digital footprint of every licence holder, and even if they did getting around it to remain anonymous from normal police resources is still easy.

[grahamch]

Why do we need more legislation? The police have made a serious error just like in Dunblane.

[Sporting5]

40 minutes ago, timps said:

But what specific legislation and/or restrictions would you put forward to combat this?

Employing an army of FEO’s to scroll daily through every social media platform checking names and potential aliases against a central database of every licence holder in the country and reading hours of drivel, “you ok hun” posts and pictures of last night tea just in case?

Or are you suggesting we now as licence holders hand over our internet privacy to the police where everything we do online is monitored?

Looking at someone’s digital footprint after they have done something is easy,  my Facebook is locked down to friends only, my presence here is a nickname the police would be unaware of. However, if I was to commit some kind of atrocity someone on my social media friends list would give the media access and as plenty on here know my real name that would also be guaranteed to be passed on as well.

People will always come forward after an event stating they ‘knew’ but strangely they never thought to come forward before to preempt it.

Im not saying the police acted correctly in this case, I genuinely don’t know, I just don’t see how you can legislate to search the digital footprint of every licence holder, and even if they did getting around it to remain anonymous from normal police resources is still easy.

Ye - fair points. My take on it is simply that if police find a feasible way of increasing vigilance (in whatever form that is) that is not going to restrict sensible SGC holders from getting on with things, I support it - even if that results in cost or inconvenience for me.

I've not put any thought into specifics, I've been asked twice in this thread, I could try and think of some but that's not really my point. One might be that if you were found to have been involved in an assault and required to have attended anger management - you're allowed nowhere near a gun. Perhaps harsh, but why would we be OK with returning a SGC to somebody who've struggled with that? If this isn't an existing "restriction" - I'd suggest it should be. Is it an existing restriction? (Genuine question, I don't know)

Re the idea of interrogating a licensee's entire digital footprint - I'm not sure that's feasible (or sensible) in most cases, but maybe some cases.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Sporting5 said:

 

It can't be that robust if this d1ckhead's content was in the public domain for everyone to see yet he was given his firearms back after being explicitly warned? Re cost - I don't think this should come into it, happy to pay over the odds for the privelege of carrying my SGC if it means the world's even a little bit safer. If the cost is to cover resources of police forces doing their due diligence (which nobody can disagree was not done in this case) then I don't mind.

Again I'm not sure if I follow, since this seems like a contradiction.

Just to be clear - what I'm saying is that if the police were to act increasingly vigilant around those who hold SGCs, and it was effective (rather than further restrictions for further restrictions sake), how can you argue that that's a bad thing?

This case is a textbook example of how further vigilance by the local police force could've possibly helped prevent this altogether.

This guy attended an anger management course, explicitly (and very publicly) expressed support for an incel movement with keen interests in mass shootings, and produced social media content that would've been a red flag for anybody with their head screwed on.

It was pretty much already spelt out all on it's own.

None of that answers my question. What further restrictions would you welcome, and how would they benefit both the general public and law abiding gun owners. 
Past legislation has included banning certain firearms under the guise of ‘making the world a little bit safer’. 
Explain to us what legislation you think would make it safer. 

[Sporting5]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

None of that answers my question. What further restrictions would you welcome, and how would they benefit both the general public and law abiding gun owners. 
Past legislation has included banning certain firearms under the guise of ‘making the world a little bit safer’. 
Explain to us what legislation you think would make it safer. 

See comment above, you're missing my point. I'll just copy/paste it if it's easier - if police find a feasible way of increasing vigilance (in whatever form that is) that is not going to restrict sensible SGC holders from getting on with things, I support it - even if that results in cost or inconvenience for me

 

Since it seems I'm required to provide specifics here (not quite sure why) - here's another one, random spot checks to properties of those storing guns. What's the harm in that?

So there's 2:

- If you require anger management, you're not the right guy to be trusted with firearms

- Increased (random) spot checks

As I say, perhaps harsh and most definitely inconvenient - but nothing I begrudge.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Sporting5 said:

See comment above, you're missing my point. I'll just copy/paste it if it's easier - if police find a feasible way of increasing vigilance (in whatever form that is) that is not going to restrict sensible SGC holders from getting on with things, I support it - even if that results in cost or inconvenience for me

So in other words, you haven’t really thought it through. You’d welcome tighter restrictions than already exist, but have no idea what they should consist of. 🤷‍♂️

[Sporting5]

  

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

So in other words, you haven’t really thought it through. You’d welcome tighter restrictions than already exist, but have no idea what they should consist of. 🤷‍♂️

Absolutely. You can portray that how you choose, it's a valid standpoint - I welcome increased vigilance (even if that results in tightened restrictions) but (believe it or not) I haven't devised the new legislation or guidance myself to the Nth degree.

Not sure why you're hell-bent on specifics when the premise of my point is a broad one, think you're struggling to get your head around that, but I have provided 2 measures already. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[Green hornet]

I think eventually all section 2 shotguns will  be on section 1 not that it would make a difference to public safety.

They can legislate all they want it won’t make a difference there will always been one that slips through and unfortunately we pay the price for it.

A few years back when I used to shoot down the range there was a bloke who shot there who had an argument with he’s boss so he threaten to shoot him.He’s boss obviously knowing he had firearms and concerned reported the incident to the police and a firearms team came in the early hours and swiftly removed he's guns and certificates. 

Now I don’t know what the situation was but some how he managed to get them back around 9months later and started shooting  down the range again.A few months after he got into a bar fight and then the firearms was permanently removed from him.

Now in my opinion if assault or you threaten someone in such a way you shouldn’t really have them back at all. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Green hornet

[Sporting5]

1 minute ago, Green hornet said:

now in my opinion if assault or you threaten someone in such a way you shouldn’t really have them back at all. 

agreed

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[Lord v]

From what we know at the moment I would suggest very little 'has' to change on the licencing front. What we have currently works just fine.

What I would like to see in my mental utopia:

1) Centralised governance via a body like the DVLA - carries their own Dr's trained in mental health and firearms who do an assessment and review your medical records alongside the police interview. Like the DVLA some issues are self notifiable and other automatically reported.
2) Digital 'Photo Card' License 
3) DBS style continual review rather than reapplying every 5 years.
4) Basic firearms handling and safety course prior to grant ( yes I know that won't be popular...)
5) Compulsory 3rd party insurance (again....)
6) No more 1 for 1's - all purchasing is as it is for section 2
7) Section 1 tickets are automatically open
8 ) Calibres are 'banded' and roughly aligned with the good reason given.

What I think we will get:

1) Hastily drafted guidance on social media and mental health review that has more holes than a fishing net and open to interpretation by every force under the sun.
2) significant ball ache to grants and renewals for the next 18 months before it all fizzles a bit and everyone accepts an uneasy status quo.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Lord v

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

  

Absolutely. You can portray that how you choose, it's a valid standpoint - I welcome increased vigilance (even if that results in tightened restrictions) but (believe it or not) I haven't devised the new legislation or guidance myself to the Nth degree.

Not sure why you're hell-bent on specifics when the premise of my point is a broad one, think you're struggling to get your head around that, but I have provided 2 measures already. 

Because it will be specifics which the HO, the Police and politicians will be looking at. 
It really annoys me when folk jump on the ‘something must be done’ and ‘if it saves one life’ bandwagon, with no aforethought or apparent care of consequences for all. All of it is meaningless waffle which helps no one. 
Ministers and bureaucrats will argue that the world will be a ‘little safer’ if firearms weren’t legally available at all. After all, the biggest loss of life involved in UK mass shootings have all been committed by people with legally owned firearms. It’s only logical to apply the next step. 
I’m assuming you’ll be emailing your well thought out musings to your local MP in an effort to make the world a little safer? 

 

[Sporting5]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

Because it will be specifics which the HO, the Police and politicians will be looking at. 
It really annoys me when folk jump on the ‘something must be done’ and ‘if it saves one life’ bandwagon, with no aforethought or apparent care of consequences for all. All of it is meaningless waffle which helps no one. 
Ministers and bureaucrats will argue that the world will be a ‘little safer’ if firearms weren’t legally available at all. After all, the biggest loss of life involved in UK mass shootings have all been committed by people with legally owned firearms. It’s only logical to apply the next step. 
I’m assuming you’ll be emailing your well thought out musings to your local MP in an effort to make the world a little safer? 

 

OK? Let them? That's what they're paid to do? You're making my point for me here.

And yes - I can see you're "annoyed" and getting worked up, relax a little bit and try and read carefully the points I'm making. If you're getting upset at the lack of specifics and "no aforethought" then have a look at the 2 measures I already mentioned. Zero tolerance with incidents resulting in the need for anger management, and randomised spot checks to houses with guns that should be stored in compliance with the laws we're all aware of. Do you have any thoughts on those 2 (be very specific please)? I've given you a couple examples of what you asked for.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5