Changes to gun licensing

[Fellside]

There are perfectly robust legal structures in place already - they just haven’t been adhered to. A tragic police failure - even family members appealed for earlier intervention. 

[Sporting5]

Just now, Fellside said:

There are perfectly robust legal structures in place already - they just haven’t been adhered to. A tragic police failure - even family members appealed for earlier intervention. 

This was my question (a genuine one) - should he (according to policy) have had his gun back after the reasons for which he had them taken off him in the first place? I don't know the answer

[Fellside]

Just now, Sporting5 said:

This was my question (a genuine one) - should he (according to policy) have had his gun back after the reasons for which he had them taken off him in the first place? I don't know the answer

Yes - for that reason and several others! There is no need for further conflaberations. This is a straight forward police cock up. 

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

This was my question (a genuine one) - should he (according to policy) have had his gun back after the reasons for which he had them taken off him in the first place? I don't know the answer

He should have never been granted a SGC in the first place!

[Sporting5]

2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

He should have never been granted a SGC in the first place!

 Were there any red flags before his SGC was granted? If not, it's near impossible for them to tell he wasn't suitable

[Fellside]

2 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

 Were there any red flags before his SGC was granted? If not, it's near impossible for them to tell he wasn't suitable

I’m not aware of his suitability / unsuitability at the time of his application. I think this will ‘come out in the wash’ as they say. It is blatantly apparent that he did become very unsuitable - and that crucial chances where missed. Horribly tragic. 

[Scully]

30 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

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.

Constable. ‘Hey Sarge. I’m at Mr such and such’s house to check his guns are locked away, like you said, but his wife says he’s not in. His wife said I’ll have to make an appointment if I want to see him.’ 
Sarge. ‘Okay. Do that then.’ 
Constable. ‘But it won’t be a randomised spot check then sarge.’ 
Sarge. ‘ Oh yeah. ******!’ 
As for ‘zero tolerance’ regards anger management, I wasn’t even aware it was tolerated at all. Perhaps you could ask your MP when you email him your musings, why it is tolerated. I’m sure he’d like to know too. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Scully
Constable not Constance!

[timps]

56 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

This was my question (a genuine one) - should he (according to policy) have had his gun back after the reasons for which he had them taken off him in the first place? I don't know the answer

Yes if you are convicted of threatening behaviour or assault but not if just charged.

You will lose your guns whilst it is being investigated but if no  conviction you will get them back and as I understand it, but could be wrong, he was never convicted.

 

I was a witness and gave a statement to an alleged assault, the police arrested, charged and issued a restraining order for the individual to keep out of the village.

The above was based on the alleged victim’s statement and two witnesses.

The reason why the charges were dropped was the landlord and landlady plus about 15 other people including me gave statements to the defence solicitor and were prepared to give them under oath in court, where as the two for the prosecution did not want to now attend court.

 

The difference in statements were.

Prosecution: Defendant runs over with bottle in hand and hits alleged victim over the head with a bottle causing cut to defendants’ hand and cut to victim’s head.

Defence: alleged victim runs over flying headbutts defendant (who by the way was dancing with the landlady and had no idea of the impending head butt) both crash into a table of drinks, glass everywhere, cuts to head and hand happened, alleged victim thrown out of the pub.

 

Less than two years later the lad applied for and got his certificate, I don’t think it’s right for him to be banned or lose his certificate based on the above. His dancing is bad but doesn’t deserve a flying headbutt never to own a gun, however maybe the police should have insisted on dance management lessons.

Now I am not saying this is what happened in Plymouth(no anger management here) but if he had a certificate at the time his guns would have gone whilst investigated then given back.  So, without the full disclosure of what happened in Plymouth it’s too early to completely condemn the police or even exonerate them.

Edited August 17, 2021 by timps

[Gordon R]

Quote

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

That is exactly the point. You can evade the question as much as you want. You suggest there should be changes, but nothing you have come up with isn't already in place.

 

[Sporting5]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Constable. ‘Hey Sarge. I’m at Mr such and such’s house to check his guns are locked away, like you said, but his wife says he’s not in. His wife said I’ll have to make an appointment if I want to see him.’ 
Sarge. ‘Okay. Do that then.’ 
Constable. ‘But it won’t be a randomised spot check then sarge.’ 
Sarge. ‘ Oh yeah. ******!’ 
As for ‘zero tolerance’ regards anger management, I wasn’t even aware it was tolerated at all. Perhaps you could ask your MP when you email him your musings, why it is tolerated. I’m sure he’d like to know too. 

Ye, this was equally as quippy as the first time you said it.

Your script of a hypothetical random spot check is cute, but it's nothing like how it'd go - you know that.

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

Ye, this was equally as quippy as the first time you said it.

Your script of a hypothetical random spot check is cute, but it's nothing like how it'd go - you know that.

So how do you think a randomised spot check would go ( this isn’t a Police state yet remember ) and when you’ve sorted that perhaps you could explain how these spot checks would prevent another mass shooting or indeed prevented what happened in Plymouth? 

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

Ye, this was equally as quippy as the first time you said it.

Your script of a hypothetical random spot check is cute, but it's nothing like how it'd go - you know that.

Scully is right though - amusing quip and all. Random spot checks have been tried in various constabularies, and they have proven to be a cumbersome drain on resources - and fail to achieve significant gain. 
 

In essence, if the family flag up concerns, they should be investigated. We know now that if they were, this troubled young man wouldn’t have had a firearm. It’s as simple as that. 

[Rob85]

48 minutes ago, Lord v said:

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.

Regarding the banded system you talk about. In northern ireland we have a banded system for rifles, basically small,medium and large quarry rifles... or rabbit,fox,deer really. If you own a .243 you can do a one on one off variation to get a .308 if you so desire. Is that what you were thinking?

Funny though when talking about the destructive power/capabilities of rifles the banded system classes a .22lr in the same class as a .17hmr and .22wmr.

I really think you could be staring down the road of the NI style system where they are all classed as firearms and no shotgun certs. For the whole of NI everything is run centrally from the main branch, the only thing local areas have is the FEO who does the local work like cabinet checks.

[Sporting5]

 

21 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

That is exactly the point. You can evade the question as much as you want. You suggest there should be changes, but nothing you have come up with isn't already in place.

 

So I've apparently 'evaded the question' but in the same breath there are suggestions I've 'come up with'?! How can "increased" spot checks already be in place? By it's very definition 'increase' means more than there currently are. It appears I've over-estimated people's general ability to reason.

There's no obligation whatsoever for me to qualify my opinion with a detailed implementation plan. The police force are (evidently) not vigilant enough - I'm suggesting that should they put (the right!) measures in place, I would forego convenience and saved costs to ensure they're being as thorough as possible.

12 minutes ago, Scully said:

So how do you think a randomised spot check would go ( this isn’t a Police state yet remember ) and when you’ve sorted that perhaps you could explain how these spot checks would prevent another mass shooting or indeed prevented what happened in Plymouth? 

You're asking how checking people are adhering to legislation around gun safety would help prevent issues of gun safety? That's what you're trying to press me on?

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

 

So I've apparently 'evaded the question' but in the same breath there are suggestions I've 'come up with'. How can "increased" spot checks already be in place? By it's very definition 'increase' means more than there currently are. It appears I've over-estimated people's general ability to reason.

There's no obligation whatsoever for me to qualify my opinion with a detailed implementation plan. The police force are (evidently) not vigilant enough - I'm suggesting that should they put (the right!) measures in place, I would forego convenience and saved costs to ensure they're being as thorough as possible.

Let it go…… deep breaths. 
You won’t put it right by having a go at people on PW. Let’s just see how it plays out. It is completely out of our hands now. Perhaps BASC will comment in time, although that wouldn’t be appropriate jest yet. 

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

 

So I've apparently 'evaded the question' but in the same breath there are suggestions I've 'come up with'?! How can "increased" spot checks already be in place? By it's very definition 'increase' means more than there currently are. It appears I've over-estimated people's general ability to reason.

There's no obligation whatsoever for me to qualify my opinion with a detailed implementation plan. The police force are (evidently) not vigilant enough - I'm suggesting that should they put (the right!) measures in place, I would forego convenience and saved costs to ensure they're being as thorough as possible.

You're asking how checking people are adhering to legislation around gun safety would help prevent issues of gun safety? That's what you're trying to press me on?

You suggested randomised spot checks. You, no one else. 
So enlighten us, how would these randomised spot checks work, what benefit would they have and how would they have prevented what happened in Plymouth, or indeed prevent it happening anywhere else? 

[Sporting5]

6 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Let it go…… deep breaths. 
You won’t put it right by having a go at people on PW. Let’s just see how it plays out. It is completely out of our hands now. Perhaps BASC will comment in time, although that wouldn’t be appropriate jest yet. 

haha quite unnecessary mate, nobody's having a go. Chill.

It certainly would be interesting to see BASC's take on it.

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

You suggested randomised spot checks. You, no one else. 
So enlighten us, how would these randomised spot checks work, what benefit would they have and how would they have prevented what happened in Plymouth, or indeed prevent it happening anywhere else? 

Spot checks and home visits are already in place, so it seems there's some consensus they add value without a further explanation from me  

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[Scully]

20 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

 

Spot checks and home visits are already in place, so it seems there's some consensus they add value without a further explanation from me  

In other words you have no idea. For someone asking for specifics you seem a tad vague. 
Home visits for whatever reason are by appointment only, and if spot checks aren’t then what reason do they have to gain access? If my guns were laid about in the house I’d simply suggest they returned when it was convenient. 🤷‍♂️
None of which would have prevented the shootings in Plymouth. 
 

[CharlieT]

3 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

 

So I've apparently 'evaded the question' but in the same breath there are suggestions I've 'come up with'. How can "increased" spot checks already be in place? By it's very definition 'increase' means more than there currently are. It appears I've over-estimated people's general ability to reason.

There's no obligation whatsoever for me to qualify my opinion with a detailed implementation plan. The police force are (evidently) not vigilant enough - I'm suggesting that should they put (the right!) measures in place, I would forego convenience and saved costs to ensure they're being as thorough as possible.

What you must remember is that the Home Office has delegated firearms licensing to the police and it is therefore the responsibility of the police to administer firearms licensing to ensure public safety without cost constraints. 

Government sets the fee license holders pay, not the police and government and the public for that matter, expect the police to do just that. Administer it correctly without cost constraints.

There is robust guidance on firearms law and procedural good practice documents issued together with ongoing legislative changes all designed with public safety in mind. 

If the police have failed in their duty, then it is Devon and Cornwall Police alone who are to blame. The most draconian and robust procedures anyone may dream up are only as good as the man administering them.

 

[Fellside]

Spot checks are a possible option at any time. They are rarely ever enacted - they are resource thirsty  / limited results. 

[Fellside]

2 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

What you must remember is that the Home Office has delegated firearms licensing to the police and it is therefore the responsibility of the police to administer firearms licensing to ensure public safety without cost constraints. 

Government sets the fee license holders pay, not the police and government and the public for that matter, expect the police to do just that. Administer it correctly without cost constraints.

There is robust guidance on firearms law and procedural good practice documents issued together with ongoing legislative changes all designed with public safety in mind. 

If the police have failed in their duty, then it is Devon and Cornwall Police alone who are to blame. The most draconian and robust procedures anyone may dream up are only as good as the man administering them.

 

Completely agree CharlieT. Concisely put. 

[Sporting5]

15 minutes ago, Scully said:

In other words you have no idea. For someone asking for specifics you seem a tad vague. 
Home visits for whatever reason are by appointment only, and if spot checks aren’t then what reason do they have to gain access? If my guns were laid about in the house I’d simply suggest they returned when it was convenient. 🤷‍♂️
None of which would have prevented the shootings in Plymouth. 
 

At this point your comments aren't really relevant; I do have an idea how spot checks add value, but I'm saying that that's already well covered by the decision to already be doing them (forward your questions and musings to the local police forces or authorities that already do them if you want).

This appears to just be hot air at this point, not much point replying to your good self now, appears the points are being missed left, right and centre - you're free to have the last word if you must mate 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Sporting5

[wymberley]

53 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Let it go…… deep breaths. 
You won’t put it right by having a go at people on PW. Let’s just see how it plays out. It is completely out of our hands now. Perhaps BASC will comment in time, although that wouldn’t be appropriate jest yet. 

BASC and jest in the same sentence. Oh, how Freud would have loved that slip. 

[Fellside]

Just now, wymberley said:

BASC and jest in the same sentence. Oh, how Freud would have loved that slip. 

Ha ha ha…..excellent! 😂🤣

[wymberley]

3 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Ha ha ha…..excellent! 😂🤣

A little humour should not detract from your post which was spot on.