Jump to content

Firearms licensing in England and Wales - APCC survey


HantsRob
 Share

Recommended Posts

Firearms licensing in England and Wales

There has been heightened public concern following the recent tragic shooting of five people in Plymouth by a man who then killed himself. The Home Office is currently reviewing arrangements for the licensing of guns and will shortly be introducing new statutory guidance to be followed by all police forces.

At the end of last year (2020/21), more than 565,000 people in England and Wales held a firearms licence and/or a shotgun certificate. Licences and certificates are valid for five years, and then must be renewed if the licence holder wishes to retain their firearm(s). They can be revoked by the police at any time if the holder no longer meets the conditions of their licence.

Police and Crime Commissioners want to understand the public's views and ensure they are heard by the Home Office when considering possible revisions to the current rules and processes around licensing of weapons in England and Wales.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on this important subject

 

Survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/5J7PV2K

 

The survey will close at 5pm on Wednesday 20th October.

(FYI this covers all 43 Police constabularies)

Edited by HantsRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd strongly recommend every member here and other forums (of course happy for anyone to post it to other shooting forums!) to give our view.

Everyone deserve a right to have a say. Some views carry a stronger weight due to knowledge, but I fear this could bring stronger changes. I do personally believe a medical report should be mandatory rather than "no news is good news" and I don't think there's anything too contentious in there.

Gotta be in it to win it, or rather complete it to have your opinion counted :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its the  same old same old ,the police where in the wrong for giving him his licence back and the knee jerk reaction comes We must be seen to be doing something ! instead of looking at their failings and sorting those out they put the blame on law abiding gun owners, in my opinion it should be made more difficult to get a shotgun certificate in the offset and medical reports and background checks should be done then .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, a standardised national approach to applications is a good thing. Hampshire is leading the way as a gold standard, for ensuring medical forms are submitted or the application gets binned. I can't see how anyone things this is a bad idea.

This should get forces aligned and maybe play from the same rulebook, for fairness and safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s fine asking for medical reports and social media snooping, and while the point at which you seize firearms may be pretty straightforward, at what point do you decide to revoke licenses for good? 
It is quite possible to have your firearms seized because you have cancer, but you’re guilty of nothing more than being unwell. 
The point at which someone is deemed unsuitable isn’t always clear cut, and no system is perfect unfortunately. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It becomes obvious when reading the survey that the PCC's are backing the police and FELWG in their quest for full cost recovery.

A very weighted survey which seeks to solicit draconian replies from Joe public who didn't even realise that people actually had a firearm for recreational purposes.

A completely pointless exercise designed with one end in mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a very short survey intended to confirm that all shooters wanted to provide medical evidence and were happy to pay, whatever the cost. I would be happier with a marker on NHS records just to show. Firearms licence was in place.

In stating the number of licences and actual guns held, I was concerned that it was intended to shock non-shooters, into a negative stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

It becomes obvious when reading the survey that the PCC's are backing the police and FELWG in their quest for full cost recovery.

A very weighted survey which seeks to solicit draconian replies from Joe public who didn't even realise that people actually had a firearm for recreational purposes.

A completely pointless exercise designed with one end in mind. 

To be fair if they said "the price is going from £85 to £200 for a licence, but you'll be processed in 4 calendar weeks" I'd sign on the dotted line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

To be fair if they said "the price is going from £85 to £200 for a licence, but you'll be processed in 4 calendar weeks" I'd sign on the dotted line.

Full cost recovery has nothing to do with ensuring as much as is practical, the safety of the general public, and that's what licensing is supposed to be about. No price hike of any amount will do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Full cost recovery has nothing to do with ensuring as much as is practical, the safety of the general public, and that's what licensing is supposed to be about. No price hike of any amount will do that. 

Oh I am aware it's salacious to make the public demand gun owners pay for everything, and it won't change timescales. My point was that if they offered a 2 tier service, I would pay the extra for an accountable and timely delivery (assuming I submit doctors letter with my application).

 

It just seems like the PCCs want to charge more money and get a tighter control. What is funny is no-one asks about recovery of costs for Police and associated services when someone has a car crash..... heaven forbid their wallet is touched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Full cost recovery has nothing to do with ensuring as much as is practical, the safety of the general public, and that's what licensing is supposed to be about. No price hike of any amount will do that. 

Exactly.

All that is required is for the police to actually follow the procedures that are currently in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swapping the word 'guidance' to 'rules' would get my vote to stop do as they like commissioners, chiefs and FLO's doing what they prefer rather than what should be plain simple uniform RULES. Exceptions should be subject to greater investigation and culpability.

Why should doctors basically have to question their personal morals about their patients suitability for shooting! A firearms holder Flag on a shooters medical with a legal requirement to notify FLO if a patient becomes a risk should be sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Swapping the word 'guidance' to 'rules' would get my vote to stop do as they like commissioners, chiefs and FLO's doing what they prefer rather than what should be plain simple uniform RULES. Exceptions should be subject to greater investigation and culpability.

Why should doctors basically have to question their personal morals about their patients suitability for shooting! A firearms holder Flag on a shooters medical with a legal requirement to notify FLO if a patient becomes a risk should be sufficient.

But then it becomes a necessity to determine ‘risk’.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Swapping the word 'guidance' to 'rules' would get my vote to stop do as they like commissioners, chiefs and FLO's doing what they prefer rather than what should be plain simple uniform RULES. Exceptions should be subject to greater investigation and culpability.

 

Dave, I believe that is what is due happen soon when "the guidance" becomes statutory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

 

Why should doctors basically have to question their personal morals about their patients suitability for shooting! A firearms holder Flag on a shooters medical with a legal requirement to notify FLO if a patient becomes a risk should be sufficient.

this^  in todays Blame and Claim culture where would this leave the doctor if he signed to say a patient was fit to hold a certificate and they turnout to be unfit and take lives ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, derbyduck said:

this^  in todays Blame and Claim culture where would this leave the doctor if he signed to say a patient was fit to hold a certificate and they turnout to be unfit and take lives ?

To be fair, GP's are are only required to state that the applicant does not/has not suffered from specific conditions. They most certainly are not asked to give their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...