Posted: 12/21/2010 11:58:14 AM EDT
|
Guys just received the government report into Firearms controls following the Cumbrian Shootings as well as all the other incidents over recent years
The GCN have tried to fuck us big style but no surprise there. The recommendations are shown below. If anyone wants a copy of the report please email me at [email protected] Conclusions and recommendations 1. The police recorded 14,250 offences in which a firearm was fired, used as a blunt instrument or to threaten in England and Wales in 2008/09, the last year for which complete figures are available. This represents only 0.3% of all recorded offences and a 41% fall in firearms offences since 2003/04. However, to put this into context, the reduction came from a historic peak in levels of gun crime reached in the early years of the 2000s. Where firearms are used, it can be to devastating effect: they were responsible for 39 homicides, and around 2,000 injuries, in 2008/09. Moreover, the extent to which firearms, especially air weapons, are used in less serious crimes is likely to be higher than is recorded; and a number of firearms-related offences are not captured in these statistics. While it is heartening that official figures show the use of firearms in crime to be declining, these figures should not be allowed to fuel complacency. (Paragraph 12) 2. We heard contrasting views about the extent to which legally-held firearms are used in crime. It is difficult to form an accurate assessment, given the limitations of available data. Certainly licensed firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases. They are infrequently used in serious and organised crime, which is fed by illegal firearms, particularly converted and realistic imitation weapons. Mass shootings with licensed weapons, such as the terrible crimes perpetrated by Derrick Bird, also thankfully remain rare, but the fact that they were carried out by licensed gun owners should not be overlooked in any further consideration of firearms legislation. Offences with low-powered air weapons, the possession of which is not illegal, comprise a substantial proportion of all gun crime. Moreover, legal firearms were used in at least 10% of firearms homicides in 2008/09, which, while it represents a tiny number of individual incidents, is not an insignificant proportion of these homicides. On the basis of data submitted to the Cullen Inquiry, and that collected more recently by Professor Squires and the Gun Control Network, we are concerned about the use of legal firearms in domestic incidents, often linked to domestic violence. (Paragraph 21) 3. There are 138,728 section 1 firearms certificate holders and 574,946 shotgun certificate holders in England and Wales. The proportion of licence holders who use their guns in crime is tiny. Many representations were made to us by individual shooters and their representatives about their legitimate enjoyment of shooting sports, about the need for farmers in particular to have access to firearms in the course of their professional activities and about the wider benefits shooting brings to the UK economy. (Paragraph 26) 4. There is considerable evidence, although it is not clear-cut, that well-designed legislation to regulate and restrict the legal supply of firearms can reduce gun crime. The UK has strict gun laws and comparatively low levels of gun crime. The link should not be overstated—there is no direct correlation in recent UK history between levels of gun ownership and gun crime trends. However, it is fair to assume at least in part that this demonstrates the success of the licensing regime, in place since 1968, which enables the authorities to satisfy themselves that those owning Firearms Control 57 firearms are fit to do so. We do not believe that a total outright ban on ownership and use of section 1 firearms and shotguns would be a proportionate response to the risks posed by these weapons. There is, however, scope for further minimisation of risk through adjustments to the licensing process, which we consider in more detail in chapter three. We also believe that more effective measures could be put in place to tackle criminal use of those firearms which are not currently subject to a licensing regime; we consider this in chapter four. (Paragraph 35) 5. An onerous burden is placed on the police and on the public because of the difficulty of understanding and applying the 34 relevant laws which govern the control of firearms. It is unreasonable to expect members of the public to know their responsibilities when the law is so complex and confused. It is also unreasonable to expect the police to apply the law accurately in all cases when it is so complex. This is unhelpful to good relations between the police and the public. We recommend that, rather than adding new rules and greater confusion, the Government provides proposals for early consultation on how to codify and simplify the law. Along with the proposals themselves, we urge the Government to give careful consideration to how it will publicise the legislation in order to give greater clarity to the lay person. (Paragraph 36) 6. The supply of firearms is only part of the challenge of reducing gun violence. We understand that the Government is to publish details of its crime prevention strategy at the end of the year. In order to tackle the drivers of gun crime, we recommend that this strategy should explicitly link to long-term measures to reduce domestic violence, measures to tackle the social factors which foster extreme violence and measures to clamp down on illegal drug markets and other forms of serious and organised crime. We are concerned about the potential for sensationalist media coverage of shootings to encourage copycat killings. In respect of this last point, we recommend that the Government ask the media regulatory bodies to enforce a code of practice which both prohibits overtly sensational media coverage of shootings and offers greater protection to victims and their families against intrusive reporting. (Paragraph 42) 7. We note the evidence given to us about the need for a ‘public health’ approach to preventing and limiting violence. We also note that the unique and imaginative approach to the collection and analysis of data about violent incidents led by Professor Jon Shepherd in Cardiff has delivered major improvements, measured by the significant drop in the number of victims needing treatment at Accident and Emergency. We recommend that a careful analysis based on science and ‘engineering’ methodology should be applied to this field of prevention. (Paragraph 43) 8. We welcome the recent agreement between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Medical Association that the police alert GPs to every new and renewal licence application. We consider this to be an important step in ensuring that the licensing authority receives accurate medical information about applicants, given the cases we have heard in which applicants have failed to provide this, some of which have resulted in murder. Ultimately, police licensing officers must take responsibility for the decision as to whether or not to grant or revoke a licence. We 58 Firearms Control note that there is already a duty on doctors to communicate their concerns if they judge that a patient poses a danger to themselves or to others. Police guidance must make clear that GPs are not being asked to predict future behaviour, as this is impossible, or to judge the fitness of an applicant to possess a weapon themselves. One means of dealing with this latter concern would be to consider requiring applicants to undergo a compulsory medical check with a specially-appointed medical examiner, but we note that this would be extremely resource intensive, that it might be regarded as disproportionate, and that we received no firm evidence that it would achieve the desired level of certainty in the licensing process. (Paragraph 67) 9. We consider that there should be both tighter restrictions and clearer guidance on the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity. Firstly, the legislation should be amended to clarify that persons in receipt of wholly suspended sentences are subject to the same prohibitions from obtaining a licence to hold section 1 firearms or shotguns as they would be if their sentence had not been suspended. We do not believe it appropriate for those convicted of offences which are serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence to retain their firearms. We are also of the view that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms and recommend accordingly. (Paragraph 72) 10. We understand that police licensing officers are now encouraged to take into account intelligence about criminal behaviour that does not result in convictions, as well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, when considering whether or not to grant a licence: it must be made explicit in police guidance that officers are expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, in particular cases of bindovers, arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and an accumulation of convictions for offences whose penalty falls short of that requiring prohibition. (Paragraph 73) 11. Given our particular concerns about the use of legal weapons in domestic firearms incidents, we consider that the Canadian requirement for partners and recent expartners to sign licence application forms merits further exploration. We recommend that the UK Government should hold a consultation on the proposal that police licensing officers consult the current and recent domestic partners of applicants in assessing a licence application, and report back to us on the responses received. (Paragraph 74) 12. We are not convinced by arguments put forward in favour of decreasing the licence renewal period from five to two years. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that there has been an increase in misuse of lethal firearms since the period was increased from three years in 1995, and the proposal would place considerable pressure on police resources. We are encouraged by early signs that police forces may be taking a more proactive approach to licence revocations following the Derrick Bird shootings and consider that such an approach, facilitated by the National Firearms Licensing Management System, and greater emphasis on medical checks, is the most effective way forward. (Paragraph 78) Firearms Control 59 13. We advocate a change in the law to create a single system for the licensing of section 1 firearms and shotguns. Such a system should be based upon the current process for granting licences for section 1 firearms. The benefits of such a system would be twofold: firstly, we consider that allowing guns to only those individuals who have good reason to hold them strikes the appropriate balance between personal freedoms and public safety, and we see no reason why those applying for a shotgun licence should be exempt from proving ‘good reason’. Secondly, it will render the process considerably more straightforward and, we understand from the police, cheaper to administer. We believe that this can be undertaken in such a way as to avoid any undue restrictions on the use of shotguns. (Paragraph 81) 14. Current police guidance on firearms legislation is out-of-date. We recommend that the guidance is urgently updated to take into account recent changes to legislation to ensure that officers are properly equipped to take the best decisions that they can. Furthermore, the Government should facilitate a change in the status of the guidance to make it an Approved Code of Practice, to give police decisions greater weight with the courts. While we have no wish to interfere with the judicial process, we are aware of at least one case where a magistrate has reinstated a firearm revoked by the police, only for the firearm to be subsequently used in crime. (Paragraph 84) 15. There is concern about the potential impact of police spending cuts on the firearms licensing function. In particular, it is important to preserve recent improvements in the rigour of the process, such as the increase in home visits undertaken for renewal applications, which we consider should be compulsory. One means of ensuring sufficient funds is to increase applicant fees; given that the current fee structure was set in 2000, we consider that the Home Office should consider raising the current £50 fee to a level that covers the reasonable costs of licensing. We also understand that substantial savings could be made by extending the life of a proportion of certificates in order to remove the peaks and troughs created when the renewal period was extended to five years. The Home Office should implement this proposal and report back to us within twelve months on the steps that it has taken on this recommendation. (Paragraph 88) 16. It has been suggested that prohibiting ownership of firearms and ammunition together in the home would reduce both the risk of them falling into the hands of criminals, through theft, and the ease at which they could be misused by their legal owners in violent incidents. We were inclined to agree with Mr Whiting’s assessment, that the need to fetch a weapon, or ammunition, from a storage facility would be unlikely to deter those intent on murder. We are not convinced that holding weapons at central locations would necessarily reduce the risk of theft; it could indeed increase the risk of theft. (Paragraph 94) 17. A large number of young people enjoy shooting in a safe and responsible manner. However, the legislation governing their use of firearms is extremely complex and confusing. We recommend that the Government brings forward proposals to simplify and clarify (a) the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision in the controlled environment of a shooting range; (b) the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision outside of such a controlled environment; and (c) the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot 60 Firearms Control unsupervised. In formulating such proposals, the Government should be informed by our beliefs that the risks involved in shooting are greatly mitigated under supervision; that the purpose of granting a licence should be to allow an individual to shoot unsupervised; and that we can see no good reason to maintain the current differences in age restrictions between section 1 firearms and shotguns, the origins of which are purely historical. (Paragraph 101) 18. Replica, converted and deactivated firearms have emerged as a major source of illegal guns, perhaps owing to the difficulties that criminals now experience in acquiring genuine lethal firearms. In the past, policy-making to tackle emerging threats has been hampered by the lack of an effective evidence base about criminal use of firearms. We are encouraged that the formation of the National Ballistics Intelligence Service has gone some way towards addressing this deficiency. While clearly we would not be in favour of any disclosure that would compromise police operations, or assist criminals in accessing lethal weapons, we urge the National Ballistics Intelligence Service and the police to make generalised data about the illegal gun market available to academics and policy-makers more widely where this would not interfere with operational requirements, in recognition of the contribution that such individuals can make to crime reduction. (Paragraph 109) 19. Restricted intelligence from the National Ballistics Intelligence Service indicates that a significant number of pre-1995 standard weapons have been reactivated into live weapons within the UK, and subsequently used in very serious crimes. We therefore recommend that the Government introduces a requirement for firearms that were deactivated before 1995 to be modified to the 1995 standard, in order to make it harder for criminals to gain access to readily-reactivated weapons. We also recommend that deactivated guns are only sold through Registered Firearms Dealers. (Paragraph 114) 20. The previous Government introduced legislation enabling a more pro-active approach to outlawing “readily-convertible” imitation firearms via the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, but did not take the necessary action to bring this into effect. Restricted intelligence from the National Ballistics Intelligence Service reveals the significant role that converted firearms play in facilitating serious criminality. We therefore recommend that the Home Secretary make regulations under Section 39 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 to require imitation firearms to conform to a specification that makes it more difficult for them to be converted into firing weapons, and that a process of type approval be introduced concurrently to limit the introduction of non-compliant items into the market place. (Paragraph 119) 21. The Government should introduce legislation to amend section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982 to ensure that the definition of a ‘readily-convertible’ imitation firearm accurately reflects the abilities of contemporary criminals to carry out such conversions, and introduce new offences for supply and importation of firearms to ensure that those guilty of such offences face appropriate penalties. Closer working with the UK’s European partners is also key to tackling the illegal importation of firearms. (Paragraph 124) Firearms Control 61 22. Reported air weapon offences have been falling since 2003/04, possibly in response to legislation, although we appreciate that such offences are likely to be underrepresented in official figures. We were encouraged by the number of successful prosecutions for possession of air weapons in public or by underage individuals, and improper firing of air weapons, that have been undertaken since 2008. Greater enforcement of air weapon offences, such as criminal damage, should form part of the more general police undertaking to be tougher on anti-social behaviour. Before considering whether or not to incorporate low-powered air weapons into the firearms licensing regime, the Government should continue to monitor closely the impact of recent legislation, including the Crime and Security Act 2010 on reducing air weapon offences. (Paragraph 133) |
|
GCN are known to be a small band of rabid shitheads with dubious funding. They are evasive about membership, clueless about guns and on the back foot because they so out of touch with reality they are seen by the politicians as nothing more than a nuisance and an embarrasment.
They are the reigning champions of stupid with no challengers coming even close. They can't "fuck us".....they don't make the law. |
You are a bit late  Discussion here. Also, I wouldn't agree with "The GCN have tried to fuck us big style but no surprise there." The restrictions are minimal, and a lot of the recommendations (e.g. clarification of firearms legislation, no FAC for those with suspended sentences) make actually sense.
|
|
Cliff notes from another forum (not my work)
Conclusions: 1) Only 0.3% of all offences are firearms related. Firearms offences have fallen 41% since 2003/4. 2) Licensed firearms used infrequently in crime. Offences with low powered airt weapons, the possession of which is not illegal, comprise a substantial proportion of all gun crime. 3) There are 138, 728 Section 1 FAC holders and 574,946 SGC holders in England and Wales. The proportion of licence holders who use their guns in crime is tiny. 4) The lack of gun crime indicates the success of the strict licensing regime. We do not believe that a total outright ban on ownership and use of section 1 firearms and shotguns would be a proportionate response to the risks posed by these weapons. 5) Firearms law is too complex and needs simplification (see also 13 below) 6) Media coverage of firearms offences tends to be sensationalist and needs a code of practice which forbids such coverage. 7) New statistical preventative methods developed in Cardiff should be adopted to help analyse violent incidents and inform prevention. 8) GP’s should be alerted to every application and renewal of licences. Specialist assessment by medical staff of psychological health is ruled out as “disproportionate”. 9) Tighter restrictions on those who have criminal convictions are proposed including a ban on any who have received custodial sentences of whatever length. 10) Information held by Police such as expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, in particular cases of bindovers, arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and an accumulation of convictions for offences whose penalty falls short of that requiring prohibition. 11) Partners and recent ex-partners of potential licence holders should be consulted 12) Licence terms should remain at 5 years but a proactive stance to revocations should be encouraged. 13) There should be a single system for licensing covering section 1 and shotguns. A shotgun should also require “good reason” to own. 14) Police guidance on firearms is outdated and needs revision. The guidance should be designated an “Approved Code of Practice” to give Police decisions greater weight in Courts. 15) Given Police funding cuts and the need to maintain home visits to firearms users, consideration should be given to increasing the licence application fee “to a level that covers the reasonable costs of licensing”. 16) Possession of guns kept at home should continue. 17) The law on shooting by young people and their supervision should be clarified 18) Replica and deactivated guns are frequently used in crime and the National Ballistics Unit should liaise with academics and policy-makers to aid crime reduction. 19) Guns deactivated before 1995 should be modified to the 1995 standard and that deactivated guns should only be sold via RFDs. 20) The Home Secretary should act to require imitation firearms conform to a specification that makes it more difficult for them to be converted into firing weapons. 21) New offences should be brought in to combat the supply and importation of firearms and work with European partners to assist this process. 22) Offences using air weapons should be part of a tougher Police stance on anti-social behaviour. Before considering whether or not to incorporate low-powered air weapons into the firearms licensing regime, the Government should continue to monitor closely the impact of recent legislation, including the Crime and Security Act 2010 on reducing air weapon offences. |
|
Quoted:
Cliff notes from another forum (not my work) Conclusions: 6) Media coverage of firearms offences tends to be sensationalist and needs a code of practice which forbids such coverage. Good luck with that one! 11) Partners and recent ex-partners of potential licence holders should be consulted I'm sure ex-partners will be totally honest if they think they could screw over the ex! 13) There should be a single system for licensing covering section 1 and shotguns. A shotgun should also require “good reason” to own. I can't see how this will simplify licencing? One-for-one variations for every shotgun bought/sold? 19) Guns deactivated before 1995 should be modified to the 1995 standard and that deactivated guns should only be sold via RFDs. Not sure how they would do that - how many people would bring in their expensive old-spec deacts to be welded solid...No lesson learned from the Brocock saga then! |
|
A summary of the debate in the House last night:
Notes on the House of Commons’ debate on the Control of Firearms by David Penn, BSSC The debate ran from 6.21pm to 9.40pm. It was sparsely attended. There seemed to have been no more than 30 in the Chamber, with far fewer for most of the time. Other than the position taken by Keith Vaz and the relatively minor issue of ALMOs (Arms Length Management Organisations, see below) there was relatively little that was unexpected in the debate, with an almost universally held view that the outcomes be proportionate, focused on the actual problems and reached through measured, open-minded and informed debate. Although much of the debate was concerned with legally-held firearms, there were frequent reminders of the scale of the illegal gun problem and the need to tackle it (there was mention of NABIS and the new National Crime Agency). Nick Herbert opened the debate and confirmed that the HASC’s report would receive a response in two months Key points: Handguns: In response to Tobias Ellwood, James Brokenshire stated that DCMS was content with the present arrangements for the National Squad, and this would not be reviewed until after 2012. Government welcomed the ACPO/BMA agreement on GP consultation and would look further at ‘tagging’. The Government felt that compulsory medical checks were not proportionate (only Chris Williamson, who favours a complete ban on firearms, strongly argued for a compulsory annual medical check, but this was strongly disputed by Simon Hart and Dr David Poulter, a former GP). Opposition response from Diane Johnson, a shadow Minister, was very measured, in particular putting both sides of the ‘GP involvement’ question, and hoping that the Government would recognise the positive role that shooting could have for young people. She supported better enforcement with regard to air guns and firmly batted the question of a single certificate into the Government’s court. Coffey, Suffolk Coastal, made a spirited defence of shooting and took the line that tighter controls would probably not prevent crime, but would hinder legitimate users. Worryingly, however, she did appear to be in favour of a single license. She was strongly in support of shooting opportunities for the young and supports amnesties. Vaz gave a remarkable speech. He started by saying the HASC report was not an attack on anybody. He admitted ignorance of the subject when he began the enquiry, valued immensely the visit to Bisley and the opportunity to meet the medallists, and stated that he “no longer needed to be convinced of the importance of this sport.” He commented that the odds were that there would be another amok incident, and that he did not want the Government to be blamed for any decisions that it might take, since ‘hindsight was a wonderful gift’. On ages, he said the Committee took no particular view, although people had their private views, so they were batting it over to the Government. On consolidation, he considered this a ‘no brainer’. On GP involvement, he said that there had been a debate in the Committee about this, but they could live with the ACPO/BMA agreement. He raised concern about the role of the media. With regard to legally- owned firearms he acknowledged the very small number of incidences of misuse. Laws needed to be not necessarily tougher but better-close loopholes and iron out creases. Brake was generally supportive of shooting, but raised the question of the Sutton Housing Partnership’s recent ban on tenants keeping firearms at home. He wondered if this was not creating a greater problem than it solved. Unfortunately this gave some oxygen to the proposal that firearms be stored away from home. Williamson made the only strongly anti-shooting speech of the debate, quoting GCN statistics on death and injury, wishing for a gun-free Britain (but admitting that this was not going to happen for the foreseeable future), advocating central storage and annual medical checks (he supported the ACPO/BMA agreement as a huge step forward) and expressing concern at the ‘message’ that was given by encouraging young people to shoot (Simon Hart and others attacked his position, indicating that organised shooting was part of the solution). Ellwood gave a wide-ranging defence of the shooting interest. He emphasised the size of the illegal gun problem supported a consolidation Bill, accepted the ACPO/BMA agreement but stated ‘tagging’ was a step too far, pointed out that several issues (what to do about suspended sentences and spousal consultation were instanced) were still very unclear and needed careful analysis. He spoke firmly against Section 1 controls for shotguns, pointed out that ‘Guidance’ needed updating and that training for firearms enquiry staff was still not in place. He spoke from personal experience of the problems of repeated media intrusion. Hart forcefully argued the case for young shots and the way that shooting was an integral part of rural life and the rural economy. He reiterated the argument against tagging (insecure and disproportionate, quoting the IPCC and Information Commissioner’s Office) and spousal involvement in certification. He explained how putting shotguns on Section 1 would devastate the gun trade and put an unacceptable burden on the police licensing offices. He supported consolidation. In his view, none of the HASC’s proposals would have affected the tragedies of Hungerford, Dunblane or Cumbria. Wheeler, a shot gun certificate holder, highlighted the difference between rural and urban attitudes to firearms. She considered the HASC report to be very fair, but is against changing the licensing system for shotguns. She stressed the need to prevent pressure groups attacking our sporting tradition. David Poulter, a non-shooting former GP, regretted that it had taken the Cumbria shootings to generate this debate, as the real problem was persistent illegal use in deprived urban areas. Legislation must make things better, and there was no evidence that it would make much difference to focus on licensed firearms. He did not support medical checking, felt the case was not proven, that there was a danger of stigmatising those with a mental health condition who were not necessarily dangerous, and foresaw possible problems from the blame culture if a doctor got it wrong. He also mentioned the problems of a high patient turnover in urban practices, where the doctor was less likely to know his patients well. Efford, Shadow Minister, summed up for Labour, mentioning inter alia the need to iron out the certificate ‘bulge’. James Brokenshire summed up for the Government, saying that the debate had been thorough, proportionate and informed. The Government was in listening mode and would continue to take into account any other views from interested parties. He did make very specific comment that the Government would look at certification issues, while acknowledging their potential complexity, and stated that the Forms Working Group would look specifically at the feasibility of a single certificate. He would wish to ensure that controls were targeted fairly and proportionately and acknowledged the need to grapple with criminal misuse. He recognised that there were two legislative strands; the need for simplification and consolidation. He picked up on the problem of the Sutton Housing Partnership ALMO and said he might consider specific landlord-tenant issues (an opportunity for us, as this could spread into a major headache if Sutton gets away with it). He would need to look at storage issues and the danger of creating more risk. He pointed out that not all solutions required legislation and welcomed the ACPO/BMA agreement. He accepted that there was no evidence of misuse of licensed firearms by young people, but will consider the issue carefully. He ended by indicating that all options are open for discussion. |
|
Quoted:
Read the report, the GCN were all over it like a bad rash, Colin Greenwood (champion for the shooting community and renowned pro gun expert) had most of his input dismissed by the all party review. I have, and as said I noted a number of positives - e.g.they rejected decreasing the licensing period from five to two years, as well as the central storage of guns in clubs. And as already said, no more FAC for those with suspended sentences. With regards to ex-partners: I dare say the FLOs would be aware of the possibility of vindictive ex-partners, and take their statements with a pinch of salt. The biggest changes concern deacts (sold only through RFDs, and all converted to 1995 spec) and shotguns (now treated as Section 1, with good reason to possess). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the report, the GCN were all over it like a bad rash, Colin Greenwood (champion for the shooting community and renowned pro gun expert) had most of his input dismissed by the all party review. I have, and as said I noted a number of positives - e.g.they rejected decreasing the licensing period from five to two years, as well as the central storage of guns in clubs. And as already said, no more FAC for those with suspended sentences. With regards to ex-partners: I dare say the FLOs would be aware of the possibility of vindictive ex-partners, and take their statements with a pinch of salt. The biggest changes concern deacts (sold only through RFDs, and all converted to 1995 spec) and shotguns (now treated as Section 1, with good reason to possess). This comment was more for Agent Funky than for yourself 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the report, the GCN were all over it like a bad rash, Colin Greenwood (champion for the shooting community and renowned pro gun expert) had most of his input dismissed by the all party review. I have, and as said I noted a number of positives - e.g.they rejected decreasing the licensing period from five to two years, as well as the central storage of guns in clubs. And as already said, no more FAC for those with suspended sentences. With regards to ex-partners: I dare say the FLOs would be aware of the possibility of vindictive ex-partners, and take their statements with a pinch of salt. The biggest changes concern deacts (sold only through RFDs, and all converted to 1995 spec) and shotguns (now treated as Section 1, with good reason to possess). This comment was more for Agent Funky than for yourself
I know the GCN tried to be as prevailant as they could, Mate.
However, they don't make the laws. It's worth noting that despite their best efforts, and with the support of a predominantly anti-shooting, left wing chair (Vaz) it should come as not surprise that they were given so much air time. Most of what they said and the statistics has been aired and is challengable. Their statistics where exposed as being unrepresentative of the facts on several occasions. Their funding has been brought under scrutiny because it is less than clear Their membership remain a mystery and they refuse to divulge their membership statistics (because they hardly have any and it will undermine their case) Their arguments border on the ridiculous and in some cases are down right insane. BASC and the NRA are all over them like a bad rash can refute most of what they do, and the fact remains that the GCN have very little credibility among political circles. They make a lot of noise but have little by way of substance. It is disappointing that they were even given air time to spout their nonsense, but everyone has to have their say, and they made sure they were prolific. The fact remains that there is very little in the way of an anti-gun lobby in the UK, with only 2 of the 9 vested interests in the committee hearings taking an anti-stance. Naturally they had to be given more air time to keep it balanced..... works in our favour really since they talk bollocks and their claims are usually refuted by researchers following their presentations. |
|
At least if they are allowed to spout their usual mix of mis-information and out and out bollocks then it can be disproved and they can be shown for the bunch of nutters they are. Had they not been allowed to speak then they would have been bitching and crying to every left wing media outlet about how there is a massive conspiracy, that they were gagged by shooting organisations and how they "speak for the people".
The blindingly obvious fact to everyone who's IQ reaches double figures is that all but a tiny percentage of gun crime is committed by criminals with illegally held prohibited weapons. Whilst Derrick Bird possessed legally held weapons; there is nothing to say that he could not and would not have gone the same route as Raol Moat - who acquired guns within a week of being released from prison. Thankfully it looks like we have a good chance of avoiding yet another knee jerk reaction to a tragedy; although you can bet that licensing costs are going to increase. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the report, the GCN were all over it like a bad rash, Colin Greenwood (champion for the shooting community and renowned pro gun expert) had most of his input dismissed by the all party review. I have, and as said I noted a number of positives - e.g.they rejected decreasing the licensing period from five to two years, as well as the central storage of guns in clubs. And as already said, no more FAC for those with suspended sentences. With regards to ex-partners: I dare say the FLOs would be aware of the possibility of vindictive ex-partners, and take their statements with a pinch of salt. The biggest changes concern deacts (sold only through RFDs, and all converted to 1995 spec) and shotguns (now treated as Section 1, with good reason to possess). This comment was more for Agent Funky than for yourself
Understood I just think that, considering all the stupid things they could have recommended, what we've ended up with is actually not too bad.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the report, the GCN were all over it like a bad rash, Colin Greenwood (champion for the shooting community and renowned pro gun expert) had most of his input dismissed by the all party review. I have, and as said I noted a number of positives - e.g.they rejected decreasing the licensing period from five to two years, as well as the central storage of guns in clubs. And as already said, no more FAC for those with suspended sentences. With regards to ex-partners: I dare say the FLOs would be aware of the possibility of vindictive ex-partners, and take their statements with a pinch of salt. The biggest changes concern deacts (sold only through RFDs, and all converted to 1995 spec) and shotguns (now treated as Section 1, with good reason to possess). This comment was more for Agent Funky than for yourself
Understood I just think that, considering all the stupid things they could have recommended, what we've ended up with is actually not too bad.Agreed, Target Hunter's comments above point out some of the worst aspects. If anything we could have gone in and said that on the back of all the excellent evidence provided by BSSC, BASC and the pro shooting lobby we could even have asked for our Pistols back. Before that twat Derick Bird when tonto we were very close to getting .22 semi-pistols back under a regulatory reform bill. Very close being almost a certainlty within 2 years). However we have to remember that this is merely a report from a committee. The Committee have learned a lot, even Vaz (who's track record on being an anti) has seen acompletely different perspective. I don;t know if anyone saw the commons debate on the monday, but out of all the comments made during the debate by MP's there was only one that was anti-shooting and that guy is widely viewed in political circles and elsewhere as a complete dickhead anyway. Effectively what happens is this: 1) Incident (Cumbria) 2) Report into incident (Adrian Whitings report which was, in fact, quite a good report) 3) Firearms Review Committee Report (largely favourable and surprisingly balanced - but with some issues and recommendations that are unfeasable) 4) Commons Debate (largely positive, with lots of reference to the avoidance of previous knee-jerk reactions and an evidence based approach to the legislation) 5) Review of legislation and costruction of new Act of Parliament 6) Debate of the legislation (HoC) 7) Amendment of legislation 8) Ratification in the House of Commons (Vote) 9) Debated in House of Lords 10) Amended with HoL Reccomendations 11) Voted on by HoL 12) Ratified into Statute by H.M The Queen. Bits in Bold are what we have done so far. |
|
Quoted:
Any mention of expanding ammunition as per the ACPO report? Not seen any - The expanding ammo issue is already being adressed through a Regulatory Reform Bill, the same one that was going to pave the way for the return of .22 Pistols, so I'm sure it's still a live issue. When and hopefully if they come to rewrite the firearms legislation into one cohesive act, I suspect it will be one of the many issues and discrapncies adressed at that point. |
|
Its widely percieved amongst the trade that the section 5 ammo bit will go, as the government have seen it served no purpose in safety etc. That came from our flo,s. Also expect the .17hmr to be available as semi auto. They are also going to do away with the gallery range exemptions, which will mean all the thieving gypsy bastards cannot run their fairground ranges anymore.
What i want to know is, if shotguns are going on section one, there will be no need for magazine restrictions anymore, will there ? Thus undo-ing part of the 1988 act. |
|
Quoted: Is there a link to any of this to substantiate this? because I've heard this on many an occasion but never been shown anything to back it up.Before that twat Derick Bird when tonto we were very close to getting .22 semi-pistols back under a regulatory reform bill. Very close being almost a certainlty within 2 years). As far as I'm concerned this was nothing more than hearsay Furthermore, why should having a suspended prison sentence prohibit anyone from owning a firearm? As the law stands (if I'm right), if you have served a sentence of more than 3 months, you are prohibited from applying for a licence for 5 years. Unless it was for violent conduct I can see no reason why someone should be prohibited for life. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act etc!! Derrick Bird: Suspended sentence. had a FAC and used guns to kill. Raoul Moat: Jailbird. No FAC but acquired a gun within days of release and used it to kill. Michael Ryan: No jail time, had FAC and used guns to kill Thomas Hamilton: No jail time, had FAC and used guns to kill All completely random and makes no sense |
|
Quoted: Its widely percieved amongst the trade that the section 5 ammo bit will go, as the government have seen it served no purpose in safety etc. That came from our flo,s. Also expect the .17hmr to be available as semi auto. They are also going to do away with the gallery range exemptions, which will mean all the thieving gypsy bastards cannot run their fairground ranges anymore. What i want to know is, if shotguns are going on section one, there will be no need for magazine restrictions anymore, will there ? Thus undo-ing part of the 1988 act. Good point there Dave. I'm sure you mean minature rifle ranges BTW |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What i want to know is, if shotguns are going on section one, there will be no need for magazine restrictions anymore, will there ? Thus undo-ing part of the 1988 act. I am sure there will be a way to keep that part 
I think they are looking at re-writing the whole thing and condensing the sensible bits of the various Acts and Amendment Acts - it may be that they use the oportunity to clarify that position - which way it will go is anyone's guess at this stage. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there a link to any of this to substantiate this? because I've heard this on many an occasion but never been shown anything to back it up.
Before that twat Derick Bird when tonto we were very close to getting .22 semi-pistols back under a regulatory reform bill. Very close being almost a certainlty within 2 years). As far as I'm concerned this was nothing more than hearsay Furthermore, why should having a suspended prison sentence prohibit anyone from owning a firearm? As the law stands (if I'm right), if you have served a sentence of more than 3 months, you are prohibited from applying for a licence for 5 years. Unless it was for violent conduct I can see no reason why someone should be prohibited for life. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act etc!! Derrick Bird: Suspended sentence. had a FAC and used guns to kill. Raoul Moat: Jailbird. No FAC but acquired a gun within days of release and used it to kill. Michael Ryan: No jail time, had FAC and used guns to kill Thomas Hamilton: No jail time, had FAC and used guns to kill All completely random and makes no sense Agreed - if we apply the same principles then anyone who has been done for a crime should have their driving licence removed and their car confiscated. They clearly pose a risk of driving a car quickly and killing someone. 
Lack of common sense on behalf of the people that were making the reccomendations. Re the link to the Regulatory Reform Bill - I don't have one, but have it on advice from several sources who I consider to be reliable that the changes were imminent before Bird went tonto. It wasn't a change to the legislation, but what the Regulatory Reform Bill does is enable certain parts of the legislation that are considered un-necesary or ineffective, or causing undue hinderance to lawful activities to be removed or amended without having to go through the process of Amending an Act of Parliament and all that it entails. It would effectively have avoided the public embarrasment of acknowledging that the 97 Amendment act Pistol Ban was a failure.
|
|
Yep, i did mean minature rifle ranges Mark.
If i was taking a guess, i reckon they will put shotguns on section one, remove the right to possess, and bring it in line with a firearm, where good reason is needed. I think they will require land, same as a sporting fac/or membership of a clay club. I think this is what will be required for what we now have as section 2 shotguns, and they will leave section 1 shotguns as they are now. I dont think airguns will escape unscathed either. If anyone is thinking of a variation....put it in now, with plenty of spare slots. The variation fee is reputed to be quadrupling...again just chat from flo,s etc, but someone is going to have to assume the position, financially for this lot....and guess who its gonna be ?
|
|
[/quote] Furthermore, why should having a suspended prison sentence prohibit anyone from owning a firearm? [/quote] I believe it stems from the same area as the "intemperate behaviour" often quoted ( as it was for me until I challenged it ) Basically hearsay and opinion ( especially regarding the applicants behaviour as opposed to actual convictions ) are admissable when a report is submitted to a Head of Licensing for revocation or refusal of FAC. And at any subsequent appeal at Crown Court. When seeking advice on the matter, it was pointed out to me that this wonderful phrase covers EVERYTHING - it is very subjective. Some forces will revoke for a drink driving offence. They reason that an individual who has demonstrated he is happy to disregard the law when driving might do so with regard to his FAC. Others will revoke for shoplifting caution received - quoting that if dishonest enough to steal, might be dishonest enough to commit offences with firearm. I am sure they see a suspended sentence as a conviction ( regardless of lack of jail time ) and therefore an indication of the individuals contempt of the law / authority. |
|
Quoted:
Yep, i did mean minature rifle ranges Mark. If i was taking a guess, i reckon they will put shotguns on section one, remove the right to possess, and bring it in line with a firearm, where good reason is needed. I think they will require land, same as a sporting fac/or membership of a clay club. I think this is what will be required for what we now have as section 2 shotguns, and they will leave section 1 shotguns as they are now. I dont think airguns will escape unscathed either. If anyone is thinking of a variation....put it in now, with plenty of spare slots. The variation fee is reputed to be quadrupling...again just chat from flo,s etc, but someone is going to have to assume the position, financially for this lot....and guess who its gonna be ? Removing the right to posess would require a constiutional change, wouldn't it? Not to mention an increased level of bureaucracy. At a time when Government is reducing the cost of running the State, removing bureaucracy and trying to streamline such processes, it would be completely against all common sense to require and indeed police the need for provision of justification for a shotgun given the ridiculously low level of offending. Furthermore they will gain nothing from doing so in that it will not make the public any safer. Bird was not a probationer, he had been shooting since he was 17 years old. Membership of a club does not guarantee sanity either, and extending the bureaucracy we have for firearms to shotguns isn't just a doubling or trebling of workload, it's and increase from 100,000 is FAC Holders to not far short of 1 million shooters and growing, who will all need to provide justifications - to what end?......... No visible, tangible or statistically proven improvement to be gained at all. Just excessive cost to the taxpayer, delays in processing applications and variations, larger tracts of land to police and monitor in case of development or change of use and a cumbersome buraeucracy that is more likely to lead to errors and confusion than actually reduce risk. Then there are the clubs themselves - who is going to police minimum attendances, membership - who will manage corporate and guest shooting activities for which there is an entire industry? If anything Section 1 shotgun should be removed from Section 1 and placed back into Section 2. Legislation isn't written the same way it was under a knee-jerk Labour Govt. It is now evidence based and there has to be justification for implementing it. Govt policies have changed considerably since the 97 Act. There's still a lot to play out on this one.
ETA, the changes you mentioned to the fees for variations etc are set in statute, which would require an Ammendment to the Act. This is not going to happen overnight, or without consultation. Panic need not set in just yet methinks, and while the rumour mill is working overtime, until we have something proposed as statute of law, we will not really know the full extent of the changes, if any.
|
|
Quoted:
I am sure they see a suspended sentence as a conviction ( regardless of lack of jail time ) and therefore an indication of the individuals contempt of the law / authority. Correct - although the sentence has been suspended, you have been convicted of a crime in front of a court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure they see a suspended sentence as a conviction ( regardless of lack of jail time ) and therefore an indication of the individuals contempt of the law / authority. Correct - although the sentence has been suspended, you have been convicted of a crime in front of a court. Yes.... Iwonder if a formal caution will be viewed the same way, after all a formal caution is normally only offered of you are prepared to accept guilt for an offence. It is possible top refuse a formal caution have your case heard in court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure they see a suspended sentence as a conviction ( regardless of lack of jail time ) and therefore an indication of the individuals contempt of the law / authority. Correct - although the sentence has been suspended, you have been convicted of a crime in front of a court. Yes.... Iwonder if a formal caution will be viewed the same way, after all a formal caution is normally only offered of you are prepared to accept guilt for an offence. It is possible top refuse a formal caution have your case heard in court. I thought it was more about a conviction that could potentially attract a custodial sentence? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure they see a suspended sentence as a conviction ( regardless of lack of jail time ) and therefore an indication of the individuals contempt of the law / authority. Correct - although the sentence has been suspended, you have been convicted of a crime in front of a court. Yes.... Iwonder if a formal caution will be viewed the same way, after all a formal caution is normally only offered of you are prepared to accept guilt for an offence. It is possible top refuse a formal caution have your case heard in court. I thought it was more about a conviction that could potentially attract a custodial sentence? That would make more sense, actually |
|
A message from the NRA:
Dear Members, As you are aware a Commons debate on Firearms issues related to the tragedies in Cumbria and Northumberland took place on Monday 20 December 2010. During the course of the debate three key issues emerged that seemed to gain general approval from the Government side as matters to look at: a. Young people – a unified or simplified age for possession and/or use – In relation to young people the NRA view is that there should be no set age for when children are allowed to shoot under supervision and if it is thought necessary to introduce an age related requirement it should be ten (the minimum age for criminal responsibility) for issue of a Shotgun/Firearms Certificate. b. Increased police/GP liaison over certificates – The NRA have expressed concern as to how firearms users details will be safeguarded on the current NHS IT system, when considering the number of staff that would have access to such information. In addition we had concerns as to how the requirement was going to work operationally. ACPO and the Home Office are currently considering another less bureaucratic option. c. Having one certificate for S1 & 2 firearms – The current proposal will make life less onerous for those individuals who need to renew firearms and shotgun certificates. However, those who purely hold a shotgun certificate will potentially find that they have to meet additional requirements, similar to those for firearms certificate holders in terms of referees and ‘good reason’. The NRA has stated that it does not support the effective reclassification of shotguns as Section 1 because of the potential for increased administration placed upon the Police and the consequential delays dealing with new applications or renewals. d. Increased FAC Charges – Linked to the previous point the NRA are of the opinion that the Government should look at the possibility of removing responsibility for Firearms Licensing from the Police by centralising it. In this way shooters would experience a more consistent approach and potential for a better more efficient service at a reduced cost. To read either the full Hansard report on the debate or the executive summary of the debate from David Penn the Secretary of BSSC please go the NRA website. Finally the NRA wishes to assure you that it will endeavour to continue to represent your views and keep you fully informed as issues progress. It would be wrong at this stage to get complacent and ‘take our eye off the bull’. The NRA wishes you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Glynn Alger |
|
For those that didn't see the debate http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9305000/9305517.stm |
|
Quoted:
For those that didn't see the debate http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9305000/9305517.stm Thanks for posting. Large amounts of fail around the 1hr 32min mark. Good recovery from Tobais Ellwood.... Timothy Williams (Labour Derby) just doesn't get it.......at all. |