Revision to Fiream control proposed

[ArtistsRifles]

If anyone missed it in the news - this came out on the beeb website today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12032195

 

Basically the latest incarnation of Gov't is saying the gun control rules in the UK are a mess and propose replacing them with simplified - yet even tougher - rules.

[ferretfixer]

I notice the word 'Fair' used at the end of this article. A LOT if Firearms legislation is FAR from that!......:-\

[ford 369]

"oh great"more grief next renewal time

[Marmite!!]

"oh great"more grief next renewal time

What Grief?? they are tightening up & simplifying the gun laws, if you are clean & have a legitimate reason for having a firearm I can't see what the problem is??

[Topdog]

I hear what you say Lee, but most of us on here are worried about new legislation affecting the use and ownership of deacs. It is unlikely to get easier.

[Marmite!!]

I hear what you say Lee, but most of us on here are worried about new legislation affecting the use and ownership of deacs. It is unlikely to get easier.

Doubt very much if deacs will be part of this, that one was shevled a long time ago.. if they did come up with new legislation it would probably be some sort of register, can't see a problem with that.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Marmite!!

[julezee001]

Great, another blow to legitimate Firearms holder, and the sport of shooting in general. More checks, and higher fees. All with the effect of discouraging people from either beginning or continuing their lawful activity. Nothing in there to say how it will protect the public from the gun crime using un-registered weapons, which is of course reponsible for the vast majority of undesirable gun use???

 

At least with deacs, someone must have had a close look at the figures and realised that there was no significant issue with them. Amazing!

 

Jules

[Adrian Barrell]

Doubt very much if deacs will be part of this, that one was shevled a long time ago.. if they did come up with new legislation it would probably be some sort of register, can't see a problem with that.

 

The only problem with a register is that is is usually the first step in a banning process.

[steveo578]

safariswing

What Grief?? they are tightening up & simplifying the gun laws,

 

I really wish I had your belief in our legislature- all three major parties are tared with the same brush- they are re-active in their legislation mainly to placate the common or garden Daily Mail/Telegraph reader.

 

The current proposal change will be a notification being sent to your GP asking if he/she has noticed any potential change in your mood-behavioural balance -the fact that most of the purportrators who have licenced weapons never see their doctors prior to "going on a spree", the average male rarely visits his doctor on average if I remember the stats correctly it is about once every 5years, the average appointment time at a GP surgery is <10minutes. However the farming comunity has a higher level of depression of any single employment group and also has higher gun access level- so what may be the result of that?

 

As to improved legislation -the previous form of the legislature in this and other respects does not give much comfort- highly re-active legislation after Newbury and Dunblaine, from wider aspects dare I mention the dangerous dogs act or that wonderful piece of legislative rubbish is the VCR:???.

 

Sorry if that's too political

 

Steve

[mike65]

I can see a need to pull 32 seperate piece of legislation into one single piece.

If well written and researched it could save alot of grief and misunderstanding.

It may also encourage others to take an active interest in it.

Some people are put off by having to deal with 32 bits of legislation in order to make a decision if it is something they want to pursue further.

 

Do not agree with the press statement that it will reduce crime. It may reduce the one incident evert 5-10 years that gets sensatonalised by the media, but somehow I doubt it.

Politicians tend to get the legislation drawn up in short timescales as a kneejerk reaction to public out cry from a minority responding to the presses over zealous and sensationalist headlines (suppose that is how they sell papers).

After all it was the press after Dunblane that whipped up the public outrage against guns that persuaded all our local scout groups to ban air rifle shooting at their camps, because it was dangerous and not politically correct. It was the one thing I used to help out with and which the kids quite happily waited for ages to have a go at. At least they learned to use a gun safely and saw what damage even an air gun can do.

Then again I propably would fail the Police checks you need these days because I have a real camera and they are no PC in some circles.

 

Because of press coverage if you go to the park to photograph ducks, you are likely to be accused of being a paedophile, or if you photograph a building the Police accuse you of being a terrorist. But when there is an incident they ask you to help them by providing any pictures.

 

You are also vilified as an eco terrorist if you have a 4x4. Of course when it snows the same people who try to stop you having one are begging for your help.

 

Mike

 

PS: Apologies I seem to be supporting politions and vilifying the press.

[Adam Elsdon]

This says it all about the stupidity of the process............

 

Quote: Bird, 52, turned a gun on himself after going on the rampage in west Cumbria.

Twenty years earlier he had been sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for a year, for stealing decorating materials from his then employer. He also had a drink-driving conviction.

 

However, Bird had been allowed to keep his shotgun certificate, obtained before his 17th birthday, because neither conviction warranted an immediate custodial sentence to trigger an automatic ban.

 

Last month, an independent review ordered by Cumbria Constabulary proposed that anyone handed a jail term of three months or more which is wholly suspended should be banned from owning licensed weapons for five years. End quote.

 

Surely anybody with a criminal conviction shouldnt have access to firearms... if people are willing to drink drive or steal, they dont get to have a firearms licence.

 

Why would the police think it a good idea to give it back after 5 years, and then consider it ok to clamp down and restrict the law abiding licence holders.

 

I think that is completely Ar$* !!

[steveo578]

Adam Elsdon

Surely anybody with a criminal conviction shouldnt have access to firearms... if people are willing to drink drive or steal, they dont get to have a firearms licence.

 

The reason is that normally an offence is "spent" after a given period of time, if it isn't a "crime of violence" after 5 years it should have no relevance to an application for an FAC. However existing law is sufficent to control the holding of firearms by those convicted of an offence and jailed -probation release can preclude the possesion- use- ownership of firearms even including air weapons, so there is no need to change this aspect of the law.

 

if people are willing to drink drive or steal, they dont get to have a firearms licence.

 

It's very easy to break the law -many people don't realise they have commited an offence, technically if you drive within 24hours of having more than 2 drinks you may have commited an offence -it all depends on your ability to metabolise alcohol- and how many of us never drink any alcohol?

 

Steve

[Marmite!!]

The reason is that normally an offence is "spent" after a given period of time, if it isn't a "crime of violence" after 5 years it should have no relevance to an application for an FAC.

 

There's no such thing as a spent conviction when applying for a firearm, ALL previous offences however minor must be stated, even speeding offences.

 

 

Unless exempt from the certificate

requirement, persons who wish to possess,

purchase or acquire firearms or ammunition

to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies

should complete the prescribed application

form (form 101). By virtue of the

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

(Exemptions) Order 1975, the provisions of

the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 do

not apply to an application for the grant or

renewal of a firearm certificate. An applicant

is therefore not entitled to withhold

information about a previous conviction,

however old or minor, on the grounds that it

is “spent” for other purposes. This includes

convictions outside Great Britain, but see rule

3(1) of the Firearms Rules 1998, – note to

question 14, which, on renewal, requires only

convictions since the grant or last renewal to be detailed.

 

 

[steveo578]

safariswing

There's no such thing as a spent conviction when applying for a firearm, ALL previous offences however minor must be stated, even speeding offences.

 

I didn't say nor did I imply that a "spent" offence would not need to be reported on an application for a FAC and I was refering to the section of Adam post which I quoted, not specifically to the matter of Mr Birds criminal record. There is no evidence in the public domain that Mr Bird failed to inform Cumbria Police of the offences in question nor that Cumbria Police acted improperly in allowing Mr Bird to continue to hold a FAC.

 

Steve

[Marmite!!]

I didn't say nor did I imply that a "spent" offence would not need to be reported on an application for a FAC and I was refering to the section of Adam post which I quoted, not specifically to the matter of Mr Birds criminal record. There is no evidence in the public domain that Mr Bird failed to inform Cumbria Police of the offences in question nor that Cumbria Police acted improperly in allowing Mr Bird to continue to hold a FAC.

 

Steve

 

I was pointing out about spent convictions & was replying directly to your comment

if it isn't a "crime of violence" after 5 years it should have no relevance to an application for an FAC.

 

which is incorrect & highlighted in blue in my reply

[steveo578]

safariswing

which is incorrect & highlighted in blue in my reply

 

Lee, you are perfectly entitled to make the point you have made to clairify the position as stated in the blue portion of your post -as I never said that an applicant for a FAC need not declare a previous conviction what I said was not incorrect:-) It's Xmas go and have a nice mince pie and let's move on:-).

 

Steve