Police to be given power to make firearms law?

[Cloudhopper]

I don't really understand this; I thought our laws were devised and agreed by our Parliament or the one in Europe. The Police uphold these laws and maintain the peace, they can't just side-step the democratic process.
CH

 

[ndt man]

I don't really understand this; I thought our laws were devised and agreed by our Parliament or the one in Europe. The Police uphold these laws and maintain the peace, they can't just side-step the democratic process.
CH

you can in a police state

 

[Estudiente]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/127045

Where does it state this ?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0134/en/16134en.pdf

 

[kes]

This section does not specify who gives the instruction to issue statutory guidance --

Statutory Guidance138 HMIC published a report in September 2015 on the outcome of their inspection of policefirearms licensing departments. Police licensing departments deal primarily with the licensingof shotguns and other civilian firearms, for use by farmers and in recreational shooting. Thereport, Targeting the risk: An inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness of firearms licensing in policeThese Explanatory Notes relate to the Policing and Crime Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 10February 2016 (Bill 134) 29forces in England and Wales, September 2015, HMIC, recommended strengthening thesafeguards in the current licensing regime and improving consistency across forces in theprocedures they follow. To this end, clause 81 introduces a power to issue statutory guidanceto chief officers on the exercise of their firearms licensing functions, with a duty on chiefofficers to have regard to the guidance.


It could be the Sof S but it could be a body delegated with the power to make such recommendations - FELWEG ?
Not what I would call a smoking gun but certainly a gun and ammunition in close proximity.

 

[kes]

Clause 81 is being quoted on other websites as the source of the problem. I suggest the shooting orgs get up to speed, should only take part of their purported membership to enforce a debate. Assuming of course they aren't afraid of the, MP, his wife etc. (please see earlier post).
I could of course, be wrong - do you want to risk it or will you check in detail, as I have done ?
I wouldn't pay 7 quid for membership, let alone £70 +. If you want my view and you may not, its that we are not and have never been adequately represented. Too late when its all gone.

 

[ChesterP]

Clause 81 is being quoted on other websites as the source of the problem. I suggest the shooting orgs get up to speed, should only take part of their purported membership to enforce a debate. Assuming of course they aren't afraid of the, MP, his wife etc. (please see earlier post).
I could of course, be wrong - do you want to risk it or will you check in detail, as I have done ?
I wouldn't pay 7 quid for membership, let alone £70 +. If you want my view and you may not, its that we are not and have never been adequately represented. Too late when its all gone.

+1

My membership renewal may not be forthcoming depending on how C81 is handled...or not by my shooting organisation. I suspect that I am not alone. Straw and camel's back spring to mind. Dictatorship and Police state...wind the clock back and any number of non democratic societies had freedoms that we now dont enjoy. What the heck is going on with the UK? Apathy is dangerous. Developing a habit of mentally creating lists that inspire optimism for the future of the UK only reveals a list that grows shorter by the day.

 

[Taff]

I don't see how that would help? - in America the pro gun movement is many times larger and has to be taken seriously, in the UK it would only alienate us further from the general public and make it easier for over the top sensationalist stories to twist public opinion. Looking like "gun nuts" will only make it easier to treat us as less thab equal...

Ryan

Really, and you think the press and police treat you as a equal now, 1/2 a million people marched peacefully on a Sunday ( to prevent disruption, and because we could not get permission to March during the week ) in London against the hunting ban, we were completely ignored. Bury your head for as long as you like, take the I am ok route, but remember you are not a equal, you have to prove, your fit and healthy, in a stable relationship, are completely law abiding ( even the smallest infraction could be held against you ) am I paranoid, NO, as I now live in a country where shooters/hunters are treated as equals, actually it's treated as the norm, where after passing the police check and safety test, you are unrestricted in your hunting firearms.

 

[EccentricJackal]

Really, and you think the press and police treat you as a equal now, 1/2 a million people marched peacefully on a Sunday ( to prevent disruption, and because we could not get permission to March during the week ) in London against the hunting ban, we were completely ignored. Bury your head for as long as you like, take the I am ok route, but remember you are not a equal, you have to prove, your fit and healthy, in a stable relationship, are completely law abiding ( even the smallest infraction could be held against you ) am I paranoid, NO, as I now live in a country where shooters/hunters are treated as equals, actually it's treated as the norm, where after passing the police check and safety test, you are unrestricted in your hunting firearms.

I absolutely did not say I thought we were treated equal.

I completely agree with you, my "gun nuts" comment was aimed at the writing style of the articles on the original news website, not for signing the petition; I was one of the first to sign, I also contacted my MP and shooting organisation, and posted my replies so far here.

I am one of the few not burying my head, but still stand by comment that i dont think it would help our case if the attitude displayed on some of those articles was the public face of shooting.

Ryan

P.s. out of curiosity, when did half a million people march against the hunting ban?

 

[Taff]

2002 at Hyde park, police estimates were 300,000, CA claimed 400,000+ officially counted at the start with coaches still being held up by police on the out skirts of the city, so I was wrong in my post. I am glad to see you are doing your bit, and apologies if I misunderstood your posts.

 

[Jagare]

P.s. out of curiosity, when did half a million people march against the hunting ban?

2002. I was there with 4000000 others.

I live in a country where gun ownership is not a great evil . Reading in another thread on SD how someone who puts in for renewal in plenty of time and then because of police incompetence find themselves a criminal because they never got their Fac back in time.
Where apart from with firearms ownership could this happen without a scandal taking place? Spineless shooting Orgs and I'm all right jack by gun owners will be the end for UK shooting.

 

[Barkingsnake]

Still only 3933 signatures....
Shooter apathy rules.

 

[Whitebeard]

With all due respect to those who have signed, petitions are not worth the paper they are written on, write to your MP or better still the Home secretary, 3933 letters in her post bag will certainly make her take notice.

Ian.

 

[JTO]

I presume any changes to the law that the police try to make, will be open to appeal before a judge.

 

[kes]

A good question but experience suggests that variations to legislation following an initial rule change(Law change) do NOT necessarily get referred to any court as they draw their legitimacy from the initial legislation. So, if we presume somebody is denied a certificate under rule 81 (e.g.) and that is deemed unfair and unreasonable, a judge simply has to say it derives from FELWEG and Teresa Mays bill, names FELWEG as the body to make changes such as this then it can be deemed government policy and as such may not be open to challenge in the courts.
That's one possibility but only one.

 

[tFl]

I am stunned by this statement ( the Gun Control Network (three members, a fanatic MP, his Mrs and her friend) would get equal representation in the consultation) as an 'explanation of why our shooting organisations dont want mandatory consultation. Have we really reached the point where over a million shooters dont want the chance of formal consultation because they fear that the gun control network will get it too.
Bloody hell what a state we are in.

consultation happens with basc regardless, it has to happen as part of government rules, but its surely better not to get to point of allowing the government to put the lunatics in print as well. Clearly people dont understand politics and believe everything they see on websites and forums.

 

[Bilbo]

I am a little confused.

Below is clause 81. Having read it quite a few times now, I am struggling to understand how this gives the Police "powers to make firearms laws"

Paraphrasing it - the S of S may issue guidance to Chief Officers as to the excercise of their function under or in connection with the act. S of S may revise guidance. S of S must publish guidance and any revision to it. A Chief Officer must have regard to any guidance. Before issuing guidance S of S must consult NPCC / Chief Constable of Scotland.

So the Police now have a statutory requirement to 'have regard' to any any guidance'. Equally if the S of S is going to revise change or issue new guidance then the Police must be consulted. To me (and maybe I am being naive) that seems perfectly reasonable. They are tasked with carrying out the function of licensing and enforcement of the various elements of firearms legislation and now have a statutory obligation to follow guidance from the S of S. If the S of S is going to change something that the Police are tasked with and have a legal obligation to do, surely it is reasonable that they be consulted. They may object/agree with any change / revision etc but ultimately it is the S of S that will decide after consultation. That is how I read it.


81
Guidance to police officers in respect of firearms(1)The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2)5After section 55 insert—
“55AGuidance as to exercise of police functions

(1)The Secretary of State may issue guidance to chief officers of police as
to the exercise of their functions under, or in connection with, this Act.
(2)The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this
10section.
(3)The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this
section, and any revision of it, to be published.
(4)A chief officer of police must have regard to any guidance issued under
this section.
(5)15Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must
consult—
(a)the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and
(b)the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland.”
(3)In section 44 (appeals against police decisions), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A)20The court or sheriff hearing an appeal must consider whether the chief
officer had regard to any guidance issued under section 55A that was
relevant to the chief officer’s decision.”

 

[kes]

tFI,
Forgive me, but I certainly don't understand why you write what you do, but politics, I think I have more of a handle on; whereas it is apparent that, from recent failings, a certain shooting organisation may be construed as naive.
Perhaps more so those who cant see the writing on the wall and believe nothing will go wrong with anything. Do you know Andy Marsh?

 

[casper]

The publishers of the original article are now carrying an item where sacs fully support this.

 

[David63]

Indeed, Alex from SACS has clarified the point very well; that regardless of what the original article said the fact is that BASC and other organisations are, and have been , fully engaged. As tfl said - don't believe everything you read on the web...

 

[Bilbo]

Indeed, Alex from SACS has clarified the point very well; that regardless of what the original article said the fact is that BASC and other organisations are, and have been , fully engaged. As tfl said - don't believe everything you read on the web...

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.co...ance-law-changes-are-wanted-by-shooting-orgs/