Morkai
Well-Known Member
I dont take anything from any of the papers as gospel, just thought people might have wanted a quick scan of it.
Changes to Firearms Licensing. What would you do?
- Thread starter User00035
- Start date
Morkai
Well-Known Member
We will have to wait and see what they propose implement. Theres what the gov say the forces have to do, then theres what the forces can actually do with their resources. If they get no increase in staff and support then already struggling counties will face longer delays.
Cant forget the Patel is pretty useless so I cant see it going smoothly at all, she will rush some rubbish through that probably wont pass.
I assume the applications could be amended to add your social media profiles at point of apllication. As others have pointed out, who decides the criteria of what is deemed acceptable on social media?
Yes, I understand that everyone would see some serious ranting from a neckbeard on YT and agree they shouldn't hold a firearm but what about jokes, memes, sarcasm, banter.
It seems too difficult to actually use as a vetting tool and more like a weak response from the Home Secretary to show some 'action' to the general public.
I agree with ideas proposed on here, having calibres roped into a banding makes far more sense.
Cant forget the Patel is pretty useless so I cant see it going smoothly at all, she will rush some rubbish through that probably wont pass.
I assume the applications could be amended to add your social media profiles at point of apllication. As others have pointed out, who decides the criteria of what is deemed acceptable on social media?
Yes, I understand that everyone would see some serious ranting from a neckbeard on YT and agree they shouldn't hold a firearm but what about jokes, memes, sarcasm, banter.
It seems too difficult to actually use as a vetting tool and more like a weak response from the Home Secretary to show some 'action' to the general public.
I agree with ideas proposed on here, having calibres roped into a banding makes far more sense.
Easy.
Just buy The Guardian on the other six days of the week. You don't have to read it.
Like Yin and Yang, harmony will thus be restored.
sikamalc
Administrator
The whole of the firearms system is underfunded. Its run at a loss. It would never surprise me to see a large increase in fees. I am also of the view that all firearms owners should have public liability insurance, before a licence is issued. At the moment there is no requirement for this.
If the authorities decide to undertake a review of everyone's certificate, this is going to take a great deal resources from the police. Something they are struggling with now, especially as we are coming out (I hope) of this pandemic. It would also not surprise me to see them putting all shotguns on the same terms as rifled firearms. In that good reason needs to be shown.
Whatever the outcome, we still have possibly the most secure firearms laws in the world, and rightly so, although the media would have the public to believe we are all running around like Rambo.
If the authorities decide to undertake a review of everyone's certificate, this is going to take a great deal resources from the police. Something they are struggling with now, especially as we are coming out (I hope) of this pandemic. It would also not surprise me to see them putting all shotguns on the same terms as rifled firearms. In that good reason needs to be shown.
Whatever the outcome, we still have possibly the most secure firearms laws in the world, and rightly so, although the media would have the public to believe we are all running around like Rambo.
I watched the BBC news story this morning talking about reviewing the licensing process but specifically to make Section 2 (SGC) as rigorous as Section 1 application process. The Chief Constable who chose to comment was Northumbria's ex Chief Con (a woman) who was responsible at the time of Raul Mote - she accepted no responsibility for the failures in that process. Instead she suggested because Chief Cons have absolute discretion to search for any 'truth' that may affect licensing they should and most were actually more relaxed about SGC award.
Absolutely amazing.
She even said that SGC 's could be given to 14 year olds - implying that was a danger of itself.
I am very surprised and saddened that what rules we have had for a long time are not followed by the Police and common sense does not seem to enter the process of review. Its clear that Chief Cons want to retain their absolute power over award of sec1 and 2 licences/certs whilst accepting no apparent responsibility for failures to exercise the powers they already have. Next will come the - " we cant afford to check" based on current fee levels and so the mistakes are covered up again and the overwhelming law abiding majority will pay the price of reduced ability to own guns whilst remaining a fully trustworthy member of society.
It is time to see what our sport protectors will do to stop this transfer of blame to 'normal' shooting people.
This man should not have been allowed to retain an SGC.
No comparison with knife crime, illegal gun crime, death rates from car crashes and so forth. In conclusion the woman ex Chief Con said - " no family should have to suffer etc" the irony being, she could have done the same things at the time of Mote, as could Cumbria in the case of D Bird. The Police will simply not accept any blame for these tragedies despite being the ultimate authority which abrogated its absolute responsibility and absolute control of process for the public safety of its citizens.
Overlay all this on the news that Kabul has fallen to the Taliban and one wonders where the balance is - certainly it is neither fair nor the result of any examination of process or conscience or outcome. I don't see politicians or Chief Constables sacked or taking responsibility for what they have allowed or more correctly chosen to do or not do, on their 'watch'.
Absolutely amazing.
She even said that SGC 's could be given to 14 year olds - implying that was a danger of itself.
I am very surprised and saddened that what rules we have had for a long time are not followed by the Police and common sense does not seem to enter the process of review. Its clear that Chief Cons want to retain their absolute power over award of sec1 and 2 licences/certs whilst accepting no apparent responsibility for failures to exercise the powers they already have. Next will come the - " we cant afford to check" based on current fee levels and so the mistakes are covered up again and the overwhelming law abiding majority will pay the price of reduced ability to own guns whilst remaining a fully trustworthy member of society.
It is time to see what our sport protectors will do to stop this transfer of blame to 'normal' shooting people.
This man should not have been allowed to retain an SGC.
No comparison with knife crime, illegal gun crime, death rates from car crashes and so forth. In conclusion the woman ex Chief Con said - " no family should have to suffer etc" the irony being, she could have done the same things at the time of Mote, as could Cumbria in the case of D Bird. The Police will simply not accept any blame for these tragedies despite being the ultimate authority which abrogated its absolute responsibility and absolute control of process for the public safety of its citizens.
Overlay all this on the news that Kabul has fallen to the Taliban and one wonders where the balance is - certainly it is neither fair nor the result of any examination of process or conscience or outcome. I don't see politicians or Chief Constables sacked or taking responsibility for what they have allowed or more correctly chosen to do or not do, on their 'watch'.
For a start, the decision to merge Dorset with Devon and Cornwall licencing authority should be reviewed. They are spread too thin and very overstretched. My FAC was renewed last year but I've heard there's a huge backlog on renewals now and I haven't had a home visit in ten years. I don't know my FEO's name.
Before piling more regulation onto an already overburdened system, at the very least there should be an enquiry into if, and then why, existing procedures were not followed in Davison's case.
Happy stalker
Well-Known Member
It’s so horrendous that this horrific thing happened and my thoughts go out to the family’s, the system has not only let those families down but as a firearms holder it has also let us down, I would welcome any sensible changes made to not only protect the public but also to protect us.
Social Media should definitely be looked at in my opinion
Social Media should definitely be looked at in my opinion
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
“The force’s chief constable, Shaun Sawyer, said at the weekend that officers do not look at social media when someone applies for a gun licence because it would be ‘an invasion of privacy”
I don’t buy this, someone should have checked this guy’s profile out before handing back his firearm, he put himself in a position that drew attention from the police.
How many times have you watched a crime documentary on the TV and they pull up peoples social media accounts, quoting stuff they have posted online.
I don’t buy this, someone should have checked this guy’s profile out before handing back his firearm, he put himself in a position that drew attention from the police.
How many times have you watched a crime documentary on the TV and they pull up peoples social media accounts, quoting stuff they have posted online.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I’d be fairly certain that’s exactly what’s going to happen plus a few more restrictions besides.
There’ll be an inquiry, the police will be exonerated as they followed the process so the process itself is at fault and will be changed.
I am not sure I buy the Chief Constable saying checks on social media would be “ an invasion of privacy” when applying for a SGC/FAC all of that is in the public forum, also they didn’t want to invade peoples privacy on SM but happy to get a check from your doctor, get 1/2 referees to vouch for you and follow up with them and then come to your house and interview you and check on your house and storage arrangements??
Not all social media is public, their are members only sites and the dark web.
That’s another reason I didn’t sign up for the “Dark Web”
That seems at variance with the express statement made by the owner of this site in post #71:
Changes to Firearms Licensing. What would you do?
I think the critical issue here is that the Police gave him his cert back without taking any time to see if his behaviour had changed. That's where the pressure is. Its not that the licensing process failed, it didn't. He was issued with a cert presumably for good reason at the time but when...
www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
That seems at variance with the express statement made by the owner of this site in post #71:
Changes to Firearms Licensing. What would you do?
I think the critical issue here is that the Police gave him his cert back without taking any time to see if his behaviour had changed. That's where the pressure is. Its not that the licensing process failed, it didn't. He was issued with a cert presumably for good reason at the time but when...
Exactly.
How exactly would the police define social media? Public forums like this? Or private media like whattsapp etc? Where would they draw the line?
Regarding Police looking at applicants social media activities.
I get the idea behind it, and I don't think privacy laws would be infringed, but fail to see how it could be implemented in any practical, cost effective way.
The police would need to know all of each applicant/certificate holders social media accounts and user names and have an army of people continually scanning all of those accounts, plus applicants/certificate holders can open and close as many new accounts as and when they want.
Cheers
Bruce
I get the idea behind it, and I don't think privacy laws would be infringed, but fail to see how it could be implemented in any practical, cost effective way.
The police would need to know all of each applicant/certificate holders social media accounts and user names and have an army of people continually scanning all of those accounts, plus applicants/certificate holders can open and close as many new accounts as and when they want.
Cheers
Bruce
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
Some forces most certainly do look at social media when processing applications or investigating complaints about a certificate holder. This only applies to publicly accessible content, of course. If a social media trawl becomes an official requirement, then I am sure they will make us pay the costs, as the public won't agree to "subsidising" the certification process any further. Many don't think we should even have firearms for "recreational" purposes.
To give an idea of some current public attitudes, take this letter from a London-based reader in today Daily Telegraph:
Sir - I was astonished to read that over half a million people have firearms certificates in Britain (report, August 14).
It is difficult to think of any justification for someone living in an urban area to have gun, and I doubt that many rural gun owners really need them (as opposed to having one because "everybody else round here does").
Licences should be issued for one year only and no one should be given a licence without demonstrating a genuine need to have a gun. The default position should be to decline an application, and the police should be given a target to get the total down to 50,000 within two years.
To give an idea of some current public attitudes, take this letter from a London-based reader in today Daily Telegraph:
Sir - I was astonished to read that over half a million people have firearms certificates in Britain (report, August 14).
It is difficult to think of any justification for someone living in an urban area to have gun, and I doubt that many rural gun owners really need them (as opposed to having one because "everybody else round here does").
Licences should be issued for one year only and no one should be given a licence without demonstrating a genuine need to have a gun. The default position should be to decline an application, and the police should be given a target to get the total down to 50,000 within two years.
Last edited:
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Scandially has not gone away then...
Similar threads
