The new version of the Home Office "Guide on Firearms Law" became official today
Much reading required I fancy!!!
Cheers
Bruce
Much reading required I fancy!!!
Cheers
Bruce
Home Office Firearms Guidance
- Thread starter mealiejimmy
- Start date
People never read it as it up's the post count to ask questions
Not just chapter 4
it repeatedly states that expanding ammunition and expanding bullets are S5 and that expanding ammunition and bullets should be shown separately on an FAC.
Clearly there has been much "cut and paste" from the previous version of the guidance and a major cop out in other sections by simply referencing the Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police rather than providing the relevant information
looks like they got the office boy/girl to do the re-write.
Cheers
Bruce
Apparently, the document issued today is merely an interim version before a complete guide is due for publication before the end of this year.
If that is the case you have to ask - why did they bother with what was published today when they are (supposedly) going to publish it again within a few weeks
Cheers
Bruce
If that is the case you have to ask - why did they bother with what was published today when they are (supposedly) going to publish it again within a few weeks
Cheers
Bruce
Last edited:
Except that "Firearms Licensing: Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police" is now part of the overall guidance making it much more difficult for the police to deviate from the guidance without justifying their actions.
The police cannot now say (as they usually did in the past) that it's only Guidance so we can do what we like.
Making the Guidance statutory takes a way a lot of their discretion and hopefully improves the consistency with which firearms licensing departments in different forces apply the law.
Cheers
Bruce
The police cannot now say (as they usually did in the past) that it's only Guidance so we can do what we like.
Making the Guidance statutory takes a way a lot of their discretion and hopefully improves the consistency with which firearms licensing departments in different forces apply the law.
Cheers
Bruce
To make priti look goodApparently, the document issued today is merely an interim version before a complete guide is due for publication before the end of this year.
If that is the case you have to ask - why did they bother with what was published today when they are (supposedly) going to publish it again within a few weeks
Cheers
Bruce
that’s why they published now, take the heat away from the police after Plymouth.simple make the gun owners the scapegoats.
8x57
Distinguished Member
Yep!
From the short passages that I have read so far it seems like they have made a complete and utter pig's ear of the job.
It looks like they have simply taken the existing 2016 guidance, removed the bits that are covered by the new Statutory Guidance to Chief Officers of Police and put a link to that document where those removed bits had been.
If there is a to be a completely revised document issued by the end of the year (aye, right!!) then this newly released document is a total waste of time, effort and money.
Cheers
Bruce
If there is a to be a completely revised document issued by the end of the year (aye, right!!) then this newly released document is a total waste of time, effort and money.
Cheers
Bruce
You make mention of the word “Effort” ????
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
From the introduction of the Statutory Guidance it makes it clear that the statutory guidance is separate from the non-statutory Home Office Guide on firearms licensing law (i.e. the one we are all familiar with) where there is no legal duty to follow it;
it is provided to assist chief officers in interpreting the law etc.
The Statutory Guidance can be found here:
chrome-extension://gphandlahdpffmccakmbngmbjnjiiahp/http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0804/draft_firearms_licensing_statutory_guidance_July_2019.pdf
it is provided to assist chief officers in interpreting the law etc.
The Statutory Guidance can be found here:
chrome-extension://gphandlahdpffmccakmbngmbjnjiiahp/http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0804/draft_firearms_licensing_statutory_guidance_July_2019.pdf
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Bruce, I think this extract has been rushed out to make medical clearance mandatory in all of the 43 force areas, including Devon & Cornwall (Plymouth) where it isn't.
The full statutory HOG due later on will presumably need legislation or an Order in Council from the Secretary of State to make it law.
Hopefully then we in E&W will be singing from the same hymn sheet (excluding you chaps in Scotland & NI possibly? . .
). . . 
This is in draft form, and two years old, so is presumably being rewritten?
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
Sorry yes there will be an up to date version , but my point is that the 2 are separate.Bruce, I think this extract has been rushed out to make medical clearance mandatory in all of the 43 force areas, including Devon & Cornwall (Plymouth) where it isn't.
The full statutory HOG due later on will presumably need legislation or an Order in Council from the Secretary of State to make it law.
Hopefully then we in E&W will be singing from the same hymn sheet (excluding you chaps in Scotland & NI possibly? . .
This is in draft form, and two years old, so is presumably being rewritten?
So, we are going to have both Guidance on firearms law and Statutory Guidance for Chief Police officers - great!!!
And, according to para 1.7 of the Statutory Guidance the College of Policing Authorised professional practice APP) on firearms licensing must also be considered
Cheers
Bruce
And, according to para 1.7 of the Statutory Guidance the College of Policing Authorised professional practice APP) on firearms licensing must also be considered
Cheers
Bruce
Make providing the medical information required by the police part of a GPs contract with the NHS and the problem would be solved overnight.
Then, if a GP did not engage with the process, they would be in breach of contract and since none of them want their principal source of revenue cut off, they would provide the necessary info and be unable to charge for it
Cheers
Bruce
Then, if a GP did not engage with the process, they would be in breach of contract and since none of them want their principal source of revenue cut off, they would provide the necessary info and be unable to charge for it
Cheers
Bruce
Regarding gp’s contracts, I think we are still at the stage where they have to be forced to see their patients in person. FAC work is likely well down the list.
As for the draft being published, might they have given the temp the job of hashing it together and then all interested parties effectively do the proof checking/ coming back with errors/ omissions etc? (I’m sure that would never happen….)
As for the draft being published, might they have given the temp the job of hashing it together and then all interested parties effectively do the proof checking/ coming back with errors/ omissions etc? (I’m sure that would never happen….)
