Partners to be quizzed in new gun licence screening

Does it really matter what your partner's view on firearms in the house is?
It should do if a person's wife is suffering domestic violence. A man who is violent to his wife, or causes his household to live in fear, is not a fit person to hold a firearm IMHO. Going further, I would not keep firearms in my house if there was any member of my household with worrying characteristics because I would not feel safe - I could break into any gun safe, so assume someone with a problem could do the same. Some of my security arrangements are there to protect my family in the event of someone breaking into my house, by preventing all parties getting access to arms.

I said to an FEO a year or so ago, "you do all sorts of checks, except the obvious ones such as 'is there anyone living in the house who is violent, or has a mental illness?'. The people living with someone are probably the people who can tell most whether someone is a danger yet you never speak to them." His answer was, "We do check everyone in the household", apparently without speaking to them so not sure how that works, but he assured me checks are made, of who is there and whether they have any history.

Just asking each person in a household, "what do you think about Mr X, your husband / Dad / son / daughter, having a rifles stored in the house?" is a fair question in my view. My household is full of peace and joy, and that should come across, as I assume yours is too, but if that atmosphere is not present anywhere it too would be apparent so more questions should follow. Just imagine the suffering that could have been saved if a policeman had acted on concerns from a man's father and mother in a recent case here, and in others in the USA.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VSS
It should do if a person's wife is suffering domestic violence. A man who is violent to his wife, or causes his household to live in fear, is not a fit person to hold a firearm IMHO.
The applicant isn't suitable to own firearms as they are violent. I dont think anyone would say otherwise.

The question may lead to another question that reveals a problem but there are other questions that could be asked regarding the applicants character and homelife.

It's more that would this question be the be all and end all of your application if they said "no, I don't like them"

Going further, I would not keep firearms in my house if there was any member of my household with worrying characteristics because I would not feel safe - I could break into any gun safe, so assume someone with a problem could do the same. Some of my security arrangements are there to protect my family in the event of someone breaking into my house, by preventing all parties getting access to arms.

The question wasn't about having nutters or criminals living with you.

I said to an FEO a year or so ago, "you do all sorts of checks, except the obvious ones such as 'is there anyone living in the house who is violent, or has a mental illness?'. The people living with someone are probably the people who can tell most whether someone is a danger yet you never speak to them." His answer was, "We do check everyone in the household", apparently without speaking to them so not sure how that works, but he assured me checks are made, of who is there and whether they have any history.

I was asked who has access to my house, who had keys to the property etc. Still, their views hold no relevance, and none of them know where the keys or cabinet are.

Just asking each person in a household, "what do you think about Mr X, your husband / Dad / son / daughter, having a rifles stored in the house?" is a fair question in my view.

They can ask but, as above, I don't think it should be a criteria the applicant could be passed or failed on, if that is the case.

My household is full of peace and joy, and that should come across, as I assume yours is too, but if that atmosphere is not present anywhere it too would be apparent so more questions should follow.

If a partner of an applicant doesn't like firearms it does not mean the applicant isn't a suitable, level headed, law abiding citizen living in a happy home.

If the police do feel that its a pass or fail question then is there an option to have a cert if the firearms are stored elsewhere?

Just imagine the suffering that could have been saved if a policeman had acted on concerns from a man's father and mother in a recent case here, and in others in the USA.

The police not acting on raised concerns of someone being a nutter has nothing to do with whether or not they want firearms in the house.

The concern is the mental state of the cert holder.

If they didnt listen to someone saying he's unstable, what makes you think would they listen to someone who didn't like firearms in the home?

The problem there was the lack of police intervention, not the question.



Just posing the question here because it's not clear on the influence it has.
 
Last edited:
The above may read as blunt but I can assure you it's not, just the lack of tone and conveyance of online posts.
 
How many partners, or other persons living in a household is going to say, IF questioned infront of or even in private, that they're suffering DV or any violence??? Probably not many! DV sufferers quite often go years subjected to a life of abuse and to put ontop of that THEY are the reason the abuser has lost their firearms?? A whole new world of pain waiting to open.

Obviously this is all hypothetical but some of the questions posed in post #115 are down right ridiculous!
 
Obviously this is all hypothetical but some of the questions posed in post #115 are down right ridiculous!

Not sure why they are in the article as those questions are from a Domestic Abuse Questionnaire...
 
Not sure why they are in the article as those questions are from a Domestic Abuse Questionnaire...
I agree entirely that the questionnaire in post 115 is completely inappropriate for assessing FAC applicants, and it seems a set up job for domestic abuse questions. Imagine someone's Ex on a bad day being prompted by that questionnaire in the middle of her divorce action - spite can create demons out of people.

However, just putting three questions specific to FAC applicants/renewals to each adult in the house of:
1. Are you aware that your husband / son / father / lodger has applied for a FAC?
2. Would you be worried about him having a rifle? // "Are you worried at all that he has a rifle?"
3. Do you see any problems with him keeping it in the house?

are good questions that the FEO should ask in private.

These might still be good questions even after the woke brigade have turned "him" into the confusing alphabet of modern fad options, despite FAC applicants being overwhelmingly men: women usually have more sense than spend all day on a mountainside in -10C, feet soaking wet from the bog under the snow, then dragging 100kg beasts half a mile, or in the summer, sitting still for hours while midges try to feast on ones eyeballs.
 
Last edited:
When i lived at home and applied for my first shotgun after my interview the feo then sat a chatted to my mum, made sense to me given I was living in my parents house, makes sense to me that they would chat to the partner also if they are there / available

It's been said on threads where legally held firearms have been used in a crime that the police should have spoken with those close to the perpetrator and they should never have been granted a licence, this seems to be a step to doing that to me
 
I agree entirely that the questionnaire in post 115 is completely inappropriate for assessing FAC applicants, and it seems a set up job for domestic abuse questions. Imagine someone's Ex on a bad day being prompted by that questionnaire in the middle of her divorce action - spite can create demons out of people.

However, just putting three questions specific to FAC applicants/renewals to each adult in the house of:
1. Are you aware that your husband / son / father / lodger has applied for a FAC?
2. Would you be worried about him having a rifle? // "Are you worried at all that he has a rifle?"
3. Do you see any problems with him keeping it in the house?

are good questions that the FEO should ask in private.

These might still be good questions even after the woke brigade have turned "him" into the confusing alphabet of modern fad options, despite FAC applicants being overwhelmingly men: women usually have more sense than spend all day on a mountainside in -10C, feet soaking wet from the bog under the snow, then dragging 100kg beasts half a mile, or in the summer, sitting still for hours while midges try to feast on ones eyeballs.

Thats seems reasonable.
 
Nothing new there.
They've been speaking to partners for years, albeit not in the form of a "questionnaire".
The report is just soundbites to give the impression that something is being done, and to keep the public happy.
This is so disproportionate, we as a group of law abiding people are the most regulated, have more hoops to jump through than any other sector of the population. I have nothing to hide, but wonder if it is be cause we are small group in number we can be easily regulated and or managed because we do no want to rock the boat, or to be seen doing so.

Car owners, or should I say vehicle drivers, or people who own knives, or use them are not licensed, or regulated in any way that we are, but statiscally are the largest group of people responsible for deaths serious injury and carnage on the roads, and how are they penalised?, drivers are banned for a fixed period then can back to their usual habits, knife users who by far are the most dangerous people on Gods earth!!! absolutely nothing at all, if caught and convicted a sentence, no ban etc, none of these people are constantly monitored like we are, or have to apply every 5 years for our certificates, we can't even countersign a passport or legal document, and as already said we are the most controlled group of people I can think of, surely if any person can be trusted must be US||

Just my thoughts
 
No, you would just employ a "professional partner" to do the paperwork. A bit like using medcert, except there's lots of other nice things a professional partner would do that medcert probably won't...😂
But, would you have to pay for their "PRO....fessional attendance

Only asking Tim||
 
"Almost half (45%) of all adult female homicide victims were killed in a domestic homicide (70). Of these 70 female victims, all but one were killed by a male suspect"

Unfortunately the stats speak for themselves.

The police aren't suggesting that men who legally own firearms will kill their partners (some have done) but they wouldn't be doing their due diligence if they didn't at least ask the partners of fac/SGC holders some questions. The questions are the routine questions the police ask any "victim" of domestic abuse because some of them (like hurting animals, being cruel not humanely killing them) are indicators to severe behaviour disorders and almost always a precursor to domestic violence to both partners and children.

The only people being woke on this thread are those who feel victimised because they don't appreciate how actual victims feel and are treated.
Well, having held both FA, and shotgun Certificates for over 50 years the Police have been a little remiss in not carrying out this sort of enquiry before now??
 
At my last renewal, my wife and then present granddaughter was asked by the inspector how things were at home.
Didn't think much of it, seemed it was all just part of a cordial conversation at the time.
 
the questionnaire in post 115 is completely inappropriate

That image is from the BBC news report. Does anyone have a link to the official copy of the police document being proposed? Can we verify those are the actual questions being used by FEOs going forward?

The idea of FEO assessment of the harmony/stability/security in a FAC holder's home is sound. But some of the questions in post #115 are easily mis-interpreted or mis-applied. Specifically:
  • Would your partner ever hurt an animal?
Without ever wishing to cause pain, a deer stalker or vermin manager most definitely terminates life. Exactly how a partner might respond to such a question [or how the response is recorded...] might constitute a negative score for no good reason.

  • Does your partner have an interest with[sic] weapons...
Question 6 on that fuzzy list frames a question using the term "weapon", not firearm. Do all partners know the difference? All of us who take sport shooting seriously spend significant time doing it well. My wife would confirm I invest a lot of time researching ballistics, testing loads, range time, etc. Black mark #2???

[By the way, a barrister has explained exactly why you do not refer to any knife you carry as a "weapon". Nor should you agree that any police officer to whom you are speaking refer to your knife as a weapon. By extension of the rule in play, I would imagine we should insist on the firearms we use being called firearms]





FWIW, the only online reference to any police form vaguely resembling the image in post #115 [that I could find] is here:

 
For the last 55 years, the main thing that has stopped me hitting someone, is the thought if losing my Firearm Certificate, though I did get a conditional discharge for being 'heavy handed' with a trespasser who was damaging something.
 
Back
Top