BASC statement on IOPC report into Keyham shootings

Leica Fortis 6 - Bright and powerful.
C

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
This:

The IOPC recommends that legislation and national guidance are amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.

In effect this will mean the end of the Shotgun Certificate and all shotguns moving to s1, I guess is what they want, rather than other way about with rifled arms and multi-shot shotguns moving to s2? Will this mean a requirement for cartridges to be entered on the certificate when purchased then kept in a locked cabinet as per s1 ammunition, and the need for the loan of a shotgun to fully comply with the "estate rifle" law especially "in the presence of" and with that also an end to the seventy-two hour rules as they presently apply regarding s2?
 
Last edited:
As Enfield notes, this is the particularly worrying part:

The IOPC recommends that legislation and national guidance are amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.

If they just do away with s2 and move everything to s1 I think that would the terrible for shooting sports - and not just for the obvious reasons.

Clay grounds would really suffer as they’d be very limited as far as letting non-license holders shoot, something which I think could kill off a lot of them. I can imagine the bureaucracy would also be a lot worse, as opening a clay ground is easier than a rifle range.

It would also knacker the gun trade, who’d likely see sales of shotguns fall through the floor.

Ironically, it would also make life for FLUs that bit worse as they contend with all those extra variations.

I’m not so worried if they just want to make the application process similar, 2 referees and the like, and I don’t really mind if they want “good reason” for the certificate (not each gun mind you) but simply moving everything to s1 would be a catastrophe.
 
andyk said:
If they just do away with s2 and move everything to s1 I think that would the terrible for shooting sports - and not just for the obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
And would that mean named land if you wanted it for live quarry use, or membership of a named club for clays, or what? Land inspections for "named land" tl prove it "was suitable" and/or letters confirming you'd booked shooting or were a member of X or Y syndicate if you were not the owner or occupier of land? A return with land to the old Condition 1, Condition 2 or Condition 3 of FACs? It's a a real ship of fools if the Tories (yes those Tories "the friends of shooting") agree to this.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. Take this from one who knows. There are no distinctions in NI for firearms - looks like this is coming to a town near you…
Everything from an air pistol upwards is treated the same and possession requires a Firearms Certificate and you have to satisfy the “good reason” requirement for each.
There may well have been slightly different reasons for this going back way beyond that 30 years long little local difficulty we had - indeed my first FAC was granted for an air rifle in 1968. Regardless of the reasoning the purchase of all ammunition - shotgun and bullet requires production of your FAC and said ammo is notated on it. Only in the last few years were pellets removed but paradoxically airguns are still on FAC and air pistols are “approved club range only” in exactly the same way as 22 and centre fire pistols - which we still have thank god!
Despite these hurdles there is still a healthy shooting sports community over here and it continues to thrive in its various forms despite the pretty onerous licensing requirements, What has happened however as a result of the utter chaos of firearms licensing and a new ( to NI) system is many owners have been put off renewing their FACs at all - simply because of the hassle associated with the completion of on-line documentation.
There is a school of thought that this is part of a deliberate strategy to reduce firearm numbers generally but I think a more rational view would be that it is merely weeding-out those firearms owners who in truth no longer use/need their guns. A sort of enhanced natural evolution if you like - my own view is that if I wasn’t using mine I would not want to keep them in the house anyway so it is hard to have any real difficulty with said reductions.
In summary it is clear that changes are a-coming, indeed the non-shooting public and the usual gaggle of self-servers will settle for nothing less in the wake of these terrible recent events. In my view providing individuals can satisfy the “good reason” requirement be it for “shot or shell“ there is probably not a lot to fear - at least that is my experience over more than half a century of a very strict gun ownership regime, more than half of it through some very difficult times.
Having just speed read the docs I think we have more to fear from this part response:-
“And today the Minister announced the launch of a consultation later this year into proposals to secure full cost recovery for firearms licenses from applicants”.
Just my thoughts chaps.
🦊🦊
 
Last edited:
Yes, sadly I can't help but believe that the law will change due to the ineptitude of D&C who have failed the public AND failed shooters by their grossly negligent actions, resulting in unlawful killings such as this one. It seems inevitable that in order to keep things as simple as possible for those who are meant to be applying the (already tight enough) gun laws, shooters will be the end losers in this. See costs rising and an end to buying a collection of shotguns (if that is your want) and seeing need established and limits to cartridges as well as tighter security for all ammunition. You can never legislate to protect the public against all eventualities but arguably this one was entirely preventable and the law already strong enough in legislation to have prevented it. Instead I feel strongly that the Police CC responsible should have resigned and that a full enquiry and retraining of all involved within that firearms department should take place. It's just so convenient and obviously extremely politically expedient to punish the law abiding shooters with yet ever more tightening of the legislation and costs likely involved going forward. Sickening and a black day for shooting sports once if these recommendations are enacted in the way we think they will be. How is it that the authorities at fault never seem to have criminal prosecutions brought for their obviously grossly negligent actions?
 
What I wonder will these potential changes do to the value of my H&H Royale already devalued by the potential lead ban........
 
enfieldspares said:
This:

The IOPC recommends that legislation and national guidance are amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.

In effect this will mean the end of the Shotgun Certificate and all shotguns moving to s1, I guess is what they want, rather than other way about with rifled arms and multi-shot shotguns moving to s2? Will this mean a requirement for cartridges to be entered on the certificate when purchased then kept in a locked cabinet as per s1 ammunition, and the need for the loan of a shotgun to fully comply with the "estate rifle" law especially "in the presence of" and with that also an end to the seventy-two hour rules as they presently apply regarding s2?
Click to expand...

Will never say never, but really cannot see this happing the firearms units would need a massive increase in resources and we all probably have many shotguns and would then need to justify each and every one as you do for sec.1 firearms. Then what would it actually achieve by way of increased public safety given the circumstances of the Plymouth tragedy.
 
It's an opportunity to silence the anti's and appease critics, and of course, to drive another nail into the coffin lid of gun ownership in the UK. Whether they staff accordingly to bring resources needed to bear is a moot point. They have barely the resource to cope presently.
 
Conor O'Gorman said:
BASC statement:

BASC statement on IOPC report into Keyham shootings

Read BASC's statement following the conclusion of the inquests into the shooting of five people by Jake Davison in 2021.
basc.org.uk basc.org.uk

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) report:

Recommendations to strengthen firearms licensing controls made following IOPC investigation into Keyham shootings | Independent Office for Police Conduct

www.policeconduct.gov.uk www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Click to expand...
The enquiry states that Davidson should never have been granted a SGC so it's a bit of a puzzle why any further legislation is needed, the lack of training for FLD personnel seems to feature heavily in the report
 
enfieldspares said:
This:

The IOPC recommends that legislation and national guidance are amended to remove any distinction between the processes and requirements in relation to shotgun and firearms certificate holders.

In effect this will mean the end of the Shotgun Certificate and all shotguns moving to s1, I guess is what they want, rather than other way about with rifled arms and multi-shot shotguns moving to s2? Will this mean a requirement for cartridges to be entered on the certificate when purchased then kept in a locked cabinet as per s1 ammunition, and the need for the loan of a shotgun to fully comply with the "estate rifle" law especially "in the presence of" and with that also an end to the seventy-two hour rules as they presently apply regarding s2?
Click to expand...
The counter argument is to move S1 to s2
 
Liveonce said:
Will never say never, but really cannot see this happing the firearms units would need a massive increase in resources and we all probably have many shotguns and would then need to justify each and every one as you do for sec.1 firearms. Then what would it actually achieve by way of increased public safety given the circumstances of the Plymouth tragedy.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that the IOPC has no statutory remit to suggest changes to law. Their sole purpose is to investigate incidents of police misconduct.
 
I would be pleased to hear any collective response from shooting. 2 no " misconducts " not gross misconduct allowing dismissal. I think this shows how life is really valued
1 FEO would have faced misconduct "if he had still been serving". This is effectively no consequence for another failure of process. Surely someone in the shooting org representatives might like to make the point that surely no-one would have issued this guy with a certificate or given his guns back. As for a failure of internal communication - there is simply no excuse within a force area. resources or lack of are no excuse and no mitigation - how simple is it to link the two together ?
 
If parliament is to revisit the Firearms Act this could be an opportunity to get rid of all the bureaucratic stuff associated with S1, streamline the whole process with a necessary focus on "fit to be entrusted"
 
Let me ask this. So it is in the open and put to bed.
1) Was the Plymouth shooter in fact at any time a BASC member?
2) To confirm that there was no input, either formal or informal from BASC to him to assist him in regaining his certificate? Or any contact initiated by him, either formal or informal, to BASC at any time at all?
 
enfieldspares said:
Let me ask this. So it is in the open and put to bed.
1) Was the Plymouth shooter in fact at any time a BASC member?
2) To confirm that there was no input, either formal or informal from BASC to him to assist him in regaining his certificate? Or any contact initiated by him, either formal or informal, to BASC at any time at all?
Click to expand...

Yes to BASC

While there was no requirement in law for the FEO to test or verify the reason Mr Davison gave for wanting a shotgun, he nonetheless recorded following the home visit that Mr Davison said he had joined the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), had previously shot clays, and had received lessons at Newnham Park shooting ground
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BASC issues statement in response to RSPB hen harrier report
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
4K
Conor O'Gorman
C
BASC publishes most comprehensive firearms licensing report to date
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Nimrod1960
Nimrod1960
Humberside Grant Waiting Time
Replies
0
Views
382
dc123
D
BASC statement in response to RSPB Birdcrime report
Replies
11
Views
1K
Spear Chucker
S
Firearms licensing on the agenda at BASC and FELWG meeting
Replies
15
Views
935
cjm1066
C
Shooting Supplies : Ammo - Reloading - Firearms - Optics - Accessories
Back
Top