Changes to Firearms Licensing. What would you do?

[NullMac]

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 issues arose it was suspended. The error in judgement was that they gave it back when (it looks from the outside) there was no real evidence to suggest it was safe or appropriate to do so.

So I would expect that this area may well be tightened up/hardened. If you lose it, then it may well become much harder to get it back. The few incidents I have heard of I was amazed they got it back at all. eg smashing a guys car up with a hammer with him still in it. With a smart lawyer he got it back.

This was also an issue in Dunblane where 2 officers did not believe Hamilton should have a firearm but the Chief Constable decided he would just go to court and get it back so they may as well renew.

Losing it should be a trigger for more detailed analysis over a minimum period of time. Make time available by implementing my changes above ! Keep the nutters out.

 

[Franchi Matt]

Its simply that we are all human and subject to falling down, I dont think you can ever see these things coming at the point of licensing... even if you had a medical from a GP - no disrespect to the industry- but they are also renowned for making mistakes so no guarantee there.
Luckily the recent events are rare, nearly as rare as a sercing police officer commiting a crime or abducting and murdering someone.
Most of us have thoughts and opinions we wouldnt dare mention to our FEO's, so where would further vetting get us?
IMHO if some poor bastard is at breaking point and going to kill someone, theres lots of tools/un licensed weapons he could use to do it and we see this on a daily basis.
In the grand scheme of things- us firearms holders are a good bunch, only a sliver of a percentage of us ever go on to commit offences with a firearm, show me another industry with success rate like that...?
Whilst recent events were truly tragic - I sincerely hope (as usually does) this issue will soon blow over allowing us to continue gun ownership without further sanctions, expense or mind probing.

 

[zambezi]

My wife was a career NHS nurse. Multi-dicipline, finished as a manager, now retired.

She has an interesting perspective: To what extent did the de-socialising consequence of lockdown have on a person who was already finding it hard to make relationships?

We know the lockdown has caused mental distress. We know that lockdowns have caused death. Is this an oblique example?

 

[spannulman]

A former met commissioner this morning is on the news saying all social media of applicants or holders should be studied to prevent this sort of thing. Seeing how quickly FAC holders go from ‘here‘ to ‘HERE!!!’on this forum might surprise them.

i just don’t think it can be policed. How would they know what accounts you have unless you tell them. You could use multiple email addresses to register, and a pseudonym To remain anonymous. It is a hugely disturbing minefield to think that the authorities would have access to all your accounts. and as others have said, who decides what is a threat? Ribald jokes? Near the knuckle or just downright racist, sexist or other ‘isms’? Wearing red trousers? Whose personal prejudice would decide whether a view by a FAC holder is acceptable or not?

and it is worthless unless the crazy person posts their stuff before applying, or will police check everyone’s accounts through the life of the cert in case they later become a risk? If I’m a dangerous fanatic or otherwise disturbed person I can just delete all my accounts and then apply for my FAC. if his own family and connections couldn’t see this coming And inform the police then how will the firearms teams manage it successfully?

But, all that aside, if he had his SGC Removed after an accusation and then returned post anger management course and his behaviour still wasn’t identified then it seems to me to be a risk all forces and the public have to accept; as the saying goes-“you can’t legislate for crazy/stupid”

 

[zambezi]

Considered and balanced risk analysis should reveal that incidents like this are vanishingly small. And that this particular case may have been avoided by different judgement on the part of D&C in the light of this perpetrators known history.

But there are circa 1/4m FACs, and many times that number of firearms in the U.K. All used safely for the purposes intended.

So misadventures must make up a fraction of total usage. Surely we would not enact draconian across-the-board measures for that tiny percentage?

...oh...wait a minute...yes...that has been the recent pattern of global behaviour...urgh

 

[Tazz]

There will be an enquiry that’s a given, the obvious initial part will be the individual concerned

How did he pass the SGC process and was anything missed
The incident of assault and the withdrawal of his license and shotgun
The facts around the return of his license and shotgun

I predict a wider potential review based on politicians and senior police officers that have been interviewed would want to look at

Screening to include social media on applications and renewals
More focus on mental health checks
Potentially more focus on “Why” an individual requires a SGC/FAC potentially dropping SGC and moving all weapons to FAC status ( The Chief Police officer who led the DunBlaine and Cumbria post shooting enquiries stated this on BBC this morning

The BMA are likely to raise concerns as they were not widely consulted when the current GP letters were introduced, they may refuse to get involved in the process of applications going forward. The other aspect will be cost, for any major changes or upgrades to the process there will be increased costs, who is going to bear those at a time of economic hardship

All this is speculation and time will tell what happens but IMHO the government will want to be able to show they changed something

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

In my opinion this is another nail in the coffin!

being a licensed gun holder had made this 100 times worse, i think there will be a massive push on health checks and even possibility of a forced medical and mental health checks for renewals.

the noose will certainly tighten thats for sure

 

[Jagdmatch]

Firearms licensing | College of Policing

www.app.college.police.uk

This is the standard that is expected.
The IOPC will be looking at decisions and how they were made based upon the National Decision making model which impacts on most aspects of policing.
There has been no real movement with training for the staff who administer the system for some time now (I think cost is a factor and the College of Policing is not that well managed) Mostly they seem to do a reasonable job with some exceptions.
Personally I would be thinking that the Cheif Constable should be considering resignation but in today’s mixed up world who actually does resign anymore?

 

[andyk]

My thinking is that this will likely go one of three ways.

No material changes (unlikely). The government could accept that the current system is already one of the world's most rigorous and does not need an overhaul, Perhaps there is a little more emphasis on GP checks and searches for someone's name on social media become more common as part of the grant renewal process but, in the main, things stay as they are. This is what happened after Cumbria/Bird so there is potential, but I fear the media coverage on this occasion means something will need to be 'seen to be done'.

Reform of suitability requirements and restrictions on some weapons (likely). A much greater emphasis is placed on assessing mental health, with a requirement for a mental health assessment either at grant/renewal or even during the term of the licence. A greater push for the 'GP marker' and so on. Either transfer of semi/pump to s1 in all cases or transfer of all to s5. I get the impression that public perception of semi/pump is worse than double guns (there may be no logic to that but I'm not convinced logic will feature too heavily in this).

Major restrictions on ownership (less likely). A tightening up of 'good reason' to make it so that shotguns/firearms are restricted mostly to semi/professional users. Target shooting as a 'good reason' removed or heavily restricted and shotguns moved to s1 (with semis and pumps to s5).

I'd go for the first, the real risk is small. The average number of road deaths is 4 to 5 per day yet no-one is calling for an overhaul of road safety laws (rhetorically, why does anyone need a car that can produce 300bhp, or be allowed to accrue 11 points before a ban).

However, I think political pressure will mean the second is preferred. The third would effectively destroy the entire shooting industry, which I think (hope) would result in enough pushback that the government won't go that far.

I do though think the GP marker needs making more of a requirement, i.e. for your GP to know you have a licence. This is not foolproof, of course, and really would need to be accompanied by a more sensible approach to mental health. I fear the risks of licence holders not seeking help early due to a fear of revocation are perhaps worse than the consequence of the GP maintaining confidentiality. If the GP is under an obligation to report, the holder needs to know that they will be treated fairly and their situation considered based on their circumstances, not a knee jerk 'you've asked about mental health so you're clearly dangerous'.

As to social media, I can't see any harm in the FEO having a quick scroll through FB, twitter etc. Some people may be stupid enough to leave these things under their name in public (there are enough news stories about people getting themselves into trouble this way) but it should not be seen as anything other than another facet of a background check.

 

[Pellet Pinger]

Firstly I can’t believe the Police don’t have a look on Facebook for a peek at an applicant, pretty much everyone else in society does when they buy something, check out a daughters boyfriend, job applicant etc. I don’t buy the privacy thing, we all sign up to the terms and conditions and I would have thought we handed out our privacy at that point.

Also I’m quite shocked that someone can have their license revoked and rifles taken on an assault accusation and within the space of a few months have them back after completing an Anger Management Course, whatever the circumstances it was deemed that the perpetrator needed this course to address anger issues, if that isn’t a big red light flashing then I don’t know what is.
That to me is crazy, the Police did the right thing when receiving the complaint but it looks to me the subsequent actions/decisions are the ones that have been the determining factor in this tragedy, not the original grant process.

 

[sikamalc]

Firstly I can’t believe the Police don’t have a look on Facebook for a peek at an applicant, pretty much everyone else in society does when they buy something, check out a daughters boyfriend, job applicant etc. I don’t buy the privacy thing, we all sign up to the terms and conditions and I would have thought we handed out our privacy at that point.

Also I’m quite shocked that someone can have their license revoked and rifles taken on an assault accusation and within the space of a few months have them back after completing an Anger Management Course, whatever the circumstances it was deemed that the perpetrator needed this course to address anger issues, if that isn’t a big red light flashing then I don’t know what is.
That to me is crazy, the Police did the right thing when receiving the complaint but it looks to me the subsequent actions/decisions are the ones that have been the determining factor in this tragedy, not the original grant process.

Oh they do. I know for a fact that many shooting and hunting forums are looked at by the authorities. It might not be regularly, but they certainly look into such places. They have contacted us before over one individual sometime back who made spurious remarks about his FEO.
Next thing I know the Chief constable of his county was on the phone to me and one of the other site owners asking us to take the remarks off the site. I had no idea about it until contacted, and was out at the time. The said individual is no longer on here.

One would hope that some lessons can be learnt from this recent awful event.

 

[User00035]

Firstly I can’t believe the Police don’t have a look on Facebook for a peek at an applicant, pretty much everyone else in society does when they buy something, check out a daughters boyfriend, job applicant etc. I don’t buy the privacy thing, we all sign up to the terms and conditions and I would have thought we handed out our privacy at that point.

Also I’m quite shocked that someone can have their license revoked and rifles taken on an assault accusation and within the space of a few months have them back after completing an Anger Management Course, whatever the circumstances it was deemed that the perpetrator needed this course to address anger issues, if that isn’t a big red light flashing then I don’t know what is.
That to me is crazy, the Police did the right thing when receiving the complaint but it looks to me the subsequent actions/decisions are the ones that have been the determining factor in this tragedy, not the original grant process.

I thought a refused applicant or revoked licence holder needed to demonstrate good character for about ten years before they had any chance of getting their ticket granted/returned.

 

[JTO]

I thought a refused applicant or revoked licence holder needed to demonstrate good character for about ten years before they had any chance of getting their ticket granted/returned.

Unless they appeal. BASC membership can put the police off being too cautious, knowing they could have to give evidence in court and be cross-examined by a barrister.

 

[andyk]

I think the key issue with the privacy point is that if you put it on a public forum, Twitter Facebook etc it’s public, not private.

The police need no more authority to check than anyone else does to view online profiles and can act on it just as if you were shouting it in the street.

 

[User00035]

Some sections of the press yesterday were calling for the police to look for a history of misogyny before granting FACs/SGCs. Presumably they will also want to see female applicants screened for tendencies to misandry at the same time, and at some stage no doubt, they'll be calling for political views to be taken into account.

 

[Heym SR20]

One thing that does need to be recognised in all of this, is that acute violent and ultimately suicidal episodes are very hard to predict. And that such individuals will use whatever they can will use whatever tool or implements are available be it a gun, knife, axe, car or whatever.

The challenge that the Plymouth incident has is that he used a legally held shotgun rather than a knife, axe or car.

None of us know the full facts, and I doubt we will ever know the full facts, but there are many questions that need answering.

What is not helpful is the incorrect from so called experts on the media. There was a professor of criminal pyschology being interviewed on Radio 4, claiming that a) there is no ongoing monitoring of firearms holders between renewals and b) that many privately held guns get stolen.

Both are incorrect - GPs are now obliged to flag your medical records and if they have any concerns then this should be raised with the police, and if your name comes up on any police activity it gets noted by Firearms licencing. I have had comments from my FEO about speeding tickets, but also my reporting drunken idiots causing damage in the school playground opposite.

And as to legally held firearms being stolen, well they should be secure, and if they are stolen then it is the result of burglary and the criminals are also in breach of firearms legislation which should add considerable time to any sentence

 

[Pedro]

The assumption that because of this incident there will be changes in firearms laws is not necessarily right. The last incident of note, in Cumbria where a dozen people were killed produced no changes.

Leaving aside what information the police had about the perpetrator of the Plymouth incident and whether they acted correctly in giving him his gun back, the common denominator for both these incidents (and others) is mental health. The current system whereby the applicant has to get the OK from his GP is piecemeal and differs from force to force. And an applicant's GP can only really confirm whether his/her patient has presented with a relevant condition and that's not definitive. So I think, if changes are to be considered, then that's the area they will concentrate on.

 

[User00035]

The assumption that because of this incident there will be changes in firearms laws is not necessarily right. The last incident of note, in Cumbria where a dozen people were killed produced no changes.

Leaving aside what information the police had about the perpetrator of the Plymouth incident and whether they acted correctly in giving him his gun back, the common denominator for both these incidents (and others) is mental health. The current system whereby the applicant has to get the OK from his GP is piecemeal and differs from force to force. And an applicant's GP can only really confirm whether his/her patient has presented with a relevant condition and that's not definitive. So I think, if changes are to be considered, then that's the area they will concentrate on.

We've had a change of government since Cumbria/Bird. Whatever his other faults, Cameron called that one about right. Review procedures, investigate whether the licencing authority in question made any mistakes and learn from them but otherwise make no knee-jerk changes to the law.
I'd be vastly surprised if our current prime Minister and his wife (yes, cynical I know, but watch this space..) take the same level-headed approach.
I hope I'm wrong, but I foresee politics entering this one, which will no doubt place further burdens on the police, add to the work loads of overstretched licencing authorities, penalise responsible licence holders and do nothing whatever to reduce gun crime, whether the gun is licenced or otherwise.

 

[User00035]

What is not helpful is the incorrect from so called experts on the media. There was a professor of criminal pyschology being interviewed on Radio 4, claiming that a) there is no ongoing monitoring of firearms holders between renewals and b) that many privately held guns get stolen.

Both are incorrect - GPs are now obliged to flag your medical records and if they have any concerns then this should be raised with the police, and if your name comes up on any police activity it gets noted by Firearms licencing.

It is staggering the amount of blatantly false information concerning firearms that gets spouted in the media by so-called experts. In any other area of life there would be legal ramifications.

 

[nun_hunter]

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 issues arose it was suspended. The error in judgement was that they gave it back when (it looks from the outside) there was no real evidence to suggest it was safe or appropriate to do so.

So I would expect that this area may well be tightened up/hardened. If you lose it, then it may well become much harder to get it back. The few incidents I have heard of I was amazed they got it back at all. eg smashing a guys car up with a hammer with him still in it. With a smart lawyer he got it back.

This was also an issue in Dunblane where 2 officers did not believe Hamilton should have a firearm but the Chief Constable decided he would just go to court and get it back so they may as well renew.

Losing it should be a trigger for more detailed analysis over a minimum period of time. Make time available by implementing my changes above ! Keep the nutters out.

You don't seem to understand that an allegation can be made by anyone against you no matter how false and you guns would be seized and not given back, how is that a good thing? Not to mention you have no idea what the police investigation into the allegation of assault turned up or how much work went into it.

You say "they gave it back when (it looks from the outside) there was no real evidence to suggest it was safe or appropriate to do so." If it was the case that there was any tiny shred of evidence known to them to give them cause to not return his FAC and shotgun then they'd be covering their arses in so many layers of protection and never giving them back. FLDs have no problem ****ing off one FAC/SGC holder by holding onto a cert if it means they wont face an IOPC investigation for a mass shooting and avoiding such a tragedy. They will do everything within the law to keep the guns off that individual, just ask the people on here who have had a cert revoked and how long and hard it was to get back.

An example is you cheat on your wife and she finds out and is upset and furious so says you threatened to shoot her to get back at you? No witnesses, no supporting evidence no previous bad behaviour so what do the police do? Seize your guns and investigate everything as much as they can. You never get convicted or even charged as there is insufficient evidence so what power do they prevent you from getting your guns back? Is it fair that someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law never gets their guns back because of a malicious complaint?