Changing rules on gun ownership - action required - BASC advice

[Vapours]

Done

 

[mikeakc]

Done

 

[Ally Fox]

Done, consultations will be same as Transport for London ULEZ and congestion charging, ignored.

 

[markj1]

I can see both sides, but fundamentally the courts impose prison sentences on those whom the think deserve it. Somebody who gets three or five years for whatever they have done should not be able to use firearms.

Some might argue that “white collar” crime is not the same as say murder or GBH. But in the eyes of the law the punishments can be equally harsh as they all have serious impact for their victims. Consequence of being defrauded from your life savings by a ponzi scheme is probably as equally as damaging as being robbed at gunpoint.

At the moment its clear and succinct and no room for argument.

If you go to jail = no longer use of guns.

If your jail sentence is subsequently quashed and overturned then in the eyes of the law you never went to jail.

In 2001, Gary Hart was sentenced to 5 years in prison, after falling asleep at the wheel of his Land Rover and causing a train crash that cost the lives of 10 people. Would you say that he should be automatically disqualified from ever owning a shotgun?

 

[Tirea]

Done

 

[sikamalc]

Done.

 

[Greenmist]

In 2001, Gary Hart was sentenced to 5 years in prison, after falling asleep at the wheel of his Land Rover and causing a train crash that cost the lives of 10 people. Would you say that he should be automatically disqualified from ever owning a shotgun?

Yes, for two reasons, he lied about the cause of his vehicle leaving the road, saying it was a mechanical fault, which was later proved to be untrue. He also drove in an unfit state, tired, which caused him to fall asleep at the wheel.
While I also think lots of things went wrong, ie him falling asleep, the location, the size of the vehicle and the trains, he did contact emergency services prior to the first collision, however, the fact he tried to cover up his error shows poor character

 

[BLUEROLL]

Done.

 

[nun_hunter]

I can see both sides, but fundamentally the courts impose prison sentences on those whom the think deserve it. Somebody who gets three or five years for whatever they have done should not be able to use firearms.

Some might argue that “white collar” crime is not the same as say murder or GBH. But in the eyes of the law the punishments can be equally harsh as they all have serious impact for their victims. Consequence of being defrauded from your life savings by a ponzi scheme is probably as equally as damaging as being robbed at gunpoint.

At the moment its clear and succinct and no room for argument.

If you go to jail = no longer use of guns.

If your jail sentence is subsequently quashed and overturned then in the eyes of the law you never went to jail.

The issue lies with the fact that firearms licensing is based solely on protecting the public from danger with legally held firearms so does a fraud conviction have any bearing on someone's danger to the public via a firearms threat?

Then you have the belief/understanding that once a punishment is served you have done your time, are rehabilitated and free to continue your life. So a crime committed 10 years ago under different life circumstances may not be relevant to the danger posed to the public today.

Otherwise by the same logic anyone who suffered from depression or potentially other health conditions that are no longer present should also still be barred from owning firearms. which I think most of us would agree shouldn't be the case.

 

[JTO]

Done

 

[Tony Morgan]

If more than 10% of shooters bother to reply I'll be amazed

But you have of course.

 

[Heym SR20]

The issue lies with the fact that firearms licensing is based solely on protecting the public from danger with legally held firearms so does a fraud conviction have any bearing on someone's danger to the public via a firearms threat?

Then you have the belief/understanding that once a punishment is served you have done your time, are rehabilitated and free to continue your life. So a crime committed 10 years ago under different life circumstances may not be relevant to the danger posed to the public today.

Otherwise by the same logic anyone who suffered from depression or potentially other health conditions that are no longer present should also still be barred from owning firearms. which I think most of us would agree shouldn't be the case.

I would disagree. Somebody who is committed for fraud is likely to be other crime - money laundering etc etc. whilst they might not necessarily pull the trigger, they may well be enabling those that do.

And often it may be a technical tax related issue that eventually means he is taken out of society, rather other crimes that he is suspected of.

Yes there is the basis of justice of once you have done your time you are free to come back into society. And fully support this.

But there are circumstances where a criminal conviction prevents you doing a number of things and owning and possessing a firearm is one of these.

 

[trickie]

Done

 

[pob]

Done

Those BASC prompts were useful. I made comments about removing moderators from licensing. Also changes to ammo allowances to support the move to non-toxic. I've heard of people losing their tickets for being a round over. That doesn't seem like a risk to public safety to me.

 

[stubear]

Done it also

 

[Redneck]

Done

 

[markj1]

J

The issue lies with the fact that firearms licensing is based solely on protecting the public from danger with legally held firearms so does a fraud conviction have any bearing on someone's danger to the public via a firearms threat?

Then you have the belief/understanding that once a punishment is served you have done your time, are rehabilitated and free to continue your life. So a crime committed 10 years ago under different life circumstances may not be relevant to the danger posed to the public today.

Otherwise by the same logic anyone who suffered from depression or potentially other health conditions that are no longer present should also still be barred from owning firearms. which I think most of us would agree shouldn't be the case.

Not directly related, but I wonder how many firearm owners who experience depression or other mental health issues avoid getting help for fear of losing their FAC/SGC?

 

[pjkaz]

Done.

 

[nun_hunter]

But there are circumstances where a criminal conviction prevents you doing a number of things and owning and possessing a firearm is one of these.

Even if the circumstances are completely unrelated?

So if you got caught speeding, say 40mph in a 30 mph which shows either a lack of attention to your surroundings ( how fast you are going or how fast you should be going) or a total disregard for the speed limits in place, does that also shows you have a disregard for firearms law or are likely to not be aware of your surroundings while shooting?

Or are they two unrelated activities and so although you may present a danger to the public via your driving (hit a pedestrian at 40mph and there is a 90% chance they will die) you don't pose a danger through firearms ownership and use?

Clearly the law and police do see a difference as a speeding conviction isn't an automatic ban to owning firearms.

Clearly yourself and others on here have never once broke the speed limit or if you have you believe that one dangerous activity or incident doesn't make you a danger by owning firearms?

A prolonged pattern of relevant behaviour or current behaviour is a better indication if someone is likely to pose a danger to the public rather than a one off incident 20 years ago (as mentioned in the car crash from 2001 earlier).

 

[Scotty99]

Done