Firearms Law - Setting the Agenda

[Dalua]

I'm inclined to start from the position that pretty much every change ever made to firearms controls has made it more incovenient and expensive lawfully to own firearms. From that point of view, it doesn't seem a rational position to propose reviews/changes to the law and expect that the result will be cheaper and more-convenient for lawful firearms users. IMO, the best we should be trying to do is to get properly-funded FLDs, freed from having to impose micro-management (e.g. pointless discretionary conditions, which currently include the famous AOLQ - the condition which doesn't impose any conditions - mandated in the HO Guide) on people already assessed as fit to use firearms; so that they can keep an eye on the more-important stuff, the neglect of which seems to have been associated with tragic events in the past.

I think one of the problems is the inappropriate association of the statutory fee with the 'service' provided to applicants by the FLDs.

These two really need to be unhooked: the Police/FLDs have a duty in law fairly and impartially to administer the Firearms Act - which duty is a 'service' not to certificate-holders alone, but to the entire public - and they should be funded to be able to provide that 'service' effectively. By 'effectively' here I mean that they are able to safeguard the public and the peace without unduly inconveniencing certificate-holders/applicants (who, let us not forget, are also members of the public).

Since there remains (just about) a right in law for fit persons to own and use firearms, the statutory fee should be the only cost falling on the applicant (i.e. the 'medical' fee should be covered by the FLDs, rather than applicants) and must be sufficiently modest that it cannot reasonably be considered to precluding any subjects from exercising their right lawfully to own and use firearms.

If we want to know the government and (perhaps more-importantly) the police/Home Office agenda for firearms control, then a glance over its history since 1920, and a more-lingering look at the 1973 Green Paper, will probably tell us much of what we need to know.

I found this paper an interesting read. It has a very transatlantic flavour, but it gives us an interesting chance to see us as some others see us: ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

 

[Blaser243]

Politicians want (amongst other things, perhaps) two things: a good immediate headline and something that doesn't come back to bite them later in their careers. Removing restrictions (e.g. placing all firearms under s.2 type provisions) is never going to result in a good headline. Moving everything to s.1 could, and so is quite likely to happen. Removing responsibility from the police to a DVLA type organisation would be a hard-sell (to the media and public, never mind the police who will cling on to it even though they struggle with it in many instances).

What would be achievable (and result in positive politician-PR and a career history that doesn't ruin the risk of a gong in due course) is a single national police body for administering firearms certification. There are several national police bodies already, such as the National Crime Agency, CTPHQ, NABIS etc or independent national forces such as British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Establishing a single police body to adminster the licensing process nationally would result in harmonisation with the challenge of ensuring there is sufficient local intelligence and enforcement. Finding the funding to achieve this would also be an issue given how regional forces are currently funded - a new pot would have to be found. Practically, those police employees adminstering the system could be co-located on existing police premises but with line management within a separate organisation, reducing duplicative costs. A new national structure would keep accountability high (e.g. a Chief Constable could lead it, being accountable to the Home Secretary directly) at the same time as applying a standardised national approach, with increased efficiency and improved intelligence sharing. It would also remove the pressure for nearly 50 existing Chief Constables who I'm sure each fear another Plymouth happening in their back yard and having to deal with the resultant enquiry.

 

[Apthorpe]

Politicians want (amongst other things, perhaps) two things: a good immediate headline and something that doesn't come back to bite them later in their careers. Removing restrictions (e.g. placing all firearms under s.2 type provisions) is never going to result in a good headline. Moving everything to s.1 could, and so is quite likely to happen. Removing responsibility from the police to a DVLA type organisation would be a hard-sell (to the media and public, never mind the police who will cling on to it even though they struggle with it in many instances).

What would be achievable (and result in positive politician-PR and a career history that doesn't ruin the risk of a gong in due course) is a single national police body for administering firearms certification. There are several national police bodies already, such as the National Crime Agency, CTPHQ, NABIS etc or independent national forces such as British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Establishing a single police body to adminster the licensing process nationally would result in harmonisation with the challenge of ensuring there is sufficient local intelligence and enforcement.

If you want any sort of credibility for this organisation, it must not be a police organisation. Everyone knows the police are not fit to administer this, both on the grounds of their own institutionalised malfeasance and basic incompetence. Much better to have an independent, even private sector body set up to administer the application, vetting, grant and variation processes, with the police being administratively uninvolved and free to instead spend their time and efforts on intelligence, investigation and non-managerial oversight of the body.

Finding the funding to achieve this would also be an issue given how regional forces are currently funded - a new pot would have to be found.

That problem has been solved. The certificate application fees fully fund the costs. Since as you go on to point out, you anticipate efficiencies from removing duplication, then a reduction in licensing fees would be the logical consequence.

Practically, those police employees adminstering the system could be co-located on existing police premises but with line management within a separate organisation, reducing duplicative costs. A new national structure would keep accountability high (e.g. a Chief Constable could lead it, being accountable to the Home Secretary directly) at the same time as applying a standardised national approach, with increased efficiency and improved intelligence sharing.

No, it wouldn't. You don't get any proper accountability unless the people responsible for managing the system have personal criminal liability for serious failures - as leaders in private companies do. You can't have a situation where police chiefs are directly accountable to a politician. Policing has been independent, apparently since 1285. Positive politician-PR doesn't include authoritarian abuses of power....actually, it probably does, but history won't favour it.

It would also remove the pressure for nearly 50 existing Chief Constables who I'm sure each fear another Plymouth happening in their back yard and having to deal with the resultant enquiry.

 

[timbrayford]

A consultation by the Government of Firearms Law is awaited, with the prospect of closer "alignment" of shotgun and firearm “controls” (i.e. treating all shotguns more like Section 1 firearms) as an option under consideration. While we can be sure the shooting organisations will respond might that be too late as by then the Government will have set the agenda, it will be very easy for our sector to be seen as luddites concerned only with our own interests.

Might a more proactive approach work, with 516,500 of us in England & Wales holding a firearm and or a shotgun certificates, and we along with everyone benefiting from those aspects of the legislation that ensure public safely.

The key question is does the law and the way it is administered deliver this? The answer is a categoric NO. The Keyham inquest documents this:

serious failure to heed and apply the 2016 Home Office guidance​

​

Reflecting the culture within the FELU at the time, an insufficient degree of professional curiosity was demonstrated by the FEO and FLS.​

​

The decision to return the shotgun and licence to the perpetrator in July 2021 was fundamentally flawed and as a result failed to protect the public and the peace.​

​

The officer investigating the skate park assaults in September 2020 should have noted that the perpetrator was a firearms certificate holder and taken immediate steps to alert the FELU to the incident.​

​

The use of the Pathfinder scheme in this instance was wholly inadequate in reducing the perpetrator’s future offending.​

​

On reviewing the perpetrator’s suitability to retain the shotgun certificate, the FEO ought to have shown a greater degree of professional curiosity in obtaining and evaluating further information. The case was not passed to the FLM for review which was against Home Office guidance.​

There was a serious failure at a national level by the government, Home Office and National College of Policing to implement the recommendation from Lord Cullen’s Report in 1996 arising out of the fatal shootings in Dunblane, to provide training for FEOs and the subsequent recommendation in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary’s Targeting the Risk Report in 2015 for an accredited training regime for FEOs. The most recent statutory guidance from the Home Office (2021) has failed

That’s just a flavour of the report available at: Maxine Davison, Lee Martyn, Sophie Martyn, Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd: Prevention of future deaths report - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Alongside this we have the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner John Tizard who has written to the Home Secretary after the murder of 3 family members with a shotgun obtained via a forged certificate.

It is clear to me that there should be a national database of firearm licence holders or the ability of police services to be able to interrogate each other’s databases.​

Even Parliament recognises that the Police are unable to administer the law efficiently; they amended the law in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to extend certificate life by 8 weeks if the applicant has applied in good time. It is not all the Police Forces who are inept, Cleveland can administer a renewal in 35 days and a grant in 48 days – yet the average is 77 and 94 days with Cumbria taking over 170 days. Finance isn’t an issue as the fees for shotguns and firearms certificates have recently been increased.

The proposals for closer "alignment" of shotgun and firearm “controls are thus likely to impose extra burdens on a police service struggling to cope with the existing law and reduce efficiency and public safety.

The key difference between shotguns and firearms is that firearms are licensed individually, is this beneficial – in the hand of a spree killer one gun is enough. Do more guns in a household represent more danger, perhaps in term of security as a target for theft? No as we already have guidance in the Firearms Security Handbook 2020 https://assets.publishing.service.g...f0bf63ab9e5/Firearms_Security_Manual_2020.pdf that recommends a tiered approach with 3 different levels of security depending on individual circumstances.

Firearms are also licensed individually according to “good reason” thus creates additional bureaucracy in that if a shooter wants to swap one rifle for another, the Police have to administer this process imposing on average a 85 day delays on a process that should be as simple as changing a car for a similar model. This could be delivered in accordance with the Guide on Firearms Licensing Law November 2022 https://assets.publishing.service.g...f4a71cf385/Firearms_Guide_-_November_2022.pdf which for sporting purposes has identified 4 activities each encompassing a range of rifles (Vermin & ground game and other small quarry, Fox and other medium quarry, Deer and other large quarry & Dangerous Game). Target shooting also encompasses a range of disciplines and if a shooter want to change to another discipline offered by his club, is Police involvement beneficial – this is perhaps akin using the car analogy like changing from a SUV to an estate or sports car?

We face the prospect of closer "alignment" creating huge additional burdens for a Police service that although well intentioned will not deliver public benefits. Merging the two systems of licensing to remove needless bureaucracy alongside a using a national database of licence holders would create greater efficiency and release a huge amount of Police time to address the operational failures identified in the Keyham and Bedfordshire spree killings!

Alas the Governments agenda is flawed, but it could so easily be directed at the operational changes already identified, that would deliver benefits to the public and hopefully an easier 1 for 1 variation system, as I doubt the general public would understand why changing one rifle for another require the level of Police involvement currently required.

How to deliver this? Contact your shooting organisation asking them to work together and set the agenda, contact your MP - please spend more time on these tasks that responding on SD..

Already did so back when the fees increase was announced. The fact of the matter is the a firearms act designed to prevent an armed uprising post ww1 is no longer fit for purpose. We don't need multiple FLDs duplicating the same work nor cumbersome bits of paperwork, banks went online long ago.The police seem to believe that they have carte blanche to micro manage shooting activities with nonsense discussions around calibre, use of existing firearms for additional purposes and perhaps worst of all confusing good reason with need.To summarise if they are going to tinker with the firearms act as far as the lawful civilian use goes they need to start again from scratch, perhaps with a whole new act separate from the existing one?

 

[charlie222]

I agree with engaging with the public. Give them the facts to realize that this constant erosion of gun ownership is achieving nothing. How about starting with handguns being made illegal for decades so how can 40% of all gun crime involve hand guns? Then move on to the facts regarding percentages of gun crime committed using licensed guns, absolutely tiny. People are concerned about having their rights restricted, maybe they might think their's will be next? The politicians will bow to public opinion, first though, the public needs an informed one.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Conor O'Gorman, How about addressing the above suggestion of using some of the fighting fund to fight?
What would a few full page newspaper ads / statements of FACT cost?

The cost varies and we do sometimes do this, as appropriate, considering cost, timing and content. On the topic of further restrictions to firearms ownership prompted by tragic events there are pros and cons to covering content like that in an advert as demonstrated by some of the comments above.

 

[Elshad]

Getting .22 handguns back should be the bare minumum ask for any sort of "grand bargain" with the government on licensing.

There is no other European country that has an absolute prohibition on handguns like GB and it has now been more than 25 years and it's time to revisit this issue.

Even similarly restrictive states like Ireland permit small-calibre handguns.

 

[Jamoy1993]

If they do move shotguns to FACS does that mean for every shotgun we need to apply for a variation? If that is the case then it will be garbage, even if they remove magazine restrictions on semi automatics and pump actions!

I dont understand why they think this is a good idea as it does not solve the problem that resulted in the maniac getting his hands on a shotgun in the first place: The system is crap and needs to be digitised with more services available to shooters and governing bodies to use to prevent backlogs and forgeries!

 

[LE9219]

If they do move shotguns to FACS does that mean for every shotgun we need to apply for a variation? If that is the case then it will be garbage, even if they remove magazine restrictions on semi automatics and pump actions!

I dont understand why they think this is a good idea as it does not solve the problem that resulted in the maniac getting his hands on a shotgun in the first place: The system is crap and needs to be digitised with more services available to shooters and governing bodies to use to prevent backlogs and forgeries!

According to countryside alliance's e- lobby letter it does, 150000 shotgun transfers last year, just imagine the backlog

 

[63]

If they do move shotguns to FACS does that mean for every shotgun we need to apply for a variation? If that is the case then it will be garbage, even if they remove magazine restrictions on semi automatics and pump actions!

I dont understand why they think this is a good idea as it does not solve the problem that resulted in the maniac getting his hands on a shotgun in the first place: The system is crap and needs to be digitised with more services available to shooters and governing bodies to use to prevent backlogs and forgeries!

From memory, one of the points brought out in the enquiry from the Plymouth shootings was that S2 doesn't really have a 'good reason' component like S1 does, and that S2 firearms are licenced as a category rather than as individual guns.

The suggestion is that they move shotguns onto 'an equivalent regime' - precisely what that would look like in practice hasn't been published yet, but a reasonable assumption is that it would be a precise copy of the S1 conditions. It is possible that the suggestion will be for some kind of halfway house, or maybe the addition of a more robust 'good reason' element to S2 applications - presumably Police FLD's are not going to be pushing hard for an absolute **** load of extra work, so I expect there will be some debate 'within the system' as it were as to how to proceed.

 

[63]

No, it wouldn't. You don't get any proper accountability unless the people responsible for managing the system have personal criminal liability for serious failures - as leaders in private companies do. You can't have a situation where police chiefs are directly accountable to a politician. Policing has been independent, apparently since 1285. Positive politician-PR doesn't include authoritarian abuses of power....actually, it probably does, but history won't favour it.

Of the three main national policing bodies, two are accountable to politicians. The NCA is directly accountable to the Home Secretary and through them to Parliament, the MDP is accountable to the Secretary of State for Defence, albeit via a committee appointed by the SoS, but the BTP are accountable to the BTP Authority which is an independent body.

I'd say it's a stretch to suggest that private sector leaders have personal criminal liability for 'serious failures'. They have personal criminal liability for criminal acts for which they are responsible, which might include things they should have/could have managed better, rather than just things they personally have done, but 'serious failures' like going bankrupt or running a crap loss making business aren't criminal offences.

Regardless, both the public sector and private sector are pretty rife with senior leadership chucking their subordinates under the consequences bus when required....

If you want any sort of credibility for this organisation, it must not be a police organisation. Everyone knows the police are not fit to administer this, both on the grounds of their own institutionalised malfeasance and basic incompetence. Much better to have an independent, even private sector body set up to administer the application, vetting, grant and variation processes, with the police being administratively uninvolved and free to instead spend their time and efforts on intelligence, investigation and non-managerial oversight of the body.

I like the idea of an independent organisation, but I'm not convinced about private sector involvement. The likes of G4S, Serco and Sodexho have managed to utterly screw up everything they've touched from olympic security through military catering and on to running prisons. Based on the quality of their breakfasts Sodexho and Serco would take 8 years to grant an FAC and would give you an ammunition allowance of 3 rounds for a rifle belonging to a guy in the next county.

 

[Dickie]

Let’s face it the truth of the matter is shotguns are used for grouse and pheasants shooting the left liebour think by making or obtaining a shotgun certificate more difficult will dry bum the Tory voting toffs who shoot grouse and pheasants.
Public Safety never come in to it.

 

[cjm1066]

BSSC, BASC and Countryside Alliance have all seen this material.

Has anyone contacted the other organisations listed by BASC's Conor O'Gorman?

 

[cjm1066]

We now have the new statutory guidance, some sense in parts of it.

However the Plymouth tragedy showed massive incompetence by the Police, will the new guidance help, not if they aren't held to account I am afraid.

As for 2 references, that's fiddling around the edges, we all have a range of friends and acquaintances and can choose accordingly.

 

[nightcrow]

What the OP has written shows that Keyham was the fault of the Police failing to protect, the shooting orgs should take the initiative, have full page adverts in the national news papers, stating how Keyham happened, making it difficult for the government to justify further licensing restrictions, especially following the increase in fees were to train licensing staff and property resource them.

Yes,and aggravated by that prat Pollard.