@Conor O'Gorman , will BASC be pushing the infringement of rights angle?
Government responds to 2023 firearms licensing consultation
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Sounds like we're more guilty than a guilty criminal that a warrant is required for entry to their premises where illegal firearms maybe stored, than a legally abiding FAC & SGC holder.
As is always said apathy in the number of responses to the forgone paper, I mean consultation will always be part of the death of shooting.
As is always said apathy in the number of responses to the forgone paper, I mean consultation will always be part of the death of shooting.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
You've posted a link from a Conservative newspaper article, from a paywalled website. Consequently only the headlines can be read.
Labour could tighten shotgun rules in another red rag to farmers — The Times and The Sunday Times
Farmers fear they could be stopped from keeping shotguns at home under government recommendations to overhaul firearms law. Ministers will consult on tighter control of shotguns after the last Conservative administration exempted them from potential changes. Countryside campaigners said the...apple.news
There is nothing to support this suggestion in the rest of the Times article, which is mainly another diatribe against the inheritance tax changes on farms.
As this is in no way connected I've edited out the associated text. Please don't insult the intelligence of readers as the tory press does.
Context
The controls on shotguns
2.2 The previous government decided, before publishing the consultation, not to consult on the recommendations that had been made to align shotgun and firearms legislation. This was on the basis that shotguns were already subject to significant controls and have important uses in farming and in leisure pursuits. We have noted, however, that a number of respondents to the consultation expressed disappointment that it did not include the issue of closer alignment of the controls on shotguns and other firearms. This included some law enforcement respondents, who considered that further controls on shotguns would increase public safety, and others including people who had been affected by shotgun shooting incidents. Some of these respondents pointed to the risks associated with shotguns being kept in certificate holders’ own homes, including in towns and cities.2.3 The government takes the view that shotguns are no less lethal than other firearms that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, and that it is right to look again at the differences in the controls and whether it is sensible, in order to address the risks that shotguns and firearms present if misused, to consider greater alignment of the controls. The government therefore intends to issue a new consultation on improving and aligning the controls on shotguns with other firearms. We intend to publish this consultation later this year.
Labour could tighten shotgun rules in another red rag to farmers.Geraldine Scott, Senior Political Correspondent | Laurence Sleator The Times
Thursday February 13 2025
Farmers fear they could be stopped from keeping shotguns at home under government recommendations to overhaul firearms law. Ministers will consult on tighter control of shotguns after the last Conservative administration exempted them from potential changes.
Countryside campaigners said the proposals were “draconian and unreasonable” and would be seen as “part of a wider anti-rural agenda”.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
I have asked the firearms team for an explanation on this from what stems from firearms legislation for that terminology - but logically bullets fired from a rifle are capable of being lethal at longer distances than pellets from a shotgun. However, I will come back on that one.
Subsistence
Well-Known Member
Funny isn't it, this democracy we have. We all get a vote, and have to put up with the results even if it goes against what we personally voted for, that is after all democracy.
However, our elected officials are meant to represent our wishes, this is the reason we elected them, again this is how democracy is supposed to work, however, when they ask us a question they can do what they want with the answers even if +80% of respondents say thay wanted something else.
What a time to be alive.
I suppose we’ll have to see what it looks like, but the suggestion is ‘greater alignment’ so it’s possible the result could be some, but not all, of the restrictions.
I, for one, will reply to any such consultation and make the point that simply removing s2 and making anything other than an airgun s1 is far from as simple as it seems. For example, clay grounds would struggle to operate if that was the case and there would be a near enough complete prohibition on non-certificate holders shooting. Further, those grounds that offer corporate days, stag dos etc would be completely unable to do that.
If their concern is that Davison, and others like him, obtained a shotgun without really having a reason, then a requirement of general good reason for the grant of the certificate could be brought in, without the need for each gun to be justified.
Trouble is, they seem more interested in sound bites than facts…
If they really wanted to promote public safety and save families from the grief of losing loved ones, they’d legislate against young drivers. There have been plenty of car accidents caused by ****head teenagers where the death toll is equivalent to Keyham. I doubt it’s much consolation that the killer was showing off his corsa and ‘didn’t mean it’.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The outcome of the 2023 consultation published yesterday contains a list of government decisions that will be actioned. Some of that will require legislation other aspects not.
Separate to that, it was announced yesterday that there would be a consultation this year on proposals to align the shotgun certification process with that of the firearm regime. That was not included in the 2023 consultation.
This was in a ministerial written statement here on that:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-02-13/hcws450
And see also this information published in yesterday's 2023 consultation outcome paper:
The controls on shotguns
2.2 The previous government decided, before publishing the consultation, not to consult on the recommendations that had been made to align shotgun and firearms legislation. This was on the basis that shotguns were already subject to significant controls and have important uses in farming and in leisure pursuits. We have noted, however, that a number of respondents to the consultation expressed disappointment that it did not include the issue of closer alignment of the controls on shotguns and other firearms. This included some law enforcement respondents, who considered that further controls on shotguns would increase public safety, and others including people who had been affected by shotgun shooting incidents. Some of these respondents pointed to the risks associated with shotguns being kept in certificate holders’ own homes, including in towns and cities.2.3 The government takes the view that shotguns are no less lethal than other firearms that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, and that it is right to look again at the differences in the controls and whether it is sensible, in order to address the risks that shotguns and firearms present if misused, to consider greater alignment of the controls. The government therefore intends to issue a new consultation on improving and aligning the controls on shotguns with other firearms. We intend to publish this consultation later this year.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The government’s proposal is for a power of entry where there are grounds for reviewing suitability, but the certificate holder is uncooperative with the police. BASC is scrutinising the government’s proposals in detail and will strongly oppose any measures that unfairly penalise the shooting community.
The full text from the 2023 consultation outcome paper is:
(a) A power of immediate seizure of firearms, shotguns and ammunition
5.2 The police have powers to seize firearms, shotguns and ammunition where there is an immediate threat to life. The Coroner for the Keyham Inquest expressed concern that there is, however, no statutory power for the police to enter property and to seize firearms, shotguns or ammunition where there was a justification for reviewing suitability to hold a firearms certificate, but where there was no immediate threat to life. In such circumstances, the police currently rely on either voluntary surrender by the certificate holder or by seeking a warrant from a magistrate (or Sheriff in Scotland) under section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968.
5.3 The consultation asked whether, in view of the potential public safety risks, the police should be granted a specific power of entry (without a warrant issued by a magistrate or sheriff) to be able to seize shotguns, firearms and ammunition where there is a risk to public safety or the peace and the certificate holder does not cooperate with the police and agree to voluntary surrender? Of those who responded to this question, 82% of members of the shooting community, 83% of members of the farming/rural community and 80% of those who did not self-report as belonging to any of these groups responded ‘no’ to this question. The response was very different for other groups; 45% of GPs/health care professionals, 26% of those in law enforcement and 25% of those who described themselves as victims/friends/family/community of victims of gun crime.
5.4 A number of respondents provided written comments relating to this question. Many considered that the requirement to obtain a warrant represented an important safeguard, noting that the police already have sufficient powers of entry, and powers to seize firearms, where there is a risk to life, public safety or the peace, and the power to revoke the firearms certificate. Some respondents considered that this might increase the number of unnecessary seizures, with the police being ‘over cautious’ and seizing firearms on a ‘just in case’ basis, without proper and sufficient evidence of an actual risk. If there is a concern here that the requirement to obtain a warrant creates an unacceptable delay where there are genuine public safety concerns, some respondents suggested the alternative of allowing for accelerated arrangements to obtain a warrant in firearms cases, which would still include the important element of scrutiny by a magistrate or Sheriff in Scotland.
5.5 Other respondents, including some from a law enforcement background, considered that in some circumstances the potential time delay in having to obtain a warrant could substantially increase the risk of serious injury or death, representing a tactically challenging situation for the police. We were told that practice was not consistent between police forces, with some more likely to seize weapons in the face of a potential risk, while others were less inclined to do so. It was therefore suggested to us that creating a clear power would provide greater certainty. Others agreed that a power to seize firearms without a warrant was a good idea in the interests of public safety, but only if there were guaranteed arrangements in place to allow the certificate holder to retrieve their firearms without delay where this turned out to be safe and appropriate.
5.6 The government’s attention was also drawn to the potential impact on other members of a household who might be present and could be affected if the police were to be given additional powers of entry. We were told about the importance of ensuring that any such operations are appropriately planned and coordinated so that they do not inadvertently create additional risks to members of the household, for example those who might be at risk of domestic abuse.
5.7 Having weighed up the evidence, and having considered the responses to this consultation, the government’s view is that there is a potential public safety gap in that the police do not have a backstop power to enter premises to seize firearms where there are grounds for re-assessing a certificate holder’s suitability, but the certificate holder is uncooperative with the police. The delay that is caused by the need to obtain a warrant could prove fatal. While it is to be hoped that a certificate holder will usually cooperate with the police, a new backstop power will provide certainty that the police can act decisively should circumstances so require. The government therefore intends to legislate to provide the police with a new power of entry when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
Surely that power already exists, ie if a crime or harm is about to be committed. I think you're right to be concerned, as this will no doubt evolve into turning up whenever they feel like in the hope of catching someone out. Have BASC approached counsel on this matter
Utectok
Well-Known Member
Fair point I was only slightly shocked that the idea we had to keep our guns at an rfd was even being considered as its patently unworkable from a practical point of view.You've posted a link from a Conservative newspaper article, from a paywalled website. Consequently only the headlines can be read.
There is nothing to support this suggestion in the rest of the Times article, which is mainly another diatribe against the inheritance tax changes on farms.
As this is in no way connected I've edited out the associated text. Please don't insult the intelligence of readers as the tory press does.
Context
The controls on shotguns
2.2 The previous government decided, before publishing the consultation, not to consult on the recommendations that had been made to align shotgun and firearms legislation. This was on the basis that shotguns were already subject to significant controls and have important uses in farming and in leisure pursuits. We have noted, however, that a number of respondents to the consultation expressed disappointment that it did not include the issue of closer alignment of the controls on shotguns and other firearms. This included some law enforcement respondents, who considered that further controls on shotguns would increase public safety, and others including people who had been affected by shotgun shooting incidents. Some of these respondents pointed to the risks associated with shotguns being kept in certificate holders’ own homes, including in towns and cities.
2.3 The government takes the view that shotguns are no less lethal than other firearms that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, and that it is right to look again at the differences in the controls and whether it is sensible, in order to address the risks that shotguns and firearms present if misused, to consider greater alignment of the controls. The government therefore intends to issue a new consultation on improving and aligning the controls on shotguns with other firearms. We intend to publish this consultation later this year.
Labour could tighten shotgun rules in another red rag to farmers.
Geraldine Scott, Senior Political Correspondent | Laurence Sleator The Times
Thursday February 13 2025
Farmers fear they could be stopped from keeping shotguns at home under government recommendations to overhaul firearms law. Ministers will consult on tighter control of shotguns after the last Conservative administration exempted them from potential changes.
Countryside campaigners said the proposals were “draconian and unreasonable” and would be seen as “part of a wider anti-rural agenda”.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Yes we are getting a legal opinion.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
There is nothing in the proposals about keeping guns with a club or a registered firearms dealer and collecting them when needed. The much bandied about £400 rise in firearms licensing fees also originated from an opinion in an article in the press.
@Conor O'Gorman as a member of BASC, I do hope the view is taken to push back against this vigorously. I can see there may be a temptation to see it as reasonable, as it may help in some situations. However, and as a quick thought experiment, imagine if the Government proposed that, to tackle knife crime, the police would be given a power to enter the house of anyone suspected of being involved in a gang (and when I say suspected, the implication would be the suspicion is not sufficient to be more likely than not, only a possibility) to search for knives (including knives of a legal design) and to seize them. That policy could easily be justified on public safety grounds, people are being stabbed and killed every week, and I don't doubt that the police have an idea of who the offenders are before they are able to take action against them. I'd wager that would be front page news, and I can already picture Shami Chakrabarti (or whoever her replacement is) giving interview after interview about how this is an affront to civil rights and the ECHR/HRA.
A policy of warrantless search where there is no imminent risk to a person would be unacceptable in any other situation yet, for some reason, wanting to go shooting is such an aberration that anyone who wishes to do so must expect to surrender liberties that known drug dealers, paedophiles etc can expect to maintain. That cannot be correct. If, as a group, we submit to such we are tacitly accepting that our chosen pastime is so outside of the realms of what it is reasonable, that it is unreasonable for us to maintain basis rights to privacy.
The Home Office/Police will undoubtedly say that this will only be used in the most limited situations, where someone is particularly uncooperative or so forth. However, and as you've noted, they already have the power to revoke a certificate if, on the balance of probabilities, they consider the holder can no longer have one without a risk to public safety. They could also force entry if they believe there is an imminent threat. This power is being proposed to cover a situation where (a) the police do not have evidence to show that the certificate holder is more likely than not to pose a risk to the public, and (b) there is no imminent threat to the public. In other words, it is expressly to provide for the situation where there is suspicion of wrongdoing but no compelling evidence. You do not have to cast around for long to find that FLD's have a very low bar to be suspicious of someone's continued suitability.
However, and appreciative that the above is all negative, what might an alternative solution look like?
It's my understanding that the current tendency of FLDs to ask for someone to voluntarily surrender their certificate is a legal grey area. The Firearms Acts do not recognise a suspension, someone is either has a certificate or they don't. As such, voluntary surrender works by the holder agreeing to hand over their certificate and either give their guns to the police or someone else who can keep them. Without their certificate, which is now held by the FLD, they can't get them back.
The trouble with this is there's no right of appeal or review as the person is still certificated, even if they don't have it in their possession. The FLD, having removed what they deem to be the imminent threat, have no need to swiftly review whether the issue that led to the voluntary surrender justifies revocation and it may be that management are reluctant to make a call one way or the other. So the certificate holder risks an indeterminate wait to find out whether they will get their certificate back.
Of course, the certificate holder could refuse voluntary surrender and force the FLD to 'put up or shut up' but that risks a full revocation which would only be reversible on appeal with the added costs and stress. Even then, the revocation is likely to follow them around.
There does seem a case for the police having a power to formally suspend a license. This could be much as with being suspended from employment and be treated as a 'neutral act'. The power should be caveated, with a stipulation that the suspension is time limited and cannot be extended without the FLD going to a Judge (or other independent body) and, at the end of the time limit, the certificate must be returned if the FLD has not found grounds to revoke.
By suspending the license, the police could then compel the certificate holder to hand over their guns (or transfer them to a RFD) as their continued possession would be illegal, allowing a forced entry if required. While the end result is similar, my proposal would seem more in keeping with accepted norms of what the police can/can't do and would bring with it safeguards that don't currently exist under the 'voluntary surrender' regime.
Just a thought...
A policy of warrantless search where there is no imminent risk to a person would be unacceptable in any other situation yet, for some reason, wanting to go shooting is such an aberration that anyone who wishes to do so must expect to surrender liberties that known drug dealers, paedophiles etc can expect to maintain. That cannot be correct. If, as a group, we submit to such we are tacitly accepting that our chosen pastime is so outside of the realms of what it is reasonable, that it is unreasonable for us to maintain basis rights to privacy.
The Home Office/Police will undoubtedly say that this will only be used in the most limited situations, where someone is particularly uncooperative or so forth. However, and as you've noted, they already have the power to revoke a certificate if, on the balance of probabilities, they consider the holder can no longer have one without a risk to public safety. They could also force entry if they believe there is an imminent threat. This power is being proposed to cover a situation where (a) the police do not have evidence to show that the certificate holder is more likely than not to pose a risk to the public, and (b) there is no imminent threat to the public. In other words, it is expressly to provide for the situation where there is suspicion of wrongdoing but no compelling evidence. You do not have to cast around for long to find that FLD's have a very low bar to be suspicious of someone's continued suitability.
However, and appreciative that the above is all negative, what might an alternative solution look like?
It's my understanding that the current tendency of FLDs to ask for someone to voluntarily surrender their certificate is a legal grey area. The Firearms Acts do not recognise a suspension, someone is either has a certificate or they don't. As such, voluntary surrender works by the holder agreeing to hand over their certificate and either give their guns to the police or someone else who can keep them. Without their certificate, which is now held by the FLD, they can't get them back.
The trouble with this is there's no right of appeal or review as the person is still certificated, even if they don't have it in their possession. The FLD, having removed what they deem to be the imminent threat, have no need to swiftly review whether the issue that led to the voluntary surrender justifies revocation and it may be that management are reluctant to make a call one way or the other. So the certificate holder risks an indeterminate wait to find out whether they will get their certificate back.
Of course, the certificate holder could refuse voluntary surrender and force the FLD to 'put up or shut up' but that risks a full revocation which would only be reversible on appeal with the added costs and stress. Even then, the revocation is likely to follow them around.
There does seem a case for the police having a power to formally suspend a license. This could be much as with being suspended from employment and be treated as a 'neutral act'. The power should be caveated, with a stipulation that the suspension is time limited and cannot be extended without the FLD going to a Judge (or other independent body) and, at the end of the time limit, the certificate must be returned if the FLD has not found grounds to revoke.
By suspending the license, the police could then compel the certificate holder to hand over their guns (or transfer them to a RFD) as their continued possession would be illegal, allowing a forced entry if required. While the end result is similar, my proposal would seem more in keeping with accepted norms of what the police can/can't do and would bring with it safeguards that don't currently exist under the 'voluntary surrender' regime.
Just a thought...
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thank you. I will copy and paste this and email over to colleagues reviewing the proposals and as noted to Greenmist we are getting a legal opinion.
The implication that it is on the radar is in the last sentence of this extract:
2.2 The previous government decided, before publishing the consultation, not to consult on the recommendations that had been made to align shotgun and firearms legislation. This was on the basis that shotguns were already subject to significant controls and have important uses in farming and in leisure pursuits. We have noted, however, that a number of respondents to the consultation expressed disappointment that it did not include the issue of closer alignment of the controls on shotguns and other firearms. This included some law enforcement respondents, who considered that further controls on shotguns would increase public safety, and others including people who had been affected by shotgun shooting incidents. Some of these respondents pointed to the risks associated with shotguns being kept in certificate holders’ own homes, including in towns and cities.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
Thanks that’s reassuring. It still seems we are all paying for Plymouth police’s f” up though.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
I still think thats subterfuge, leak a terrible potential outcome, so we're happy with the intended one, much like the replies on here with regards to the 150% fee increase.
Similar threads
