Home Office Guidance to the Police on Firearms Law

[kes]

Everyone needs to read this. Particularly quote;
In any case where the GP requests that a fee be paid in advance of responding to the police request for information, this is a matter between the applicant and hisor her GP.
IT is not an issue that the police should become involved in.
The proposed statutory Guidance goes on to suggest that it is expected that a responsible firearms owner will cooperate (with police on unannounced visit without a warrant or good reason to check firearms).
Failure to cooperate is cited as a reason why a Chief Constable may consider a person unsuitable for firearms ownership.

This change is appalling - no interest in a standard medical fee - legitimising blackmail for ALL firearms owners.
This consultation does not mention the 'condition list' previously suggested but charges can be made for ALL medical information and conscientious objection is 'legitimised' saying if you want a cert you need a medical and should change your GP practice.

Who began this. and you pay for this, all safety changes have been welcomed by "the voice of shooting" what is not mentioned at all is a ten year certificate.

Well done BASC - thanks for literally nothing.

 

[B&W FOX]

I like the way this post was started by the Admin of this site 10 years ago.
And here we are in a worse position now that every one including The Voice of Shooting have all put their two pence worth in.
So many people are under the impression that the Home Office guidance is law.
In acctual fact it is a bunch of civil servants sat around with a suggestion box putting their idea's down on slips of paper......this then becomes guidance, idea's and suggestions that may or may not work. And may or may not get adapted by the necessary powers or if your the police you just stick your finger up to all and sundry and bring in your OWN procedures anyway

 

[kes]

I like the way this post was started by the Admin of this site 10 years ago.
And here we are in a worse position now that every one including The Voice of Shooting have all put their two pence worth in.
So many people are under the impression that the Home Office guidance is law.
In acctual fact it is a bunch of civil servants sat around with a suggestion box putting their idea's down on slips of paper......this then becomes guidance, idea's and suggestions that may or may not work. And may or may not get adapted by the necessary powers or if your the police you just stick your finger up to all and sundry and bring in your OWN procedures anyway

With respect B&W Guidance has a place in law as it is issued by PUBLIC bodies - in this case proposed by the HO for the POLICE both public bodies. The ONLY way to challenge this was by judicial review when it first started in one of the Force areas. now the consultation is to legitimise the illegitimate changes and we should all object. We are not a public safety problem - there was nothing wrong with the old system, if operated correctly. Major problems and actual loss of life only emerge when the police fail to implement the procedures correctly for legally held firearms,Dunblane , Durham even Hungerford etc.
This proposed system goes under the guise of statutory guidance but also enshrines the Police 'right' to do what they like so, after consultation cases can only be taken on a case by case basis and the changes will effectively become unchallengeable, having been issued as 'expert' guidance. BASC should have taken this to JR when it was beyond the scope of the old HO Guidance for any chance of success. They chose the 'political route' whatever that means and have never and will never publish the advice given which justified this inaction, simply because it was an unjustifiable but easy course of action which has yeilded - nothing but more restriction.

 

[Woodsmoke]

BASC should have taken this to JR when it was beyond the scope of the old HO Guidance for any chance of success. They chose the 'political route' whatever that means and have never and will never publish the advice given which justified this inaction

I suspect it was above our resident BASC representatives' pay-grade, which renders it slightly unfair that they receive so much flak for it. Having said that, it takes a particularly thick skin to continually stick your head above the parapet and repeatedly deliver toothless platitudes and valueless soundbites, so either they don't care about the issues, or (as was alluded to earlier) have no vested interest so couldn't care less one way or the other. Either case being grounds to consider they get just what they deserve.

To me this smacks of just yet more unnecessary and onerous legislation for the mere sake of it, being promulgated by people with nothing better to do than effectively bully an already-oppressed (and I do consider it oppression) section of law-abiding and responsible society

 

[Mick Miller]

I'm very uncomfortable with the proposed idea of interviewing my neighbours, I don't want them to know what I have in the house and to do so is a security risk. Mine has been bound over to keep the peace and, frankly, what business is it of theirs what I do in my spare time?

Thankfully we have our orgs fighting our corner with political officers lobbying on our behalf and a large 'fighting fund' (can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?). This is beyond a joke. Why don't we see how many firearms offences are committed on average each year by licensed firearms holders, chuck shotgun owners into that hat if you like, the figures are piffling, trivial and statistically do not warrant this additional affront to personal freedoms under the guise of enhanced 'public safety'. The public are perfectly safe with the level of personal scrutiny that already exists.

 

[kes]

This is referred to in the consultation about New Statutory Guidance.
If the police followed this we would not need this change - its called College Of Policing - Authorised Professional Practice on Firearms Licensing.

Firearms licensing | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.app.college.police.uk

I particularly like the idea that deviations from the HO guidance (current) requires a report to FELWEG. Sothis change is sponsored by the police approved by the police and will be imlimented by the police.
Time methinks to remove licensing to a safer place.