Independent inspection of firearms licensing

[Conor O'Gorman]

During a recent debate in the House of Commons on the Crime and Policing Bill, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Shooting and Conservation, delivered a powerful intervention in support of new clause 41 – an amendment aimed at introducing independent inspection of firearms licensing by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS).

The Conservative MP for North Cotswolds emphasised the need for urgent reform to address the growing inefficiencies and inconsistencies within the current firearms licensing system.

The new clause 41 was tabled as a probing amendment, but there is hope it will gain momentum as the Bill progresses to the House of Lords.

Commenting after the debate, Sir Geoffrey said:

“Firearms licensing must be fair, efficient, and above all, safe. The current system is deeply inconsistent, with delays and shortcomings that risk both public safety and the rights of lawful firearms owners. By bringing licensing into the PEEL inspection regime, we can ensure greater accountability and a more consistent standard across all police forces. I will continue to press for reform that strengthens public confidence and supports responsible firearms ownership.”

BASC’s executive director for communication and public affairs, Christopher Graffius, said:

“Sir Geoffrey’s proposal has brought renewed parliamentary attention to an issue BASC has been campaigning on for several years: a fair, efficient, and safe licensing system that serves both the shooting community and the public.

“BASC continues to lead the charge on licensing reform, pushing for consistency, transparency, and properly resourced departments. We welcome the spotlight placed on these issues in Parliament and commend him for his tireless advocacy.”

For more information click the weblink below:

Failures in firearms licensing highlighted in Commons debate

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP has called for urgent reform after firearms licensing failures were exposed in a House of Commons debate.

basc.org.uk

 

[Dalua]

I'm not sure why consistency always mentioned. Fair, safe, transparent - these all sound good.
Consistency at best means it's the same everywhere - which is fine only as long as it is also safe, fair, transparent and any other good qualities. It could be tryrannical, unfair, inefficient, arcane and nevertheless consistent.

At worst, consistency-worship could be used to justify treating all applicants the same notwithstanding their different circumstances.

Better to drop the word, I'd have thought.

 

[Elshad]

In my opinion the best solution is a single (GB) licensing service akin to HM Passport Office or DVLA

 

[Selous]

I'm not sure why consistency always mentioned. Fair, safe, transparent - these all sound good.
Consistency at best means it's the same everywhere - which is fine only as long as it is also safe, fair, transparent and any other good qualities. It could be tryrannical, unfair, inefficient, arcane and nevertheless consistent.

At worst, consistency-worship could be used to justify treating all applicants the same notwithstanding their different circumstances.

Better to drop the word, I'd have thought.

Consistency is a massive problem. It can be a postcode lottery despite uniform guidance from the Home Office. You might be lucky living where you do but others are less fortunate.

 

[Dalua]

In my opinion, it would be best to avoid any root-and-branch alterations to firearms law or its administration - as these give opportunity to make things worse.

The people doing F-work it locally with local knowledge and presence should be the best people to to it, I'd have though.
They just need to be funded adequately and then held to account to maintain a fair and efficient service to their public.

 

[Dalua]

Consistency is a massive problem. It can be a postcode lottery despite uniform guidance from the Home Office. You might be lucky living where you do but others are less fortunate.

I am lucky. However, if 'consistency' were applied, and the standard adopted was that of the less-lucky people - what then? They'd be no better off.
'Consistency' is not the same as safety, fairness, efficiency, transparency and so on.

If the FLDs are all safe, efficient, fair etc, it really doesn't matter if they achieve that in exactly the same way.

 

[Kalahari]

I am lucky. However, if 'consistency' were applied, and the standard adopted was that of the less-lucky people - what then? They'd be no better off.
'Consistency' is not the same as safety, fairness, efficiency, transparency and so on.

If the FLDs are all safe, efficient, fair etc, it really doesn't matter if they achieve that in exactly the same way.

This. If they were safe, efficient, fair etc they would funnily enough end up being consistent as a side effect.

David.

 

[Dalua]

This. If they were safe, efficient, fair etc they would funnily enough end up being consistent as a side effect.

David.

Possibly. Or they migh be safe, fair and efficient in differing ways. It wouldn't matter: the important things are safety, fairness and efficiency first.
'Consitency' without those is no use.

 

[NoIDeer]

They could all start by following the guidance that they already have and stop going off piste.

 

[cjm1066]

There are lots of examples but let's use the 375 H@H, different Constabularys allow or don't why, it's a postcode lottery depending of the whim of the Chief Constable. Yet the law is consistent.

 

[webley701]

In my opinion the best solution is a single (GB) licensing service akin to HM Passport Office or DVLA

I think I’d try to choose better exemplars than those two in order to make a point

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I'm not sure why consistency always mentioned. Fair, safe, transparent - these all sound good.
Consistency at best means it's the same everywhere - which is fine only as long as it is also safe, fair, transparent and any other good qualities. It could be tryrannical, unfair, inefficient, arcane and nevertheless consistent.

At worst, consistency-worship could be used to justify treating all applicants the same notwithstanding their different circumstances.

Better to drop the word, I'd have thought.

The use of the word consistency in this context is well understood and there has never been a query over this before. Anyway, I think you are wrong and BASC will continue to use the word consistency. Given your comments on this, medical involvement in firearms licensing and moderators I am not sure you have a good understanding of firearms law and licensing.

 

[Dalua]

The use of the word consistency in this context is well understood and there has never been a query over this before. Anyway, I think you are wrong and BASC will continue to use the word consistency. Given your comments on this, medical involvement in firearms licensing and moderators I am not sure you have a good understanding of firearms law and licensing.

I think I probably understand the meaning of the word well enough to challenge the utility of its use in this context by BASC, or by anyone else. Indeed, I have often done so in the past.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I think I probably understand the meaning of the word well enough to challenge the utility of its use in this context by BASC, or by anyone else. Indeed, I have often done so in the past.

I am not sure you have a good understanding of English in that case. And given your comments on this, medical involvement in firearms licensing and moderators I am not sure you have a good understanding of firearms law and licensing either.

 

[Dalua]

I am not sure you have a good understanding of English in that case. And given your comments on this, medical involvement in firearms licensing and moderators I am not sure you have a good understanding of firearms law and licensing either.

Ah well - who can ever truly be sure of anything? Surely it is better to have doubts than a completely closed mind: I wouldn't let it worry you!

 

[Poh]

A little late on this one, but please indulge me:

The issue, in my opinion and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the HO issues 'guidance' to the issuing constabularies, and this 'guidance is open to interpretation. There is little doubt that many, if not most, Chief Constables would be very happy with a blanket ban on publicly owned firearms, a view shared by many of the police officers I have met by the roadside, during humane dispatch. For the sake of safety, there should be no interpretation, rather a set of, consistently applied, regulations backed up by statute. Either a person is, or is not suitable for firearms ownership within a set of clearly defined parameters; the same should apply for allowable calibres. This should be applied fairly, to all citizens, regardless of their geographical location. Consistency: the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same opinions, standard, etc.

 

[sikamalc]

Personally I think there is nothing really wrong with the present system. Except its run by people who have no knowledge of firearms, or at least very limited. Guidelines that are used to the personal preference of each chief constable, people employed within each firearms unit who have little of no knowledge of firearms, and in many instances FEO's who are also without basic knowledge of firearms.
I have seen it time and time again, where FEO's have little or no knowledge of firearms.

The tax payer has paid millions out on this computer system. Its not the system, although its a pain to use. Its the people behind it that need training. Plus, for gods sake drop this doctors certificate rubbish, and replace it with every FA owner requiring proof of public liability insurance, before a certificate is renewed or granted. I cannot believe that after all these years it is STILL not a requirement. That to me is more important than a doctors note.

 

[Blaser243]

Personally I think there is nothing really wrong with the present system. Except its run by people who have no knowledge of firearms, or at least very limited. Guidelines that are used to the personal preference of each chief constable, people employed within each firearms unit who have little of no knowledge of firearms, and in many instances FEO's who are also without basic knowledge of firearms.
I have seen it time and time again, where FEO's have little or no knowledge of firearms.

The tax payer has paid millions out on this computer system. Its not the system, although its a pain to use. Its the people behind it that need training. Plus, for gods sake drop this doctors certificate rubbish, and replace it with every FA owner requiring proof of public liability insurance, before a certificate is renewed or granted. I cannot believe that after all these years it is STILL not a requirement. That to me is more important than a doctors note.

Agreed, insofar as police employees need more training. But they also need to be paid better. Have you seen how much they are on? Minimum wage or slightly better for roles that require diligence and thought. We can't really expect them to perform any better than a job centre worker unless we pay them better.

On insurance, how many claims are made each year in respect of deer stalkers (or indeed, all shooting in the UK)? I don't know, but I would think an exceptionally small number compared to, for instance, car insurance claims. As a community, we are largely self-policing on that front (vis, the very many posts on here of people extolling the virtues of non-main organisation memberships). Not sure this is really a problem that requires fixing. I check with anyone that shoots with me, and I've never had a problem.

On the other hand, medical records are extremely pertinent to the suitability of an individual to possess firearms. I don't disagree that the current means of requesting them (and the willingness of surgeries to provide timely responses) needs work, but the principle of enabling the police to check that the applicant isn't barmy is no bad thing given the police's failure to identify problems in several holders' backgrounds, most notably in relation to the Plymouth shootings. Personally, I'm quite happy that someone who has a troubling medical history isn't given access to firearms, although obviously I am less pleased if the police misinterpret someone's medical notes erroneously.

This is the problem again - an under-funded, ill-informed administrator may make the wrong call and pass it by the risk-adverse senior officer responsible for firearms licensing who would quite like not to be the subject of an later public enquiry, so they say "no" or "revoke" and punt it off to the courts to take the fall, if there is one.

 

[Jura]

Just received this letter from my Labour MP, and no, I didn’t vote for her.

 

[D3ave]

I received the same response from our MP, word for word, apart from the signature.
Likewise I didn't vote for him.