JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
From the Countryside Alliance newsletter http://www.countryside-alliance.org...re-an-unwarranted-attack-on-shooting-industry
SGC applicants should "prove their suitability" - Labour
- Thread starter JabaliHunter
- Start date
Tackleberry270
Well-Known Member
If it was gone about the right way I would not be against it. Shotguns can be just as lethal as a firearm so I've never really understood the reason for such a big difference in the application process.
roedeerred
Well-Known Member
When will people realise 99.9% of shooting people are law abiding
Can that be said of so called greenies or car drivers for that matter!
Can that be said of so called greenies or car drivers for that matter!
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I thought that the "fit to be entrusted" test applies to both S1 & S2 applications, if for some reason the applicant is unsuitable e.g. criminal habits, insane etc. you will be turned down for either under existing rules.
atb Tim
atb Tim
Last edited:
Exactly! We already have to prove we are suitable before we are granted. 
The amendments to the Anti Social Crime and Policing Bill were drafted some time ago and first debated during the Bill's committee stage. After many requests for a meeting we saw Diana Johnston and briefed her but they were reluctant to pull the amendments at a late stage. Their re-tabling for the Bill's Report Stage has more to do with the parliamentary role of the Opposition than practical legislation. They knew that the amendments would be defeated.
We saw Diana Johnson and her number 2 from the shadow team at the Labour conference and went through the details of the licensing system again. We've also given them written submissions on each of the amendments. In brief the amendment on domestic violence would have had no effect - checks are already in place for this 24/7. The amendment on full cost recovery ignores the regulations introduced by the last Labour Government and published in Treasury guidelines (Managing Public Money, and Class 20.10) that the licence fee is effectively a tax and the State can't charge for enforcement, defined by Hampton as form filling and inspection, or capital costs (ecommerce). Should Labour get into government they would have to moderate their line in the light of civil service advice and the responsibility of complying with the rules.
Johnston made a point during the debate of stressing Labour's support for shooting, as she did at the Labour conference "the future of shooting and fishing is assured under a future Labour government". We have much more work to do with them but the lines of communication are open. This debate taken in isolation does not give the whole picture.
For completeness we have also stopped the Home Office's attempt to force through an immediate increase in licensing fees on a full cost recovery basis and are now engaged with a government working group which is looking into the whole question of fees.
I know several shooters have written to her to ask why she is saying this when the evidence clearly sings out that her statement is wrong, maybe you guys woukid like to do the same...
David
The amendments to the Anti Social Crime and Policing Bill were drafted some time ago and first debated during the Bill's committee stage. After many requests for a meeting we saw Diana Johnston and briefed her but they were reluctant to pull the amendments at a late stage. Their re-tabling for the Bill's Report Stage has more to do with the parliamentary role of the Opposition than practical legislation. They knew that the amendments would be defeated.
We saw Diana Johnson and her number 2 from the shadow team at the Labour conference and went through the details of the licensing system again. We've also given them written submissions on each of the amendments. In brief the amendment on domestic violence would have had no effect - checks are already in place for this 24/7. The amendment on full cost recovery ignores the regulations introduced by the last Labour Government and published in Treasury guidelines (Managing Public Money, and Class 20.10) that the licence fee is effectively a tax and the State can't charge for enforcement, defined by Hampton as form filling and inspection, or capital costs (ecommerce). Should Labour get into government they would have to moderate their line in the light of civil service advice and the responsibility of complying with the rules.
Johnston made a point during the debate of stressing Labour's support for shooting, as she did at the Labour conference "the future of shooting and fishing is assured under a future Labour government". We have much more work to do with them but the lines of communication are open. This debate taken in isolation does not give the whole picture.
For completeness we have also stopped the Home Office's attempt to force through an immediate increase in licensing fees on a full cost recovery basis and are now engaged with a government working group which is looking into the whole question of fees.
I know several shooters have written to her to ask why she is saying this when the evidence clearly sings out that her statement is wrong, maybe you guys woukid like to do the same...
David
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
In what way do we have to prove anything? If you think that answering the brief questions on the application form and a couple of referee statements in any way constitute proof of suitability, then your definition of proof is pretty weak! The information only goes as far as saying that the applicant and 2 referees see no grounds for refusal.Exactly! We already have to prove we are suitable before we are granted.
Nevertheless, I take your point that 'debate taken in isolation does not give the whole picture' and the background to your discussion provide interesting context.
OK perhaps my use of the word 'prove' was inappropriate, and I am not going to bother getting into a semantic spat over my use of the English language and I am sure you know what I mean!
We are already checked, inspected, interviewed refereed and so on to show we are suitable to possess firearms – what other checks and balances do we need none!
All we need is for the police to deliver in a fair and consistent way…
David
We are already checked, inspected, interviewed refereed and so on to show we are suitable to possess firearms – what other checks and balances do we need none!
All we need is for the police to deliver in a fair and consistent way…
David
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
OK perhaps my use of the word 'prove' was inappropriate, and I am not going to bother getting into a semantic spat over my use of the English language and I am sure you know what I mean!
We are already checked, inspected, interviewed refereed and so on to show we are suitable to possess firearms – what other checks and balances do we need none!
All we need is for the police to deliver in a fair and consistent way…
David
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
I just dont understand it - lots of shooters I communicate with feel we have a really good system and its only those that are really a bit strange - you know the types that really should not have access to firearms - that ever have any problems**.
The main thing is to never rock the boat - that way things stay peaceful - like they are now for example - and we can concentrate on relaxing./ having a good time etc.
Yet politicians and occasionally police officers keep coming out with catchy press statements that could be construed to indicate that perhaps they aren't at all comfortable with private firearms ownership - on any level. Still, there are lots of the undesirable types - as mentioned above - that will be caught out long before anyone dreams of doing anything that impacts on my sport - which is above reproach in any event.
** - easily identified as basically any shooting sport that I dont do.
Any hoo - once I wake up from that dream/ nightmare outlook, I remain very grateful for the ongoing dialogue with politicians from the likes of the BASC. However, I remain of the view that we are trying to hold back a tide of ambivalence, by concentrating on fighting to retain 'freedoms' under an intrinsically 'unfit for purpose' system instead of attempting to change the field - and in saying that I do appreciate such an aim is not likely to be achievable in the short term.
For the avoidance of doubt, the opening paragraphs were typed with tongue firmly in cheek.
The main thing is to never rock the boat - that way things stay peaceful - like they are now for example - and we can concentrate on relaxing./ having a good time etc.
Yet politicians and occasionally police officers keep coming out with catchy press statements that could be construed to indicate that perhaps they aren't at all comfortable with private firearms ownership - on any level. Still, there are lots of the undesirable types - as mentioned above - that will be caught out long before anyone dreams of doing anything that impacts on my sport - which is above reproach in any event.
** - easily identified as basically any shooting sport that I dont do.
Any hoo - once I wake up from that dream/ nightmare outlook, I remain very grateful for the ongoing dialogue with politicians from the likes of the BASC. However, I remain of the view that we are trying to hold back a tide of ambivalence, by concentrating on fighting to retain 'freedoms' under an intrinsically 'unfit for purpose' system instead of attempting to change the field - and in saying that I do appreciate such an aim is not likely to be achievable in the short term.
For the avoidance of doubt, the opening paragraphs were typed with tongue firmly in cheek.
Last edited:
To quote MO in post 10 -
"I just dont understand it - lots of shooters I communicate with feel we have a really good system and its only those that are really a bit strange - you know the types that really should have access to firearms - that ever have any problems**".
Did you mean this or did you mean to say "types that really should NOT have access to firearms"?
In any case, the system at the moment basically says "you have a right to own S2 shotguns and the police must show good reason why you should not exercise that right, whereas the police have a right to deny you S1 firearms unless you can show good reason and sufficient good character that you may be permitted to possess and use them".
Can't see too much wrong with that except that politicians, antis and those with other agendas don't like it.
"I just dont understand it - lots of shooters I communicate with feel we have a really good system and its only those that are really a bit strange - you know the types that really should have access to firearms - that ever have any problems**".
Did you mean this or did you mean to say "types that really should NOT have access to firearms"?
In any case, the system at the moment basically says "you have a right to own S2 shotguns and the police must show good reason why you should not exercise that right, whereas the police have a right to deny you S1 firearms unless you can show good reason and sufficient good character that you may be permitted to possess and use them".
Can't see too much wrong with that except that politicians, antis and those with other agendas don't like it.
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
Charadam
Thanks - edited in a NOT. My apologies all.
A number of people are completely comfortable with a. good reason - even in its current arbitrary, variable and nebulous form; b. differentiating between the requirement in respect of S1 and S2 firearms - both in terms of 'reason' and treatment in terms of individual items, round counts etc etc.
Yet prior to William Whitelaw's 1973 White Paper, such concepts were largely alien to Uk politics or considered with great uncertainty - given their origins within the Gun Control legislation promulgated by the Nation Socialist Party in the Germany of the 1930's. As it stands now, I would suggest many shooters are entrenched in such tenets.
Examining the realistic ( and publicly avowed ) purpose of Firearms legislation, the logic in arguing for separate treatment is rather stretched. The Elephant in the Room being that many thousands of shotgun users have no wish to see S1 type controls applied - so an apparently underlying fear of raising the issue.
There is a recognition in the circles of power that the current legislation is a hodge-podge and is proving very difficult to follow - on all sides. Simple fact - a number of Police Forces have failed and are failing to comply with the obligations placed upon them by the various Acts. If the situation were reversed, prosecutions would be wholesale and the condemnation of shooters loud and universal. Undoubtedly that situation is looked at with equal glee from two opposite camps - the exposition of which could make for extremely long posts! My contention is that most people would agree that legislation is required in order to achieve -
1. Protect the public from harm - as far as is practicable - from the use of firearms.
2. Recognise and permit legitimate sporting and work pursuits with appropriate control to effect#1. That criteria being applied in a way that does not discriminate against colour, race, creed, socio-economic status etc. Whilst allowing cross -over - ie legitimate firearms used for illegal things - to be effectively investigated.
As Charadam indicates, there are likely wider motives - but few would be prepared to publicly announce them.
Anyone believe those two elements have missed anything? ( genuine question ).
Now look at the volume of words written in the last 12 months - just on SD by way of illustration - and measure the discussions against their effectiveness in relation to the two criteria above.
Pragmatically, I sense a society that is moving ever more to censure of individuality - especially if involving perceived socially unacceptable activities. Within that context, any change - no matter how effective and logical - that is perceived as 'weakening' controls will be politically unacceptable.
Thanks - edited in a NOT. My apologies all.
A number of people are completely comfortable with a. good reason - even in its current arbitrary, variable and nebulous form; b. differentiating between the requirement in respect of S1 and S2 firearms - both in terms of 'reason' and treatment in terms of individual items, round counts etc etc.
Yet prior to William Whitelaw's 1973 White Paper, such concepts were largely alien to Uk politics or considered with great uncertainty - given their origins within the Gun Control legislation promulgated by the Nation Socialist Party in the Germany of the 1930's. As it stands now, I would suggest many shooters are entrenched in such tenets.
Examining the realistic ( and publicly avowed ) purpose of Firearms legislation, the logic in arguing for separate treatment is rather stretched. The Elephant in the Room being that many thousands of shotgun users have no wish to see S1 type controls applied - so an apparently underlying fear of raising the issue.
There is a recognition in the circles of power that the current legislation is a hodge-podge and is proving very difficult to follow - on all sides. Simple fact - a number of Police Forces have failed and are failing to comply with the obligations placed upon them by the various Acts. If the situation were reversed, prosecutions would be wholesale and the condemnation of shooters loud and universal. Undoubtedly that situation is looked at with equal glee from two opposite camps - the exposition of which could make for extremely long posts! My contention is that most people would agree that legislation is required in order to achieve -
1. Protect the public from harm - as far as is practicable - from the use of firearms.
2. Recognise and permit legitimate sporting and work pursuits with appropriate control to effect#1. That criteria being applied in a way that does not discriminate against colour, race, creed, socio-economic status etc. Whilst allowing cross -over - ie legitimate firearms used for illegal things - to be effectively investigated.
As Charadam indicates, there are likely wider motives - but few would be prepared to publicly announce them.
Anyone believe those two elements have missed anything? ( genuine question ).
Now look at the volume of words written in the last 12 months - just on SD by way of illustration - and measure the discussions against their effectiveness in relation to the two criteria above.
Pragmatically, I sense a society that is moving ever more to censure of individuality - especially if involving perceived socially unacceptable activities. Within that context, any change - no matter how effective and logical - that is perceived as 'weakening' controls will be politically unacceptable.
OK perhaps my use of the word 'prove' was inappropriate, and I am not going to bother getting into a semantic spat over my use of the English language and I am sure you know what I mean!
Without semantic accuracy nothing means anything useful.
I'm not sure that this is something one should be rolling one's eyes about.
The reason is that the 1920 Firearms Act was introduced not to preserve the public from armed crime, but to save the government from revolution: a shotgun-armed revolution would not be much of a threat to a rifle-armed government.
Tackleberry270
Well-Known Member
I have quoted you in my thread on 'unused firearms'
FLD pressure to give up rifles you don't use - Page 3
Why should we have to prove that we are suitable to be entrusted with shotguns or rifles at all?
In this country, aren't we presumed innocent, until proven otherwise? Following that principle, surely, it should be up to the naysayers to prove that we are NOT suitable!
In this country, aren't we presumed innocent, until proven otherwise? Following that principle, surely, it should be up to the naysayers to prove that we are NOT suitable!
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
Countryside Alliance=Conservative party=hysterical nutters!
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
Think of the person in Tesco going postal because they have run out of tato wedges that are are on buy one get two free. Do you really thing he should have a .308?
as for your legal analysis....
Similar threads
