The reply to my concerns about the lack of consistency of interpretation and application of HO Firearms Guidance is as follows;
[FONT=&]Dear Mr.****[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Thank you for your e-mail of 26 April about the Home Office firearms guidance.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Statutory guidance on firearms licensing under section 133 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 is being introduced and this will be issued by the Home Secretary to the police. The police must have regard to the guidance issued by the Home Secretary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Currently, because Home Office guidance is non-statutory, the police are not obliged to follow it. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC’s) report on firearms licensing which was published in September 2015 identified that existing guidance was not being consistently applied, and HMIC therefore recommended statutory guidelines to improve consistency between forces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Home Secretary will consult widely on the first edition of the new statutory guidance and will consider the views of shooting organisations as well as those of the police. The Government always aims to seek views from those likely to be affected by policy changes. The police must be able to implement the guidance and are therefore listed as a statutory consultee.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When introduced, section 133 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 will ensure that existing safeguards around firearms ownership, for example background checks, medical suitability checks, and criteria around applicants with a history of domestic violence, are enshrined in statutory guidelines. This will ensure that high standards of public safety are maintained. Responsible gun owners who pose no risk will continue to be granted firearms certificates by the police, as they are now.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT=&]M Young[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Tackling Crime Unit[/FONT]
Thoughts please !
Perhaps I should have begun with:-
" The Home Office reply to a request for consistency in the Application responds to **** concerns about the growing post code lottery. **** has stressed its involvement at the top table in the forthcoming discussions and will be lobbying MP's to achieve the best outcome for shooters across the country. The **** of Shooting will be stressing the need for due respect be given to the most law-abiding group in the country and that public safety concerns must be at public cost. We will also be pressing for the enshrinement in the NEW Guidance of the need to be able to challenge by due process at nil cost, decisions which contravene or are casual interpretations of the new Guidance. **** works tirelessly for the maintenance of shooting sports at the highest level".
In practice however, its just me.
[FONT=&]Dear Mr.****[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Thank you for your e-mail of 26 April about the Home Office firearms guidance.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Statutory guidance on firearms licensing under section 133 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 is being introduced and this will be issued by the Home Secretary to the police. The police must have regard to the guidance issued by the Home Secretary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Currently, because Home Office guidance is non-statutory, the police are not obliged to follow it. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC’s) report on firearms licensing which was published in September 2015 identified that existing guidance was not being consistently applied, and HMIC therefore recommended statutory guidelines to improve consistency between forces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Home Secretary will consult widely on the first edition of the new statutory guidance and will consider the views of shooting organisations as well as those of the police. The Government always aims to seek views from those likely to be affected by policy changes. The police must be able to implement the guidance and are therefore listed as a statutory consultee.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When introduced, section 133 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 will ensure that existing safeguards around firearms ownership, for example background checks, medical suitability checks, and criteria around applicants with a history of domestic violence, are enshrined in statutory guidelines. This will ensure that high standards of public safety are maintained. Responsible gun owners who pose no risk will continue to be granted firearms certificates by the police, as they are now.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT=&]M Young[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Tackling Crime Unit[/FONT]
Thoughts please !
Perhaps I should have begun with:-
" The Home Office reply to a request for consistency in the Application responds to **** concerns about the growing post code lottery. **** has stressed its involvement at the top table in the forthcoming discussions and will be lobbying MP's to achieve the best outcome for shooters across the country. The **** of Shooting will be stressing the need for due respect be given to the most law-abiding group in the country and that public safety concerns must be at public cost. We will also be pressing for the enshrinement in the NEW Guidance of the need to be able to challenge by due process at nil cost, decisions which contravene or are casual interpretations of the new Guidance. **** works tirelessly for the maintenance of shooting sports at the highest level".
In practice however, its just me.
Last edited:
