Clause 81 of the Police and Crime Bill

[LukeSoutherner]

Having signed this petition, I received this reply from the government this morning.

 

 

"The UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and we are determined to keep it that way.

The Government keeps the firearms licensing system under review to safeguard against abuse by criminals and to preserve public safety.

Following Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC’s) inspection of firearms licensing , and their recommendation to put police guidelines on a statutory footing,

clause 107 of the Policing and Crime Bill introduces a power for the Home Secretary to issue the police with statutory guidance on firearms.

This will allow existing safeguards around firearms ownership, for example background checks, medical suitability checks, and criteria around applicants with a history of domestic violence, to be enshrined in statutory guidelines. Other aspects of the existing Home Office guide will remain on a non-statutory footing.

The new statutory guidance will ensure that the highest 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.

The police must have regard to the guidance issued by the Home Secretary. Currently, because Home Office guidance is non-statutory, the police are not obliged to follow it. HMIC’s report on firearms licensing found that existing guidance was frequently not followed, resulting in an inconsistent approach between forces.

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 organisations likely to be affected by policy changes, and this is not a matter for legislation.

The police must be able to implement the new guidance and are therefore listed as a statutory consultee.

The clause will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Bill.

Home Office:

I've put in bold some parts which I feel could be/are dangerous. My main fear is that the above change will mean that the Police could recommend a part of the guidance which they feel should be statutory, such as what calibres are to be used for what quarry, and then the Home Office simply makes it law. Seems like a very efficient way of changing laws that the Police do not like, without anyone else being part of the consultation process. I find it highly improbable that the Police are going to recommend a reduction in the control of certificated firearms to make their jobs easier.

I am not a master of the legal system, however, and this maybe the system which is already in place across the board for all law making. Doesn't sound very 'democratic' though.

P.S. What always pisses me off is that the government of the day always states that "The Government keeps the firearms licensing system under review...to preserve public safety". Now if this is the case, can I recommend that they ban people from driving until they are 25 years old? This would lead to a huge reduction in the number of deaths in the UK, and therefore "preserve public safety". Aaah, no, but guns kill people, cars don't.

[tisme]

Once again they are keeping an eye on the wrong people.

Signed

[DaveT]

I signed it too...sounds a bit like a resounding 'sod off we know best' reply but I get lost in the wordiness and can't extract the implications.

[gbal]

"Consult widely" is included. So I'd expect BASC to have a balanced view on this, and that might obviate the wilder speculations that often appear before a more reasoned version of what is actually happening appears.

 

No changes to current proceedures for granting an FAC are envisaged for 'responsible gun owners who pose no risks"

 

If violent and mentally distrubed people are the wrong people to 'keep an eye on',who are the right people?

 

gbal

[VarmLR]

Aren't BASC involved in providing the HO with guidance too for balance? I read somewhere that it doesn't just involve the police but also some of the shooting organisations and this has to be a positive step. I also view it as a positive step for the HO to insist via statutory instrument that the police now follow the guidelines which should put an end to some of the more ridiculous unilateral conditioning for firearms applications and grants (such as mentoring). As for the police being a statutory consultee, that doesn't necessarily give them any further powers but it would seem to suggest that ACPO may well act together to mandate by committee some of the more unreasonable and unnecessary proposals. It needs balance to work constructively.

[tisme]

"Consult widely" is included. So I'd expect BASC to have a balanced view on this, and that might obviate the wilder speculations that often appear before a more reasoned version of what is actually happening appears.

 

No changes to current proceedures for granting an FAC are envisaged for 'responsible gun owners who pose no risks"

 

If violent and mentally distrubed people are the wrong people to 'keep an eye on',who are the right people?

 

gbal

Violent and mentally disturbed people already can't get a FAC and there is no mention of either in the OP post.

[MrCetrizine]

Didn't we go through this when the petition first surfaced and it turned out it was good for shooters because it forces the police to all follow the same guidelines and not make up their own rules.

[gbal]

MrC yes,we did -and posts 4 and 5 imply that.

 

tisme ;quote from the document cited in OP:

 

"for example,background check,medical suitability checks and criteria around applicants with a history of domestic violence,(to be) enshrined into statutory guidlines.

Agreed, no specific list of conditions is given-probably a 'case by case' decision.

Many shooters have criticsed the police for failing to act on 'mental condition' information in the past.

 

Some Clinical mental conditions, especially if involving medication, are likely to be included (and should be?) and 'violence ' is specifically mentioned.And these are 'for example" -not a definitive list.

Many might think them sensible.

A 'criminal record' currently is close to a statutory disallowing,of course.

The proposals are intended to go well beyond 'keeping an eye on',in the context of granting/not an FAC.

 

'keeping an eye on' might apply to the law abiding FAC holding under 25 year olds who are walking,cycling or horse riding with their legitimate FAC items along the public highways,to their permissions or ranges,as Luke would have them banned from driving......perhaps an unintended consequence of the suggestion! :-)

 

gbal

[MrCetrizine]

And yet people are still blindly signing the petition and continuing to make shooters look like a group of paranoid uninformed sheep.

[Shuggy]

People should really check out the BASC's submission before jumping in feet first:

 

'BASC welcomes the Governments intention to issue chief officers with statutory guidance concerning the exercise of their functions as it believes that this will encourage consistency of administrative practice within forces. This will lead to increased efficiencies and ensure that scarce resources are properly targeted.'

 

http://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/THE-POLICING-AND-CRIME-BILL-2016.pdf

[LukeSoutherner]

I agree that consistency across police forces is a good thing, as long as it does not lead the level of control over firearms being increased. My main reason for posting was not to get people to sign. My main reason for the post was to keep up awareness. I feel that assuming that the government is always looking out for our best interests is a dangerous assumption to make. I would prefer to be overly cautious (due to the legislation changes of the past), as opposed to blindly trusting the government and police. The government and police do great work in many areas (and I do think that!). However, in terms of firearms certification units, I have had mixed experiences (having been under two different police forces and so being able to compare the two).

 

I think that "paranoid, uniformed sheep" is incorrect. The legislation on semi-autos and then handguns since 1988, and then the current licensing of airguns in Scotland gives ample reason for FAC holders to be cautious about any change in legislation. There is also a sense by which by standing together, we are stronger as a community. I'm sure that Marx was a fan of that one!

 

P.S. I'm still for banning driving for under-25s: I think horse-riding would make for an interesting commute to work!

[ds1]

The vagueness is worrying. For example what does 'consult widely" mean...bloke in the next office, multiple police forces, shooting organisations or every Eu anti gun committee???!

[gbal]

Shuggy,Thank you for posting the BASC position-as ever,it should reassure those who need some reassurance that the proposals are not draconian at all.

Some at least of the 'post code' lottery many here have experienced will be removed.

 

The version I saw of "Sacha Barac's" petition had 10,782 signatures-no date though-and needs the 'statutory' 100,000 before the Government must address it.

Figures for 2014 (England and Wales) and 2013 (Scotland) show there were 151,413 and 26,000 FACs,and 582,725 and 44,000 SGCs (there will be some who have both,of course);and there is no way of knowing whether another 90,000 will sign.....probably not?

 

Luke,thankyou taking my mild leg pull in good humour- it was just to illustrate that there woud be quite serious issues for shooting-and security ones-in having armed FAC holders vulnerable to atttack/theft.

Legislation isn't that easy-let alone it may not even be a solution (youth or inexperience as the issue) or fair (what happens at 25).Best keep 'cars' etc for another soap box (cars are integral to modern society, civilian guns are not.) You might be disappointed in the horse as a commutor alternative-it's slow,and parking is a night-mare.

I hope 'paranoid' is exagerated,as it would be the kind of severe mental condition that might be taken into consideration,negatively.I'm not sure if 'going off at half cock' is a medical condition,but hopefully,that possibility is reduced by these posts.

Marxist-tendence Groucho? The classic advice was given by Thomas Jefferson to his friends/supporters: "Gentlemen,we must hang together,or most assuredly,we shall hang apart."

 

BASC seems about the best cohesive force to date,and are intimate in the consultations.

 

gbal

[LukeSoutherner]

I think being a member of BASC, or at least a shooting organisation is crucial to having a lobbying force in parliamentary circles.

 

With regard to my (flippant?) comment about cars and under-25s, the reason I bring it up is that the safety of the public is always cited in any sort of change of law, and yet it feels hypocritical and a fallacy as there are so many other things that the government could legislate on that would improve the safety of the public. At least call a spade a spade: "We don't want the public having access to firearms, and here's how we're going to make it difficult for you."

 

But if the question is: how do you stop mass-shootings (which surely is the risk posed by members of the public or anyone owning firearms)? Then using a GP's opinion of someone's mental health is a start, and I am aware that the line has to be drawn somewhere. But, in a classic example, if you've been in a messy divorce, your child has died, or something similarly awful, and you went to the GP for low mood/depression, does this land you in danger of losing your certificate. Or worse, someone does not seek support as they fear that their FAC will be revoked. Being that I work in mental health, it is very hard to predict if someone will go out of their way to harm other people, or even themselves. A case-by-case decision on whether someone is fit to have an FAC really is probably the best way of doing it.

[ds1]

Luke , after the Uhersky Brod shooting in cz it was considered to incorporate a psychological test as part of the FAC application (you already need a doctors certificate). However after consultation with psychologist the conclusion was that no universal test would show if someone was a potential nutter as the test would only apply at that time and could not consider the catalyst (event) that would cause someone to go nuts, nor could one test form a rounded profile of a person without looking at a person's relationships and interaction with other people. This was the cz opinion anyway.

 

Me....I think that MPs and MEPs take decisions responsible for public safety - so they should at least take a sociopathic test, guess we would have a lot less politicians.

[MrCetrizine]

 

I think that "paranoid, uniformed sheep" is incorrect.

For the very small number of shooters I was referring to, I think it fits perfectly.

 

The majority of shooters I've personally encountered are people who will do a little research before reacting to proposed or perceived changes.

 

Then there are those who will do in depth research and analysis and try to educate others about proposed changes.

 

Then there are the sheep who read part of a web article, take it the wrong way and start a petition against it followed by the rest of the sheep blindly signing it.

 

The government is not out to get us or anyone. The government is a large moron that just acts based on information. Sometimes it has the wrong information and acts stupidly. Sometimes it has just enough information to make a fair decision.

 

What we need to do as shooters, citizens, parents, employers, etc is to gather our own information and decided if the government is right or wrong before doing the only thing we can do, vote.

 

Most of us do that but sadly the press and the government only seem to hear the sheep bleating.

[tisme]

I don't think all the shooters read the petition

[gbal]

The certificate data in my earlier post suggest that even if all read it,less than 1 in 15 signed-and probably an much smaller fraction.

 

Calling the government a 'moron' is unwarranted. A moron is not well guided by the available information.

Governments are made up of people,who can act responsibly and fairly rationally,or at least be influenced by information -not all the information is legitimate or accurate- we can only hope for an education/intelligence level that includes that awareness. No doubt there are policy guidlines,and costing/enforcing and other criteria considered-including human rights,proportional response, and so on.There is very likely to be judgement and discretion too,though those can be double edged,or just plain biased-even against justice and fairness in our 'sovereign state' as has been too evident recently.

 

There is no reliable predictive 'test' for future mental instability of the sort that would endanger the public.

But if there is a history of severe mental illness (and a GP would know this-which is not the same as saying the GPcan give a psychiatric assessment-then it can be informative. There is circumstantial evidence that in the main mass civilian shootings-which so changed UK firearms law-there were at the least clues indicating mental factors in the shooters. To completely ignore previous or worse,ongoing severe mental conditions that may relate to harming others or the public would not be consistent with safeguarding public (or 'family' etc) safety.

There is no reliable 'test of poor /reckless/dangerous driving' either -though a history of such offences can lead to loss of license-actual previous behaviour. Intoxication is rightly considered a predictor/high risk factor -not to be ignored if suspected,usually with loss of license on conviction.

The intention of the change is make such information when it is known (clinically documented/GP records etc) and available,as part of the licensing proceedure,which must be considered appropriately,and with professionals (eg psychiatrists-not an angry ex; broadly,perhaps,as in 'sectioning' under the Mental Health Act-though that is not the intended proceedure here.

 

gbal

[MrCetrizine]

Calling the government a 'moron' is unwarranted.

But the government is not individuals in the same way a mob isn't.

As an entity, all organisations are moronic in action. It's very rare for a group of people especially an inherently adversarial group such as government to act as anything other than a mob with mob mentality.

 

There are simply too many viewpoints on any subject for government to act with anything but a polarised, one size fits none response.