Looking for an Excuse

[John MH]

Yet an other example of the Police failing to enforce the existing laws as in 1987 and 1996 and then the uneducated asking for more reform rather than holding those failing to account. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-64720331

[shoppe]

What gets me is that in the recent ( tragic ) case of the missing dog walker there is loads and loads  of people from over the country slagging the police and others for not finding her body sooner. They all have an opinion on this case.

But when there is very very  clear failings from the police in many cases involving firearms or shotguns these same people are silent! 

Is this because the general public never hear the extent of the failings or what? 

The news media ALWAYS skirt round the full findings and wheel out somebody who has a political reason for doing an uneducated speech.

The general public will not know the hoops we have to jump through. 

I sent a letter to basc about  3 months after the Plymouth shootings explaning that they  need to get straight in there telling the general public etc about police failings IF indeed this was the case. I understand when I sent the letter it was still under investigation but I explained this in my letter. I explained that it would have to be when the investigation was completed. 

Basc send out their news letter to the  membership but it is the general public etc need to hear about things not existing shooters! 

They need to be in the public arena MUCH more. 

I did not get a reply from basc.

 

 

[Re-Pete]

Check this out..........particularly the comments made by the second speaker in the debate, Sarah Jones, in the third paragraph of her spiel.......that probably applies to the majority of firearms office personnel. Many of them don't know one end of a gun from the other.......

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-02-21/debates/1CD386F0-B1D6-424E-9C85-E4F2C6D7B6CD/PlymouthShooting

Pete

ps: And why should applying for a shotgun be different to applying for any other firearm?

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, Re-Pete said:

Check this out..........particularly the comments made by the second speaker in the debate, Sarah Jones, in the third paragraph of her spiel.......that probably applies to the majority of firearms office personnel. Many of them don't know one end of a gun from the other.......

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-02-21/debates/1CD386F0-B1D6-424E-9C85-E4F2C6D7B6CD/PlymouthShooting

Pete

ps: And why should applying for a shotgun be different to applying for any other firearm?

Very interesting.  I agree with your point "why should applying for a shotgun be different to applying for any other firearm?"   I think the day may come where shotgun ownership will be dependant on 'good reason to possess' and all that entails such as land to shoot over permissions and/or membership of clay shooting clubs etc.

Clearly the Police need to resource their firearms departments properly and I'd be content to pay more for my license to help facilitate that as it's a small cost when seen spread over five years. Maybe the ten year license with periodic checks would be better in terms of admin efficiency and occasional eyes-on oversight?

With regard to 'not knowing one end from the other'  that too seems a real problem, certainly for new staff, and I made that point in my feedback to the recent College of Policing consultation.

 

[Roy W]

When the Firearms Amendment Act was written in 1988, the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd had a nice pair of Purdey shotguns in the family. He obviously didn't want to lose them. 

Therefore a section was written into the act which contains the sentence:

Sect 3 (1B) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; "and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use"

Thereby allowing Dougie to keep his family heirlooms without having to demonstrate good reason.

So, you can have a shotgun, because you want one. 

Until that changes, the issuing of shotgun certificates will not require good reason, just that the applicant is suitable.

 

[Popsbengo]

2 hours ago, Roy W said:

When the Firearms Amendment Act was written in 1988, the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd had a nice pair of Purdey shotguns in the family. He obviously didn't want to lose them. 

Therefore a section was written into the act which contains the sentence:

Sect 3 (1B) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; "and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use"

Thereby allowing Dougie to keep his family heirlooms without having to demonstrate good reason.

So, you can have a shotgun, because you want one. 

Until that changes, the issuing of shotgun certificates will not require good reason, just that the applicant is suitable.

 

Thought it might have been a fudge for the Landed Gentry,  good info Roy