Making the case for a Section 2 licensing system

[Blackstuff]

The system is lousy thats for sure.

The way to spin it at the moment is a business case.

How will it improve the system and public safety, while being more efficient?

I'd also come at it from the other side of that coin; how does the FAC system offer any greater public safety and efficiency over the SGC system?

Haven't now ploughed my way through 3/4's of the Dunblane Inquiry transcripts (not the report), it is obvious that the massive emphasis put on multiple guns of the same calibre, ammunition limits, variations, conditions and level of use of each gun that fuel the FAC system came from that inquiry and the desperation of the lawyers and Cullen to find something to do about what had happened. Lets not forget that the actual recommendation from the inquiry was not to completely ban handguns, but for their major component parts to be split between the cert holders home and their gun club, it was only the general election and then Tony Blair that got handguns 'banned'.

Is there really any merit in stopping someone having 2 guns of the same calibre? What actual difference does it make if someone has two .223 rifles, or a .223 and a .22-250?
Is there any point to restricting the number of rounds a cert holder can possess? The base line ammo amount for target shooting is 600rds, whats the difference between someone owning 600 or 6000? No spree shooter in UK history has ever got close to expending 300rds, let alone
600. Then theres also the fact that countless numbers of rounds can be made by a home loader and no record is made of them, Nor is the number of rounds a person actually uses, theres nothing to stop you buying 600rds every day for a month.

[Maggot]

The system is lousy thats for sure.

The way to spin it at the moment is a business case.

How will it improve the system and public safety, while being more efficient?

I'd also come at it from the other side of that coin; how does the FAC system offer any greater public safety and efficiency over the SGC system?

Haven't now ploughed my way through 3/4's of the Dunblane Inquiry transcripts (not the report), it is obvious that the massive emphasis put on multiple guns of the same calibre, ammunition limits, variations, conditions and level of use of each gun that fuel the FAC system came from that inquiry and the desperation of the lawyers and Cullen to find something to do about what had happened. Lets not forget that the actual recommendation from the inquiry was not to completely ban handguns, but for their major component parts to be split between the cert holders home and their gun club, it was only the general election and then Tony Blair that got handguns 'banned'.

Is there really any merit in stopping someone having 2 guns of the same calibre? What actual difference does it make if someone has two .223 rifles, or a .223 and a .22-250?
Is there any point to restricting the number of rounds a cert holder can possess? The base line ammo amount for target shooting is 600rds, whats the difference between someone owning 600 or 6000? No spree shooter in UK history has ever got close to expending 300rds, let alone
600. Then theres also the fact that countless numbers of rounds can be made by a home loader and no record is made of them, Nor is the number of rounds a person actually uses, theres nothing to stop you buying 600rds every day for a month.

Yea, but the point is supposed to be removing uneccessary red tape while making people safer.

As my FEO points out, one 308 rifle or two....you cant shoot them both at the same time.

The result of controlling the above (Handloading/numbers of guns held/parts distributed) would as likely ruin most peoples shooting and close a lot of clubs down because they could not afford to satisfy the security issues.

And how would any of that stop one lone nut losing it...more than likely with an illegally held weapon.

It needs the shooters, the licensing authorities and the public to be fairly and truthfully informed, and to trust each other.

Not this year then.....

The point is that long before the reaction to Dunblane, Bird, Hungerford, Moat etc, these people were on the radar.

The authorities (for whatever reason) failed to step in. Now who knows why, perhaps if they had been backed up in making spot checks without a warrant based on intel they could have been prevented and we would all still be allowed to shoot semi autos and hand guns.

Would any one of us support the above if that had been the case? Hell yes, but mention it and the usual come out and fight for their rights.

[Demonic69]

I'm not sure S2 is the way to go, it's too open for the authorities.
I'd suggest a number of slots based on vetted storage capacity, approved calibers based on your club, type of shooting etc, no ammunition limit so long as storage is appropriate and an allowance for moderators, licensing them is ridiculous, though keeping track of them via notifications makes sense to the terrified masses.

[Blackstuff]

Yea, but the point is supposed to be removing uneccessary red tape while making people safer.

As my FEO points out, one 308 rifle or two....you cant shoot them both at the same time.

The result of controlling the above (Handloading/numbers of guns held/parts distributed) would as likely ruin most peoples shooting and close a lot of clubs down because they could not afford to satisfy the security issues.

And how would any of that stop one lone nut losing it...more than likely with an illegally held weapon.

It needs the shooters, the licensing authorities and the public to be fairly and truthfully informed, and to trust each other.

Not this year then.....

The point is that long before the reaction to Dunblane, Bird, Hungerford, Moat etc, these people were on the radar.

The authorities (for whatever reason) failed to step in. Now who knows why, perhaps if they had been backed up in making spot checks without a warrant based on intel they could have been prevented and we would all still be allowed to shoot semi autos and hand guns.

Would any one of us support the above if that had been the case? Hell yes, but mention it and the usual come out and fight for their rights.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with my post. The whole point was that all of the extra measures that are applied to FAC's are red tape and a pointless waste of time as they do nothing to improve public safety over and above the requirements of the SGC regime

[Maggot]

Yea, but the point is supposed to be removing uneccessary red tape while making people safer.

As my FEO points out, one 308 rifle or two....you cant shoot them both at the same time.

The result of controlling the above (Handloading/numbers of guns held/parts distributed) would as likely ruin most peoples shooting and close a lot of clubs down because they could not afford to satisfy the security issues.

And how would any of that stop one lone nut losing it...more than likely with an illegally held weapon.

It needs the shooters, the licensing authorities and the public to be fairly and truthfully informed, and to trust each other.

Not this year then.....

The point is that long before the reaction to Dunblane, Bird, Hungerford, Moat etc, these people were on the radar.

The authorities (for whatever reason) failed to step in. Now who knows why, perhaps if they had been backed up in making spot checks without a warrant based on intel they could have been prevented and we would all still be allowed to shoot semi autos and hand guns.

Would any one of us support the above if that had been the case? Hell yes, but mention it and the usual come out and fight for their rights.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with my post. The whole point was that all of the extra measures that are applied to FAC's are red tape and a pointless waste of time as they do nothing to improve public safety over and above the requirements of the SGC regime

Probably, sorry mate. I see what you mean. It causes the FEOs as much grief as it does us.

I think we will though, if we want to get the person rather than the firearm licensed, have to open up and trust....and I reckon most will have issues with that.

[Gaz]

The point is that long before the reaction to Dunblane, Bird, Hungerford, Moat etc, these people were on the radar.

The authorities (for whatever reason) failed to step in. Now who knows why, perhaps if they had been backed up in making spot checks without a warrant based on intel they could have been prevented and we would all still be allowed to shoot semi autos and hand guns.

Would any one of us support the above if that had been the case? Hell yes, but mention it and the usual come out and fight for their rights.

All I'll say is, especially today, those rights were hard fought for. Even if with 20/20 hindsight it might have been convenient to ignore or circumvent them, we shouldn't ever let that happen. Getting a warrant isn't difficult in cases where it's justified. Are you saying we should agree to waive our right for the police to need a warrant before trampling around our homes in return for a sensible licensing system?



By section 2 licensing system I basically mean extending the current SGC licensing system over firearms and scrapping the needless bureaucracy of the section 1 system (applying for variations, applying for ammo allowances and moderators, conditions on use, etc etc). You can still keep track of the individual guns and their movements, but the bureaucracy which clogs up the system is binned.

Is there really any merit in stopping someone having 2 guns of the same calibre? What actual difference does it make if someone has two .223 rifles, or a .223 and a .22-250?
Is there any point to restricting the number of rounds a cert holder can possess? The base line ammo amount for target shooting is 600rds, whats the difference between someone owning 600 or 6000? No spree shooter in UK history has ever got close to expending 300rds, let alone
600. Then theres also the fact that countless numbers of rounds can be made by a home loader and no record is made of them, Nor is the number of rounds a person actually uses, theres nothing to stop you buying 600rds every day for a month.

This is the sort of thing I'm getting at.

You will be glad to know that ACPO have also long advocated a single tier system. Unfortunately this is where you differ as while you are suggesting a single tier system with controls and requirements similar to those for the present shotgun certificate system, ACPO are suggesting the reverse by bringing the requirements and controls for a section 2 shotgun certificate in line with those of a section 1, effectively tightening the control on shotguns and shotgun certificate holders.

I know that - but if "we", the shooting community, start pushing for a section 2 system now, we may be able to fight off more needless, expensive, bureaucratic restrictions.

DW58 - which European countries licence individuals and not the guns?

[Blackstuff]

It also keeps a lot more FEO's in a job than would be needed if it was a purely S2 system....Not sure i'd be screaming out for something that could jeopardise my job!

I think the reason the unannounced visit thing provoked the reaction it did was because of the insinuation/excuse about terrorism. I think most people knew that was BS.

Lets face it, if the police have a genuine concern about a certificate holder they can go to the magistrate for a warrant if its not an immediate 'threat', and just kick in the door if they thought a crime was in progress. If they want to speak with the cert holder directly they can make a mutually agreeable appointment. I've heard advocates for the scheme saying "Well if they make an appointment it defeats the purpose of the 'surpise' visit". The thing with that though is the police were given no new power of entry, so even if they did turn up unannounced, if someone was doing something dodgy with their guns, all they had to do is keep the officer waiting on the doorstep while they tidied whatever they were doing away. Unless the shooter was literally parading around the front garden or jumping around the living room with the curtains wide open, how would the police know anything untoward was going on while they waited?

The whole exercise smacked of the classic police diversion tactic that has become their signature when they drop the ball and then shift focus onto the shooting community.

[Maggot]

It also keeps a lot more FEO's in a job than would be needed if it was a purely S2 system....Not sure i'd be screaming out for something that could jeopardise my job!

I think the reason the unannounced visit thing provoked the reaction it did was because of the insinuation/excuse about terrorism. I think most people knew that was BS.

Lets face it, if the police have a genuine concern about a certificate holder they can go to the magistrate for a warrant if its not an immediate 'threat', and just kick in the door if they thought a crime was in progress. If they want to speak with the cert holder directly they can make a mutually agreeable appointment. I've heard advocates for the scheme saying "Well if they make an appointment it defeats the purpose of the 'surpise' visit". The thing with that though is the police were given no new power of entry, so even if they did turn up unannounced, if someone was doing something dodgy with their guns, all they had to do is keep the officer waiting on the doorstep while they tidied whatever they were doing away. Unless the shooter was literally parading around the front garden or jumping around the living room with the curtains wide open, how would the police know anything untoward was going on while they waited?

The whole exercise smacked of the classic police diversion tactic that has become their signature when they drop the ball and then shift focus onto the shooting community.

No, I am not talking about searches without a warrant. To be honest I dont see how it would work because most people would be at work so an appointment would be the way to go.

I am on about the general acceptance that IF a member of the public spouts off and, on investigation it appears iffy, dont bitch if you get a visit (although by that point it would as likely be with a warrant anyway).

Or, if an FEO pops in and says, "ere, what can you tell me about your waiving a rifle about outside" or "Remember we discussed the lock that needed replacing the last time I visited...well have you sorted it yet?"

We hear a lot of stories, but I doubt we hear both sides fully.

Its all about staying off the radar.

My point was that possibly, just possibly, the attitude some people have towards the Police could do them more harm than good gaz (not helped by the Police sometimes I admit).

I just wonder if, had there been more support from the shooting fraternity to actively aid the authorities in weeding out nutters (and thus protecting our sport) we may still have semis and handguns, thats all.

No, I am not about waiving your rights, but there has to be some trade off that comes with the responsiblity of holding mate.

[Charlie Muggins]

The key to selling this idea is that buzzword "efficiency". ACPO are moaning about what a drain on their meagre resources FA licencing is, well let's cut the pointless paper-shuffling that slots and variations are. If FEOs spend less time processing variations they can spend more time following-up intelligence or what have you. You know, the stuff that might actually have stopped Hamilton, Ryan and Bird.

A new system need not be a free-for-all; conditions could easily be applied, limiting the number and nature of firearms to be possessed, and for which reasons they may be used.

[meles meles]

Hmmm, package up these useful suggestions and sell them to UKIP as a policy?