Countryside Alliance comment on report

[Christel]

Countryside Alliance comment on report into firearms licensing by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary

The Countryside Alliance has responded to today’s report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, saying that is a welcome contribution to the development of a more effective licensing regime but it fails to acknowledge the considerable work that has been done in recent years, especially the increased involvement of the medical profession in the licensing process.Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said: “Any incident that involves a gun is one too many, however we already have some of the most stringent firearms regulations in the world.

“We do not believe tightening restrictions on legitimate gun use will tackle the real problem of gun crime which is mostly down to unlawfully held weapons.

“At least 600,000 people in UK shoot – live quarry, clays and targets – and the vast majority are responsible and law-abiding people, who know that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

“Many of the issues highlighted in this report appear to be failures of the police rather than the system and inconsistent application of the existing regulations. It is vital that the police address these shortcomings.

“We cannot support the idea that the police should be able to force entry to a certificate holder’s home without a warrant. If there is the “necessary evidence” to justify an unannounced home visit then a warrant should be obtained.

“The Countryside Alliance will continue to work closely with the Home Office and other stakeholders to improve the system and ensure it is fair and proportionate.”

Further points
We welcome the spotlight that HMIC has turned upon police inefficiency, especially rearding the outrageous periods of time taken by some forces to process certificate grants and renewals. The figures speak for themselves. If most forces can process new applications within an average of 12 weeks and renewals within 8 weeks, then it is unacceptable for some forces to be taking twice this amount of time, or even more, to carry out these functions. HMIC says: “The delays that are evident in a number of forces are inexplicable and unacceptable.” We agree.

HMIC has highlighted the inadequacy of staffing in licencing departments, which we applaud. What it has not done in its report is identify one of the root causes for the recurrence of heavy workloads, namely the periodic ‘bulge’ in renewals which resulted from the historical change from 3 to 5 years of certificate life. This has been repeatedly pointed out to licencing departments, not least by the CA to the Home Affairs Committee’s investigation into firearms licensing in 2010. Remedies have been proposed, but the ‘bulge’ has never been satisfactorily addressed.

We support HMIC’s call for greater professionalism in training and monitoring of licensing staff. Certificate holders expect to be dealt with by knowledgeable and competent staff, but this is not always the case.

HMIC has rightly called for much greater consistency in the use of temporary permits in situations where, through police inefficiency, certificates have not been renewed prior to their expiry. However, HMIC fails to note that a temporary permit cannot authorise the continued possession of ammunition that is routinely used by pest controllers and deer stalkers. Nor can it enable a Section 1 certificate holder to purchase additional supplies of ammunition. The temporary permit is not even an acceptable sticking plaster. What is required is far greater efficiency in the processing of applications.

We support HMIC’s call for police to follow Home Office Guidance. Some forces are still not doing this. The Guidance is a public document which enables certificate holders as well as police and indeed the public at large to understand the way that licensing should be undertaken and to know where they stand. It is not acceptable that while certificate holders in some parts of Great Britain have their applications dealt with according to the letter of the Guidance, others do not.

HMIC has addressed the need for improvements in the invovement of the medical profession in the licensing process. We agree with this, and we are engaged in the Medical Evidence Working Group that has been set up by the Home Office to examine this question. This is work in progress, but more needs to be done before an efficient process that is equitable and cost effective can be put in place.

The issue of unannounced visits to certificate holders in order to inspect their firearms and security was fully addressed in 2014 and a process was agreed whereby visits are made if and when specific intelligence leads to police concerns. We think that is the right balance. Such visits should not be routine in nature, and nor should there be an automatic right of entry to a certificate holder’s home without a warrant, any more than there is a right of entry without warrant to the homes of any other citizens.

We fully support HMIC’s call for a digitised system that allows online application and payment, which enables applicants to track the progress of their applications and which enhances the ability of licensing staff to maintain improved checks during the lifetime of a certificate. This process is long overdue and we are dismayed that the ‘e-commerce’ project, which should by now have been in operation, has stalled. There is a need for much improved IT throughout the licensing process. NFLMS is at the end of its operational life and funds must be made available to put in place a new IT system for firearms licensing which is fit for purpose.

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/cou ... 9b4f1ba34c

[Christel]

“At least 600,000 people in UK shoot – live quarry, clays and targets – and the vast majority are responsible and law-abiding people, who know that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

I have taken offence to this sentence. Privilege/right...as far as I know as long as a person is deemed safe then a cert cannot be refused...which means it is a right?

[Hunter87]

“At least 600,000 people in UK shoot – live quarry, clays and targets – and the vast majority are responsible and law-abiding people, who know that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

I have taken offence to this sentence. Privilege/right...as far as I know as long as a person is deemed safe then a cert cannot be refused...which means it is a right?

I feel it's a privilege that's just my opinion

[Dellboy]

and the vast majority are responsible and law-abiding people

surely to have the gun in the first place the powers that be have checked everyone to the point of being 99.9% responsible and law abiding

[IainWR]

and the vast majority are responsible and law-abiding people

surely to have the gun in the first place the powers that be have checked everyone to the point of being 99.9% responsible and law abiding

Fag-packet analysis says you can put another 2, maybe 3, 9s on that.

[bradaz11]

is this a different report to the one the NRA responded to? this mentions HMIC whereas the NRA's talks of the law commission

[snayperskaya]

“At least 600,000 people in UK shoot – live quarry, clays and targets – and the vast majority are responsible and law-abiding people, who know that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

I have taken offence to this sentence. Privilege/right...as far as I know as long as a person is deemed safe then a cert cannot be refused...which means it is a right?

I feel it's a privilege that's just my opinion

I do agree with Hunter to be fair.The fact someone can be refused an FAC for valid reasons means, in law, it is not a right......or is that wrong?.

Privilege- noun, a permission granted by law or other rules.

[Blackstuff]

I do agree with Hunter to be fair.The fact someone can be refused an FAC for valid reasons means, in law, it is not a right......or is that wrong?.

Privilege- noun, a permission granted by law or other rules.

That definition would mean there was literally no such thing as gun rights in any country that isn't governed by a religious (rather than legislative) goverment, including the USA.

[Mitch308]

I do agree with Hunter to be fair.The fact someone can be refused an FAC for valid reasons means, in law, it is not a right......or is that wrong?.

Privilege- noun, a permission granted by law or other rules.

That definition would mean there was literally no such thing as gun rights in any country that isn't governed by a religious (rather than legislative) goverment, including the USA.

Surely Firearms ownership is a right, If you meet the legal requirements to possess a firearm,you have a right to own a firearm.

[dromia]

Qualified right, if you meet the conditions, fit person, good reason and security commensurate with the risk then it cannot be denied.