The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

762, you are very negative. If they do decide to tighten firearms law in the UK, I'll bet you'll be the one on the sofa watching all of us marching through the streets!

Ah I remember the hunting marches! I did one each side of the fence.

Mike

dromia wrote:A very one sided view of fitness indeed.

Who is going to check the veracity of the partners reasons for disapproval, especially with ex-partners where pure spite could be the motivator.

Agreed.

How are they going to actually prove that anything the ex says is true? I can see this happening:

ExWife: "He hit me repeatability, and he tried to sell our children!" [lie]
Police: "Really? Well, he can't have a .308, then."
Applicant: "She's lying"
Police: "Move along, sir"

Cheap soundbite politics designed to bolster the government's flagging approval ratings amongst the wimmin's lobbyists.

It won't make much of a difference. Surely a battered spouse can be coerced into giving approval, for fear of further violence if the application is rejected? On the face of it this sounds like it might actually increase instances of domestic violence.

From what al-Beeb say about the Canadian system it sounds like the partner must be one of the referees on grant/renewal. Much like a club official must be one of the referees for an initial grant of a target shooting FAC.

edit to add: I can see this proposal lasting about as long as it takes for someone with deep enough pockets to take plod to court after a vindictive spouse lies on the reference form.

Gaz wrote:Cheap soundbite politics designed to bolster the government's flagging approval ratings amongst the wimmin's lobbyists.

It won't make much of a difference. Surely a battered spouse can be coerced into giving approval, for fear of further violence if the application is rejected? On the face of it this sounds like it might actually increase instances of domestic violence.

From what al-Beeb say about the Canadian system it sounds like the partner must be one of the referees on grant/renewal. Much like a club official must be one of the referees for an initial grant of a target shooting FAC.

edit to add: I can see this proposal lasting about as long as it takes for someone with deep enough pockets to take plod to court after a vindictive spouse lies on the reference form.

I put down one of my club officials as a referee and was told that he cannot be one since I hadn't known them for a year.
So ended up having an Ex-Marine work colleague and a long time friend which was accepted.

Gaz wrote:Much like a club official must be one of the referees for an initial grant of a target shooting FAC.

If I remember correctly the initial grant has to be two independent referees but on renewal one has to be a club official.

Why are we debating this here, oomans? All this hot air would be better expended upon a sheet of fine laid*, a well chosen paragraph or two highlighting the deficiencies of the idea and suggestions as to what else the government might more profitably aspire to do with its time and our taxes, plus a stamp to send said opinions to Ms May.






* A grade of paper

Doz wrote:

Gaz wrote:Much like a club official must be one of the referees for an initial grant of a target shooting FAC.

If I remember correctly the initial grant has to be two independent referees but on renewal one has to be a club official.

Whoops, that'll teach me for quoting from memory! You're right, it's only on renewals:

10.9 If the chief officer of police is satisfied under section 44 of the 1997 Act that the application is for the renewal of a firearm certificate in relation to a rifle or muzzleloading pistol for use only for target shooting, one of the referees must be an official of the approved rifle or muzzleloading pistol club specified in the application.

Home Office underlining, not mine.

I stand to be corrected on this but currently aren't family members excluded from being referee's?

As I've still got the guidance open:

10.8 Members of the applicant’s family may not act as referees. In the absence of a Court ruling, family is taken to mean the following: mother; father; son; daughter; sister; brother; aunt; uncle; grand parent and mother/father/sister/brother in law. Cousins are not regarded as immediate family but cohabiting partners should be considered as “family” for these purposes and not be accepted. Serving police officers, police civilian employees and registered firearms dealers (but see paragraph 10.9) may not act as referees.