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

Just how much sway does a coroner have when he says things like "......requires a root and branch reform?" Just wondering out loud really. Despite him saying clearly that it is a flaw in the Police's management, you can bet that this will be added to the pile of 'anti' ammunition.

While the the (non)enforcement of the existing legislation has been shown to be the problem the tabloids and news headlines are all saying,

"Coroner calls for gun reform after Horden shootings" and "A coroner has called for "root and branch" gun licensing reform"

Not "Police Force fail to apply existing firearms legislation"

The BASC statement should also go further than it does to highlight this fact.

Thats what my point was, the reform is not needed ( does the coroner actually know what the process is to get an FAC?maybe if he did he might not have come out with the reform idea )

What has BASC said then ?

ttfn
The greek

BASC statement

"It is clear from the evidence presented by firearms licensing staff that Durham police must bear responsibility for the fact that Michael Atherton had access to guns. The police had the legal power and should have acted to permanently remove those guns on reports of Atherton’s violence, alcohol abuse and threats of suicide. There were several clear opportunities for this tragedy to have been prevented. Durham police have broken the bond of trust which exists between the public and the police in the administration of the UK’s firearms law.

After this tragedy we have to ask ourselves if 43 different police forces operating different systems with no common training or standards and varying interpretations of government guidance is the right way to protect public safety and ensure efficient licensing."

It'd be better if the SGC licence was a little closer to an FAC:

First, demonstrate some kind of 'good reason' - if you're not going to shoot clays, control pests, game shoot or collect etc. what do you want one for anyway?

Second, use a target shooting style 'probation period' or similar - so if you want a SGC for clays, join and / or attend a local clay club regularly, to demonstrate you can handle a gun safely and don't appear to be an aggressive nutter etc.

Third, make it a little easier for police to not grant SGC's to people they'd rather not. At the moment, they have to have quite a 'case' before they can refuse a certificate. They have much more discretion with FAC's - and it hasn't stopped any of us (as we're presumably all responsible and law abiding).

Just my two pence.

Mikaveli wrote:It'd be better if the SGC licence was a little closer to an FAC:

First, demonstrate some kind of 'good reason' - if you're not going to shoot clays, control pests, game shoot or collect etc. what do you want one for anyway?

Second, use a target shooting style 'probation period' or similar - so if you want a SGC for clays, join and / or attend a local clay club regularly, to demonstrate you can handle a gun safely and don't appear to be an aggressive nutter etc.

Third, make it a little easier for police to not grant SGC's to people they'd rather not. At the moment, they have to have quite a 'case' before they can refuse a certificate. They have much more discretion with FAC's - and it hasn't stopped any of us (as we're presumably all responsible and law abiding).

Just my two pence.

"scratch my head smilie", "makes no sense to me smilie"

Sim G wrote: "scratch my head smilie", "makes no sense to me smilie"

The point was, a lot of similar failings happen when the police can't refuse a cert. because they're not enough evidence (that would hold up in court) against an unsavory applicant.

For an FAC, the emphasis is the other way round.

Mikaveli wrote:

Sim G wrote: "scratch my head smilie", "makes no sense to me smilie"

The point was, a lot of similar failings happen when the police can't refuse a cert. because they're not enough evidence (that would hold up in court) against an unsavory applicant.

For an FAC, the emphasis is the other way round.

he apparently had both so your point is moot

kennyc wrote:

Mikaveli wrote:

Sim G wrote: "scratch my head smilie", "makes no sense to me smilie"

The point was, a lot of similar failings happen when the police can't refuse a cert. because they're not enough evidence (that would hold up in court) against an unsavory applicant.

For an FAC, the emphasis is the other way round.

he apparently had both so your point is moot

True, he did - but I can't help but feel it is related.

As others have said, the notes from the FEO recommended against the grant - so you have to ask why the higher-ups granted his certs anyway?

I'm sure in this specific case, most of the blame can be pointed at Durham constabulary. But could some of the reason not relate to the police feeling they didn't have enough power t refuse the grant?

So, the firearms dept cannot apply the legislation that already exists to ensure public safety and the answer is, give the police more legislation and power.....?

Yep, that'll do it!