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

Blackstuff - you can cheer up now!

That link (posted for about 8 minutes) was NOT the correct link ! I was given incorrect information, which I've now sorted out. (It was a link to the HAC recommendations, not the government response to them.) The Government do NOT suggest that shotguns are subjected to the same conditions as S1 Firearms.

I've added a brief summary of the major points to the page as well as a link to the report itself

See - http://psa.bizhosting.com/whats_new.html

Here it is as well

Following my first reading of this, it doesn't sound too bad.

Lets hope that any new guidance and F A Acts consolidation is sensibly made.

I'm not convinced that any of it would have prevented Bird from committing murder.

Thanks again to the efforts so far of BASC in general and Mike Eveleigh in particular.

... so, nothing's really changed, then. Or has it? Other then they are looking to review the fees for licencing.

Some brief headlines from the report mentioned above...

The report has rejects any major changes to firearms law, or even a consolidation of the current acts.


It rejects the call for compulsory medical checks, BUT welcomes the system of the police informing GPs that their patients have a firearm or shotgun certificate: We believe this will be counter-productive and dangerous. BASC are continuing to negotiate with the Home Office, ACPO the BMA, and several other interested parties over this matter. That said, the government have rejected the ACPO proposal to “tag” shooters’ medical records


The report rejects the call to have ex-partners’ consulted when someone applies for a certificate, but they will be studying the Canadian system, although even then they seem to have doubts about it.


There WILL be a review of certificate fees, but the report says that Chief Constables MUST put sufficient resources into firearms licensing, as they have a statutory duty.

The report rejects central storage of firearms.


The report FIRMLY REJECTS the licensing or banning of air weapons – and it states “the vast majority of which are used safely and responsibly, and prefers to tackle the minority who misuse air weapons.”

Plus this one of course.

11. We advocate a change in the law to create a single system for the licensing of section 1 firearms and shotguns. Such a system should be based upon the current process for granting licences for section 1 firearms. The benefits of such a system would be two-fold: firstly, we consider that allowing guns to only those individuals who have good reason to hold them strikes the appropriate balance between personal freedoms and public safety, and we see no reason why those applying for a shotgun licence should be exempt from proving ‘good reason’. Secondly, it will render the process considerably more straightforward and, we understand from the police, cheaper to administer. We believe that this can be undertaken in such a way as to avoid any undue restrictions on the use of shotguns. (Paragraph 81)

Ovenpaa,

That was a recommendation from the HAC report. This - the Government report - REJECTS it !

(phew!)

Oops, am I reading the wrong bits as well? I skimmed it very quickly between meetings

Mike2

That clears up the confusion - I read your initial link on the PSA website - between clients and also got a message that the CA were happy (Sort of!) with the report - this had me really confused!

I've come back in to see things are a little more in line with each other now

Regards

Mike

I read your summary between having a haircut and taking the cats to the vet and thought it was great.