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

The bit about confidentially asking family members about suitability should cause concern.

Interested to see our "national" organisations involvement/response to this latest Home Office guidance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23518523

To be honest I thought this was already the case!
Although I doubt they're going to ban anyone with a history of domestic violence from owning or having access to sharp things or heavy/blunt things.

"Intelligence" = "unsubstantiated hearsay and gossip".

Nothing good will come of this - it's another whitewash to prevent the police being held to account for their failings.

edit to add - this is utterly moronic. Anyone with a history of domestic violence who is refused an FAC, or has one revoked, is obviously going to turn on his partner now as a result of these guidelines. Regardless if the police try and keep interviews with the partner on the QT, the mere fact it's in the guidance as a mandatory step practically guarantees the spouse a fresh kicking.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

When you consider the legal steps that are already supposed to be in place regarding peoples suitability to own and use firearms, then look at the woeful state of most counties Firearm departments, understaffed, underfunded and barely coping, just how they supposed to cope with even more pointless red tape!

A sensible and balanced approach to reforming our muddled Firearms act, heavily polluted by 25 years worth of knee jerk vote winning political interference is badly needed, but it should be an open and fair consultation bringing in the Home Office, Police, shooters and shooting organizations.

What we have now is a mess of the first order, with some Police forces doing very well in administering a typically British "dogs dinner" (Wiltshire for one, credit where its due) and others badly failing to make the grade from what I have heard on here over the years.

Thats my take on it anyway!

huntervixen wrote:When you consider the legal steps that are already supposed to be in place regarding peoples suitability to own and use firearms, then look at the woeful state of most counties Firearm departments, understaffed, underfunded and barely coping, just how they supposed to cope with even more pointless red tape!

A sensible and balanced approach to reforming our muddled Firearms act, heavily polluted by 25 years worth of knee jerk vote winning political interference is badly needed, but it should be an open and fair consultation bringing in the Home Office, Police, shooters and shooting organizations.

What we have now is a mess of the first order, with some Police forces doing very well in administering a typically British "dogs dinner" (Wiltshire for one, credit where its due) and others badly failing to make the grade from what I have heard on here over the years.

Thats my take on it anyway!

Well said!

Gaz wrote:"Intelligence" = "unsubstantiated hearsay and gossip".

Nothing good will come of this - it's another whitewash to prevent the police being held to account for their failings.

edit to add - this is utterly moronic. Anyone with a history of domestic violence who is refused an FAC, or has one revoked, is obviously going to turn on his partner now as a result of these guidelines. Regardless if the police try and keep interviews with the partner on the QT, the mere fact it's in the guidance as a mandatory step practically guarantees the spouse a fresh kicking.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The average female DV victim will be attacked by her partner/spouse 35 times before she calls police for the first time. Then, on average, she will involve the police another six times, with about three attacks between each call, before she will support a prosecution and three quarters will withdraw and retract their evidence before trial... So really, allowing such an animal to keep guns just to prevent one beating is moot...

It is generally far from unsubstantiated gossip...

Having seen it first around lunchtime today, the thing that disappointed me about it was that it does not mention at all the possibility of malicious complaint. In my NRA Liaison Officer position I know of 2 absolute cases of such in the past 18 months (ie FAC holder was accused or complained about, either arrested or had FAC revoked, and all was subsequently reversed). The distress caused, with the greatest of ease, by the malicious accuser to the FAC holder, was immense. AFAIK, police have not subsequently prosecuted for wasting police time / malicious falsehood / perjury / whatever.

The official NRA line on this is that we find it unexceptionable other than we rather imagined that it was happening anyway:

S27 Firearms Act 1986

A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace

and thus we are of the view that this is simply codification of what should already be best practice.

Iain
NRA Firearms Liaison officer

Just for me to be clear on your post Iain, the NRA thinks that asking family members about suitability was already part of the firearms licensing process and that is fine despite what you have illustrated about malicious complaints?

Could you also tell me what the Home Offices consultation process was on this, if any and where I might find the NRA's submissions to any process?

I don't think there was a consultation, Adam. I believe this is on the back of the coroners court judgement. These are particularly powerful courts...

So there is no challenge then?