http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11674725

"Under the Whiting proposals, family members would be formally asked if an applicant was suitable to own a gun.

Other recommendations included banning people from owning guns if they had received a suspended prison term, which is currently not the case."

Has anybody ordered a semi-auto 17HMR ?

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11674725

"Under the Whiting proposals, family members would be formally asked if an applicant was suitable to own a gun.

Other recommendations included banning people from owning guns if they had received a suspended prison term, which is currently not the case."

I get the distinct impression the Conservatives are pretty luke warm about the need for changes.

I suspect there may be some minor tweaks, such as the suspended prison term issue but I particularly can't see the family member thing flying as its open to abuse (think spiteful ex wives ect) plus who says the family member is competent to make the judgement??

It sounds like ACPO would like to curtail the use handguns for humane dispatch, but whether that will get through Parliament is another matter...

I've heard rumors that charges for grants and renewals are going to double, but on the plus side, theres a chance the rules around expanding ammo may be relaxed/streamlined..

I guess we shall have to wait and see..

Pete

Interesting comments from you.

I agree with the vetting via the family thing.

In fact, in relation to most of the ideas for additional legislation it is all well and good having the idea of this, that and the other but with cut backs imminent in most govt areas, is the resource going to be available to enforce/police any additional measures?

This doesn't just apply to this situation but all kinds of areas within central/local gov't.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:
......I've heard rumors that charges for grants and renewals are going to double, but on the plus side, theres a chance the rules around expanding ammo may be relaxed/streamlined....

Interesting Pete. By pure coincidence I was talking to our local FEO last week. Apparently PSNI firearms licensing department costs about £3m per year to run. At the same time, revenue in the form of renewal and variation fees is "only" ballpark £1m. You can see where that is likely to lead.....

As we speak the agenda is going to double FAC application / variation / renewal cost.

I posted this some weeks ago before this report came out.

http://forums.accuratereloadin.../5421043/m/853107085

Already searching for a semi-auto 17 HMR

56 Firearms Control
Conclusions and recommendations
1. The police recorded 14,250 offences in which a firearm was fired, used as a blunt
instrument or to threaten in England and Wales in 2008/09, the last year for which
complete figures are available. This represents only 0.3% of all recorded offences and
a 41% fall in firearms offences since 2003/04. However, to put this into context, the
reduction came from a historic peak in levels of gun crime reached in the early years
of the 2000s. Where firearms are used, it can be to devastating effect: they were
responsible for 39 homicides, and around 2,000 injuries, in 2008/09. Moreover, the
extent to which firearms, especially air weapons, are used in less serious crimes is
likely to be higher than is recorded; and a number of firearms-related offences are
not captured in these statistics. While it is heartening that official figures show the
use of firearms in crime to be declining, these figures should not be allowed to fuel
complacency. (Paragraph 12)
2. We heard contrasting views about the extent to which legally-held firearms are used
in crime. It is difficult to form an accurate assessment, given the limitations of
available data. Certainly licensed firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of
cases. They are infrequently used in serious and organised crime, which is fed by
illegal firearms, particularly converted and realistic imitation weapons. Mass
shootings with licensed weapons, such as the terrible crimes perpetrated by Derrick
Bird, also thankfully remain rare, but the fact that they were carried out by licensed
gun owners should not be overlooked in any further consideration of firearms
legislation. Offences with low-powered air weapons, the possession of which is not
illegal, comprise a substantial proportion of all gun crime. Moreover, legal firearms
were used in at least 10% of firearms homicides in 2008/09, which, while it represents
a tiny number of individual incidents, is not an insignificant proportion of these
homicides. On the basis of data submitted to the Cullen Inquiry, and that collected
more recently by Professor Squires and the Gun Control Network, we are concerned
about the use of legal firearms in domestic incidents, often linked to domestic
violence. (Paragraph 21)
3. There are 138,728 section 1 firearms certificate holders and 574,946 shotgun
certificate holders in England and Wales. The proportion of licence holders who use
their guns in crime is tiny. Many representations were made to us by individual
shooters and their representatives about their legitimate enjoyment of shooting
sports, about the need for farmers in particular to have access to firearms in the
course of their professional activities and about the wider benefits shooting brings to
the UK economy. (Paragraph 26)
4. There is considerable evidence, although it is not clear-cut, that well-designed
legislation to regulate and restrict the legal supply of firearms can reduce gun crime.
The UK has strict gun laws and comparatively low levels of gun crime. The link
should not be overstated—there is no direct correlation in recent UK history
between levels of gun ownership and gun crime trends. However, it is fair to assume
at least in part that this demonstrates the success of the licensing regime, in place
since 1968, which enables the authorities to satisfy themselves that those owning
Firearms Control 57
firearms are fit to do so. We do not believe that a total outright ban on ownership
and use of section 1 firearms and shotguns would be a proportionate response to the
risks posed by these weapons. There is, however, scope for further minimisation of
risk through adjustments to the licensing process, which we consider in more detail
in chapter three. We also believe that more effective measures could be put in place
to tackle criminal use of those firearms which are not currently subject to a licensing
regime; we consider this in chapter four. (Paragraph 35)
5. An onerous burden is placed on the police and on the public because of the difficulty
of understanding and applying the 34 relevant laws which govern the control of
firearms. It is unreasonable to expect members of the public to know their
responsibilities when the law is so complex and confused. It is also unreasonable to
expect the police to apply the law accurately in all cases when it is so complex. This is
unhelpful to good relations between the police and the public. We recommend that,
rather than adding new rules and greater confusion, the Government provides
proposals for early consultation on how to codify and simplify the law. Along with
the proposals themselves, we urge the Government to give careful consideration to
how it will publicise the legislation in order to give greater clarity to the lay person.
(Paragraph 36)
6. The supply of firearms is only part of the challenge of reducing gun violence. We
understand that the Government is to publish details of its crime prevention strategy
at the end of the year. In order to tackle the drivers of gun crime, we recommend that
this strategy should explicitly link to long-term measures to reduce domestic
violence, measures to tackle the social factors which foster extreme violence and
measures to clamp down on illegal drug markets and other forms of serious and
organised crime. We are concerned about the potential for sensationalist media
coverage of shootings to encourage copycat killings. In respect of this last point, we
recommend that the Government ask the media regulatory bodies to enforce a code
of practice which both prohibits overtly sensational media coverage of shootings and
offers greater protection to victims and their families against intrusive reporting.
(Paragraph 42)
7. We note the evidence given to us about the need for a ‘public health’ approach to
preventing and limiting violence. We also note that the unique and imaginative
approach to the collection and analysis of data about violent incidents led by
Professor Jon Shepherd in Cardiff has delivered major improvements, measured by
the significant drop in the number of victims needing treatment at Accident and
Emergency. We recommend that a careful analysis based on science and
‘engineering’ methodology should be applied to this field of prevention. (Paragraph
43)
8. We welcome the recent agreement between the Association of Chief Police Officers
and the British Medical Association that the police alert GPs to every new and
renewal licence application. We consider this to be an important step in ensuring
that the licensing authority receives accurate medical information about applicants,
given the cases we have heard in which applicants have failed to provide this, some of
which have resulted in murder. Ultimately, police licensing officers must take
responsibility for the decision as to whether or not to grant or revoke a licence. We
58 Firearms Control
note that there is already a duty on doctors to communicate their concerns if they
judge that a patient poses a danger to themselves or to others. Police guidance must
make clear that GPs are not being asked to predict future behaviour, as this is
impossible, or to judge the fitness of an applicant to possess a weapon themselves.
One means of dealing with this latter concern would be to consider requiring
applicants to undergo a compulsory medical check with a specially-appointed
medical examiner, but we note that this would be extremely resource intensive, that
it might be regarded as disproportionate, and that we received no firm evidence that
it would achieve the desired level of certainty in the licensing process. (Paragraph
67)
9. We consider that there should be both tighter restrictions and clearer guidance on
the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in
criminal activity. Firstly, the legislation should be amended to clarify that persons in
receipt of wholly suspended sentences are subject to the same prohibitions from
obtaining a licence to hold section 1 firearms or shotguns as they would be if their
sentence had not been suspended. We do not believe it appropriate for those
convicted of offences which are serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence to
retain their firearms. We are also of the view that those who receive shorter custodial
sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms and recommend accordingly.
(Paragraph 72)
10. We understand that police licensing officers are now encouraged to take into
account intelligence about criminal behaviour that does not result in convictions, as
well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, when considering whether
or not to grant a licence: it must be made explicit in police guidance that officers are
expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, in particular cases of bindovers,
arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and an accumulation of
convictions for offences whose penalty falls short of that requiring prohibition.
(Paragraph 73)
11. Given our particular concerns about the use of legal weapons in domestic firearms
incidents, we consider that the Canadian requirement for partners and recent expartners
to sign licence application forms merits further exploration. We
recommend that the UK Government should hold a consultation on the proposal
that police licensing officers consult the current and recent domestic partners of
applicants in assessing a licence application, and report back to us on the responses
received. (Paragraph 74)
12. We are not convinced by arguments put forward in favour of decreasing the licence
renewal period from five to two years. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that
there has been an increase in misuse of lethal firearms since the period was increased
from three years in 1995, and the proposal would place considerable pressure on
police resources. We are encouraged by early signs that police forces may be taking a
more proactive approach to licence revocations following the Derrick Bird shootings
and consider that such an approach, facilitated by the National Firearms Licensing
Management System, and greater emphasis on medical checks, is the most effective
way forward. (Paragraph 78)
Firearms Control 59
13. 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 twofold:
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)
14. Current police guidance on firearms legislation is out-of-date. We recommend that
the guidance is urgently updated to take into account recent changes to legislation to
ensure that officers are properly equipped to take the best decisions that they can.
Furthermore, the Government should facilitate a change in the status of the guidance
to make it an Approved Code of Practice, to give police decisions greater weight with
the courts. While we have no wish to interfere with the judicial process, we are aware
of at least one case where a magistrate has reinstated a firearm revoked by the police,
only for the firearm to be subsequently used in crime. (Paragraph 84)
15. There is concern about the potential impact of police spending cuts on the firearms
licensing function. In particular, it is important to preserve recent improvements in
the rigour of the process, such as the increase in home visits undertaken for renewal
applications, which we consider should be compulsory. One means of ensuring
sufficient funds is to increase applicant fees; given that the current fee structure was
set in 2000, we consider that the Home Office should consider raising the current
£50 fee to a level that covers the reasonable costs of licensing. We also understand
that substantial savings could be made by extending the life of a proportion of
certificates in order to remove the peaks and troughs created when the renewal
period was extended to five years. The Home Office should implement this proposal
and report back to us within twelve months on the steps that it has taken on this
recommendation. (Paragraph 88)
16. It has been suggested that prohibiting ownership of firearms and ammunition
together in the home would reduce both the risk of them falling into the hands of
criminals, through theft, and the ease at which they could be misused by their legal
owners in violent incidents. We were inclined to agree with Mr Whiting’s
assessment, that the need to fetch a weapon, or ammunition, from a storage facility
would be unlikely to deter those intent on murder. We are not convinced that
holding weapons at central locations would necessarily reduce the risk of theft; it
could indeed increase the risk of theft. (Paragraph 94)
17. A large number of young people enjoy shooting in a safe and responsible manner.
However, the legislation governing their use of firearms is extremely complex and
confusing. We recommend that the Government brings forward proposals to
simplify and clarify (a) the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under
supervision in the controlled environment of a shooting range; (b) the age at which
an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision outside of such a controlled
environment; and (c) the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot
60 Firearms Control
unsupervised. In formulating such proposals, the Government should be informed
by our beliefs that the risks involved in shooting are greatly mitigated under
supervision; that the purpose of granting a licence should be to allow an individual to
shoot unsupervised; and that we can see no good reason to maintain the current
differences in age restrictions between section 1 firearms and shotguns, the origins of
which are purely historical. (Paragraph 101)
18. Replica, converted and deactivated firearms have emerged as a major source of illegal
guns, perhaps owing to the difficulties that criminals now experience in acquiring
genuine lethal firearms. In the past, policy-making to tackle emerging threats has
been hampered by the lack of an effective evidence base about criminal use of
firearms. We are encouraged that the formation of the National Ballistics Intelligence
Service has gone some way towards addressing this deficiency. While clearly we
would not be in favour of any disclosure that would compromise police operations,
or assist criminals in accessing lethal weapons, we urge the National Ballistics
Intelligence Service and the police to make generalised data about the illegal gun
market available to academics and policy-makers more widely where this would not
interfere with operational requirements, in recognition of the contribution that such
individuals can make to crime reduction. (Paragraph 109)
19. Restricted intelligence from the National Ballistics Intelligence Service indicates that
a significant number of pre-1995 standard weapons have been reactivated into live
weapons within the UK, and subsequently used in very serious crimes. We therefore
recommend that the Government introduces a requirement for firearms that were
deactivated before 1995 to be modified to the 1995 standard, in order to make it
harder for criminals to gain access to readily-reactivated weapons. We also
recommend that deactivated guns are only sold through Registered Firearms
Dealers. (Paragraph 114)
20. The previous Government introduced legislation enabling a more pro-active
approach to outlawing “readily-convertible” imitation firearms via the Violent Crime
Reduction Act 2006, but did not take the necessary action to bring this into effect.
Restricted intelligence from the National Ballistics Intelligence Service reveals the
significant role that converted firearms play in facilitating serious criminality. We
therefore recommend that the Home Secretary make regulations under Section 39 of
the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 to require imitation firearms to conform to a
specification that makes it more difficult for them to be converted into firing
weapons, and that a process of type approval be introduced concurrently to limit the
introduction of non-compliant items into the market place. (Paragraph 119)
21. The Government should introduce legislation to amend section 1(6) of the Firearms
Act 1982 to ensure that the definition of a ‘readily-convertible’ imitation firearm
accurately reflects the abilities of contemporary criminals to carry out such
conversions, and introduce new offences for supply and importation of firearms to
ensure that those guilty of such offences face appropriate penalties. Closer working
with the UK’s European partners is also key to tackling the illegal importation of
firearms. (Paragraph 124)
Firearms Control 61
22. Reported air weapon offences have been falling since 2003/04, possibly in response to
legislation, although we appreciate that such offences are likely to be underrepresented
in official figures. We were encouraged by the number of successful
prosecutions for possession of air weapons in public or by underage individuals, and
improper firing of air weapons, that have been undertaken since 2008. Greater
enforcement of air weapon offences, such as criminal damage, should form part of
the more general police undertaking to be tougher on anti-social behaviour. Before
considering whether or not to incorporate low-powered air weapons into the
firearms licensing regime, the Government should continue to monitor closely the
impact of recent legislation, including the Crime and Security Act 2010 on reducing
air weapon offences. (Paragraph 133)

http://www.publications.parlia.../cmhaff/447/447i.pdf