repeal the licencing act

Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.

The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.

The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.

that polluters should be the ones to remove pollution and not the innocent (particularly as it applies to the smoking ban).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Encourage young entrepreneurs, don’t hold them back

Section 157 of the 2006 Companies Act bans under 16s from being the director of either a company or a charity.  

Whilst I appreciate that this is a law that only directly affects a very small minority of people, they are a very important minority, and it is thus in all out interests that we repeal it.

These people are the cream of the next generation, potential business or community leaders of the future.  Their talent and drive should be nurtured, encouraged and allowed to flourish.  Holding them back to the level of less able youngsters has quite the opposite effect.  

If we want this country to have a future, we should be encouraging our most able and driven youngsters to use their talent to its full potential.  The removal of unnecessary barriers, such as this draconian piece of legislation, is essential to doing this.

Just because this law only restricts a very small minority is not an excuse for its existence, particularly as the very people it is restricting are the same people that we will need to help get this country out of the mess it is in.

A government which cares about the future of this country would repeal this law without hesitation.

Why is this idea important?

Section 157 of the 2006 Companies Act bans under 16s from being the director of either a company or a charity.  

Whilst I appreciate that this is a law that only directly affects a very small minority of people, they are a very important minority, and it is thus in all out interests that we repeal it.

These people are the cream of the next generation, potential business or community leaders of the future.  Their talent and drive should be nurtured, encouraged and allowed to flourish.  Holding them back to the level of less able youngsters has quite the opposite effect.  

If we want this country to have a future, we should be encouraging our most able and driven youngsters to use their talent to its full potential.  The removal of unnecessary barriers, such as this draconian piece of legislation, is essential to doing this.

Just because this law only restricts a very small minority is not an excuse for its existence, particularly as the very people it is restricting are the same people that we will need to help get this country out of the mess it is in.

A government which cares about the future of this country would repeal this law without hesitation.

Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

New Firearms Licensing system

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why is this idea important?

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Repeal the Firearms Act 1968 and amendments

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Why is this idea important?

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Repeal the ban on TAC airguns (ie: Brocock)

Part 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 added airguns that use a self-contained air cartridge system to Section 5 of the Firearms Act, alongside real handguns, thus made practically totally illegal. Only around 1500 were surrendered and 6000 put on a firearm license. BASC estimates that around 68000 are still in circulation, the owners of which will face prosecution should they be found in possession or decide to hand them in to the police. Essentially, somewhere near 70000 new criminals were created overnight. Another 'feel-good' law that achieved nothing but the destruction of people's hobbies and property.

Why is this idea important?

Part 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 added airguns that use a self-contained air cartridge system to Section 5 of the Firearms Act, alongside real handguns, thus made practically totally illegal. Only around 1500 were surrendered and 6000 put on a firearm license. BASC estimates that around 68000 are still in circulation, the owners of which will face prosecution should they be found in possession or decide to hand them in to the police. Essentially, somewhere near 70000 new criminals were created overnight. Another 'feel-good' law that achieved nothing but the destruction of people's hobbies and property.

Ban of semi automatic firearms and pistols

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Why is this idea important?

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Repeal the five year mandatory minimum sentence for firearms possession

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Repeal and change the Smoking Ban

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its place could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its place could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.

Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Firearms Laws

I am a British Citizen, I am licensed in Australia to carry a firearm in the line of my Job as a Bodyguard and Cash-in-Transit officer. I would like the UK to fall in line with the rest of the world in regards to Bodyguard, Security officers, Police officers. I would also like all firearms laws from 1997 remove and instead of the citizens being punished for doing nothing wrong, the criminals are the ones that are punished. Since the 1997 Gun Laws the crime rate in the UK has not reduced it has in fact gone up.

Why is this idea important?

I am a British Citizen, I am licensed in Australia to carry a firearm in the line of my Job as a Bodyguard and Cash-in-Transit officer. I would like the UK to fall in line with the rest of the world in regards to Bodyguard, Security officers, Police officers. I would also like all firearms laws from 1997 remove and instead of the citizens being punished for doing nothing wrong, the criminals are the ones that are punished. Since the 1997 Gun Laws the crime rate in the UK has not reduced it has in fact gone up.

Any laws which allow prisoners to sue the state for conditions

It doesn't happen alot but why should we compensate criminals who get a bad back because of the matress they sleep on IN JAIL!? I expect its the human rights act which allows this

Why is this idea important?

It doesn't happen alot but why should we compensate criminals who get a bad back because of the matress they sleep on IN JAIL!? I expect its the human rights act which allows this