Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Why is this idea important?

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

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.

replica fire arms

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Why is this idea important?

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

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.

 

 

with the comming of the 2012 Olympics and the hand gun ban

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Why is this idea important?

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Review of UK Firearms Law

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

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.  

Allow Illegitimate Children Citizenship Through Their British Fathers

Currently, only British mothers and married British fathers are able to pass on their citizenship, by descent, to their children. The one and only group left out of their birthright are children born before 1 July 2006 to unmarried British fathers.

There is a registration system put in place for fathers to register their minor children for UK citizenship.  However, it is being misused by immigration officers.  There are numerous news stories about children shut out of British citizenship because an immigration officer refused to register an illegitimate child's birth.  Once that child reaches the age of 18, they are exempt from the opportunity to acquire British citizenship. 

No other group of children have a cut-off date attached to their births for nationality purposes.  Only illegitimate children have such unfair rules applied to them by the British government.  Every other child born to at least one British parent can apply for citizenship at any time in their life. 

Both the Nationality, Immigration, & Asylum Act and the Borders, Citizenship, & Immigration Bill sought to remove this inequality completely.  However, each time it was removed, continuing to shut out children born to unmarried British fathers, while giving British mothers the right to pass on their nationality to their children, regardless of birth status.  It was last year, during the Borders Bill, when the then Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that giving illegitimate children any rights would be a "step into the unknown".  Another MP told a "who's your daddy" joke.  

This behavior towards illegitimate children is unacceptable and goes against both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.  The British government must find a way to offer some path to citizenship for the very last group it has admitted to discriminating against — illegitimate children born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers.

This is clearly a human rights issue.  Only one group of children are being singled out of their nationality rights.  Remove ALL cut-off dates so that ALL children born to at least one British parent can register their births and acquire British passports, not just specific groups.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, only British mothers and married British fathers are able to pass on their citizenship, by descent, to their children. The one and only group left out of their birthright are children born before 1 July 2006 to unmarried British fathers.

There is a registration system put in place for fathers to register their minor children for UK citizenship.  However, it is being misused by immigration officers.  There are numerous news stories about children shut out of British citizenship because an immigration officer refused to register an illegitimate child's birth.  Once that child reaches the age of 18, they are exempt from the opportunity to acquire British citizenship. 

No other group of children have a cut-off date attached to their births for nationality purposes.  Only illegitimate children have such unfair rules applied to them by the British government.  Every other child born to at least one British parent can apply for citizenship at any time in their life. 

Both the Nationality, Immigration, & Asylum Act and the Borders, Citizenship, & Immigration Bill sought to remove this inequality completely.  However, each time it was removed, continuing to shut out children born to unmarried British fathers, while giving British mothers the right to pass on their nationality to their children, regardless of birth status.  It was last year, during the Borders Bill, when the then Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that giving illegitimate children any rights would be a "step into the unknown".  Another MP told a "who's your daddy" joke.  

This behavior towards illegitimate children is unacceptable and goes against both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.  The British government must find a way to offer some path to citizenship for the very last group it has admitted to discriminating against — illegitimate children born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers.

This is clearly a human rights issue.  Only one group of children are being singled out of their nationality rights.  Remove ALL cut-off dates so that ALL children born to at least one British parent can register their births and acquire British passports, not just specific groups.

Ban Guns and knifes!!!!!!!

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Why is this idea important?

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Stop Manslaughter with Provocation as a get out of murder clause!

I lost my only brother to premeditated murder, in court the perpertrator stood in the dock and when asked whether he was provoked by anything my brother said or did?  He replied HE WAS NOT PROVOKED BY ANYTHING MY BROTHER SAID OR DID!  So how can a Crown Court Judge ask a Jury to bring back such a perverse verdict, and allow a murderer to get away on a lesser offence of Manslaughter after brutally stabbing a defenceless man to death in front of 3 witnesses.  This is a get out clause for murder, another way of fiddling statistics of how many evil people actually are roaming our streets.

Why is this idea important?

I lost my only brother to premeditated murder, in court the perpertrator stood in the dock and when asked whether he was provoked by anything my brother said or did?  He replied HE WAS NOT PROVOKED BY ANYTHING MY BROTHER SAID OR DID!  So how can a Crown Court Judge ask a Jury to bring back such a perverse verdict, and allow a murderer to get away on a lesser offence of Manslaughter after brutally stabbing a defenceless man to death in front of 3 witnesses.  This is a get out clause for murder, another way of fiddling statistics of how many evil people actually are roaming our streets.

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. 

GIVE US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BACK OUR GUNS!

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Why is this idea important?

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Equality in Citizenship & Nationality

As you are well aware of the West Lothian Question that has been a thorn in the side of Parliament for decades, there is also the Michael Turberville Question that has not been fully satisfied in over 60 years! The Question / or Problem-Issue as it should be called is:
Averil, a British Woman born in 1927 in Lincolnshire married Phillip, in 1944 an American Man born in 1919 in London. They have Six children.

David born in Sleaford in 1945 – Full British Nationality – and can pass on his nationality to his children.
Freda born in 1946 in England – under the amendment 2002 can now register her children as British.
Sandra – born in USA in 1949 – can register as British as of Jan 2010, but NOT her children..
Maryann born in USA in 1952 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT her children.
Phillip born in USA in 1957 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT his children.
Michael born in USA in 1967 – registered in 2003 and Only his children born in the UK are British.

The amendment and my bill that was in the Queens speech 2006 and 2007 and became an Act in 2008 was suppose to end all sex discrimination in Nationality.

Pre1983 all children of British Men are automatically British and all they have to do is apply for a UK passport showing their birth certificate, their father’s UK birth certificate and the parent’s marriage certificate and pay the Passport Application Fee.

That is it…

BUT if you are the child of a British Mother (pre83) – we have to apply for registration, pay £520 fee, have a criminal back ground check, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, etc. Then pay £100? for a passport – because you are about to do away with the more economic identification method of the National ID card (only £30) and NO longer a viable option with it being removed and those of us who bought one in good faith now having to soon have to take a class action legal case against HM.Gov for breach of terms of condition of sale.

This is still sex discrimination!! I had in 2006 all party support in both Houses of Parliament that All Sex Discrimination in Nationality would end.  

If you check with the Home Office you will see that between 2003 and Q3 2009 that 16,555 people statistically registered who were born in the time frame of 1961 to 1983. I would expect that this number would be higher if we did not have to pay the Citizenship TAX!

But the Michael Turberville Question that will be an issue for you as it has been for every Home Secretary since my mother was first told  in 1950 that she could not come to the UK with her children born in the USA because she was Not our Father!

How can a married couple, have Six Children and have 3 different situations with regards to British Nationality? My oldest Brother can pass on his nationality to his children with out fees or charges, My oldest Sister, is considered a British Mother under the 1981 Nationality Act section 4C.

The next 3, can register as British but not their children.

And finally me – I am registered and my son born here is British, but IF I had children born abroad to a non British Mother, they would also NOT be British.

If this is to be the new progressive modernisation Parliamentary Government, then it is time that the Michael Turberville Question is resolved once and for all. This Issue is called the last great wrong of the past that Parliament has not resolved fully.

I suggest a simple change to the Nationality Act to state: any person with one (1) British born and bred grandparent is automatically entitled to British Nationality – no fees, no charges, under the same auspices as the children of British Fathers have always had. It should be noted that in certain countries it could be a person’s Father’s Father who was British and they are automatically entitled to British Nationality – So expand this to a British Grandparent and not restrict it to commonwealth countries!

I look forward to your reply and what action you intend on taking on the Michael Turberville Question. My mother and I have gone through over a dozen Home Secretaries and I hope that you will grasp the nettle and resolve this once and for all.

Why is this idea important?

As you are well aware of the West Lothian Question that has been a thorn in the side of Parliament for decades, there is also the Michael Turberville Question that has not been fully satisfied in over 60 years! The Question / or Problem-Issue as it should be called is:
Averil, a British Woman born in 1927 in Lincolnshire married Phillip, in 1944 an American Man born in 1919 in London. They have Six children.

David born in Sleaford in 1945 – Full British Nationality – and can pass on his nationality to his children.
Freda born in 1946 in England – under the amendment 2002 can now register her children as British.
Sandra – born in USA in 1949 – can register as British as of Jan 2010, but NOT her children..
Maryann born in USA in 1952 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT her children.
Phillip born in USA in 1957 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT his children.
Michael born in USA in 1967 – registered in 2003 and Only his children born in the UK are British.

The amendment and my bill that was in the Queens speech 2006 and 2007 and became an Act in 2008 was suppose to end all sex discrimination in Nationality.

Pre1983 all children of British Men are automatically British and all they have to do is apply for a UK passport showing their birth certificate, their father’s UK birth certificate and the parent’s marriage certificate and pay the Passport Application Fee.

That is it…

BUT if you are the child of a British Mother (pre83) – we have to apply for registration, pay £520 fee, have a criminal back ground check, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, etc. Then pay £100? for a passport – because you are about to do away with the more economic identification method of the National ID card (only £30) and NO longer a viable option with it being removed and those of us who bought one in good faith now having to soon have to take a class action legal case against HM.Gov for breach of terms of condition of sale.

This is still sex discrimination!! I had in 2006 all party support in both Houses of Parliament that All Sex Discrimination in Nationality would end.  

If you check with the Home Office you will see that between 2003 and Q3 2009 that 16,555 people statistically registered who were born in the time frame of 1961 to 1983. I would expect that this number would be higher if we did not have to pay the Citizenship TAX!

But the Michael Turberville Question that will be an issue for you as it has been for every Home Secretary since my mother was first told  in 1950 that she could not come to the UK with her children born in the USA because she was Not our Father!

How can a married couple, have Six Children and have 3 different situations with regards to British Nationality? My oldest Brother can pass on his nationality to his children with out fees or charges, My oldest Sister, is considered a British Mother under the 1981 Nationality Act section 4C.

The next 3, can register as British but not their children.

And finally me – I am registered and my son born here is British, but IF I had children born abroad to a non British Mother, they would also NOT be British.

If this is to be the new progressive modernisation Parliamentary Government, then it is time that the Michael Turberville Question is resolved once and for all. This Issue is called the last great wrong of the past that Parliament has not resolved fully.

I suggest a simple change to the Nationality Act to state: any person with one (1) British born and bred grandparent is automatically entitled to British Nationality – no fees, no charges, under the same auspices as the children of British Fathers have always had. It should be noted that in certain countries it could be a person’s Father’s Father who was British and they are automatically entitled to British Nationality – So expand this to a British Grandparent and not restrict it to commonwealth countries!

I look forward to your reply and what action you intend on taking on the Michael Turberville Question. My mother and I have gone through over a dozen Home Secretaries and I hope that you will grasp the nettle and resolve this once and for all.

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.

Fathers Rights and Childrens Rights

I have a few ideas set out below due to the fact that parent and childrens rights require a huge overhaul. The system is in such a mess that more that one change is required.

The process of family breakdown needs to be addressed to ensure that children never loose contact with either parent. Apparently parents have equal rights but this is rarely enforced within a court of law. Changes are to be made if the UK is to progress into a modern state and the following are implemented:

1. The government should make it impossible for resident parents to refuse non-resident parents access to their children. 

 2. Parents should be penalised for discouraging or prohibiting contact between their child and the other parent.

4. Parents who make false allegations on domestic violence should be asked to publicly apologise.

 5. Child maintenance should be withdrawn from parents who refuse non-resident parents access to their child/ren.

 6. Make the process of mediation compulsory and only go to court in exceptional circumstances.

 7. in light on 6. CAFCASS officers to be awarded more power in decision making and act as a representative to the child. Makes the need for an expensive judge, solicitor and barrister unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

I have a few ideas set out below due to the fact that parent and childrens rights require a huge overhaul. The system is in such a mess that more that one change is required.

The process of family breakdown needs to be addressed to ensure that children never loose contact with either parent. Apparently parents have equal rights but this is rarely enforced within a court of law. Changes are to be made if the UK is to progress into a modern state and the following are implemented:

1. The government should make it impossible for resident parents to refuse non-resident parents access to their children. 

 2. Parents should be penalised for discouraging or prohibiting contact between their child and the other parent.

4. Parents who make false allegations on domestic violence should be asked to publicly apologise.

 5. Child maintenance should be withdrawn from parents who refuse non-resident parents access to their child/ren.

 6. Make the process of mediation compulsory and only go to court in exceptional circumstances.

 7. in light on 6. CAFCASS officers to be awarded more power in decision making and act as a representative to the child. Makes the need for an expensive judge, solicitor and barrister unnecessary.

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.

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.