Licensing Authority

The role of the police should not be to issue licences, but to enforce the law. In both the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies, the criminals had attempted to join shooting clubs and been rejected. In both cases, the police issued a licence in spite of this. The Licensing authority should include the national governing bodies, such as the NRA.

The serving of a probationary period in a shooting club meens that applicants for licences are scrutinised and trained in basic safety by experts who have been shooting safely for many years. Unsuitable persons are a;ways recognised and should not be allowed access to firearms.

ALL licence holders, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HOLD LICENCES FOR HUNTING, should be trained in basic safety on a range, this is best brought about by making it a requirement that all shooters should be club members.

The practise of issueing licences by the police forces to untrained and un-scrutinised persons who happen to have land to shoot on should cease.

Why is this idea important?

The role of the police should not be to issue licences, but to enforce the law. In both the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies, the criminals had attempted to join shooting clubs and been rejected. In both cases, the police issued a licence in spite of this. The Licensing authority should include the national governing bodies, such as the NRA.

The serving of a probationary period in a shooting club meens that applicants for licences are scrutinised and trained in basic safety by experts who have been shooting safely for many years. Unsuitable persons are a;ways recognised and should not be allowed access to firearms.

ALL licence holders, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HOLD LICENCES FOR HUNTING, should be trained in basic safety on a range, this is best brought about by making it a requirement that all shooters should be club members.

The practise of issueing licences by the police forces to untrained and un-scrutinised persons who happen to have land to shoot on should cease.

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.

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Legalise all forms of weaponry.

Guess which country in the world has the highest percentage of gun ownership ?

Guess which country in the world has the lowest level of gun crime ?

Switzerland is the answer to both questions.

18 year old males do military service and take home their automatic weapons. The entire country is armed, and the Swiss army will sell citizens more weapons if they wish to have them, even rockets and anti tank guns etc.

Are you going to try breaking into someone's house when you know they have an assault rifle in there ? Are you going to pick a fight with someone who probably knows where you live and has an assualt rifle at home. What do the young guys that have weapons training and are made to do their military service think about clowns with hand guns, is it really so cool after all ? Not really.

What is the use of a criminal carrying a gun or a knife if most of the population have assault rilfles ?

Make it absolutely legal and treat people with respect, educate them and you remove the problem. Make it illegal, restrict it, and you make it a problem, you make it cool and you make it advantageous to criminals.

Why is this idea important?

Guess which country in the world has the highest percentage of gun ownership ?

Guess which country in the world has the lowest level of gun crime ?

Switzerland is the answer to both questions.

18 year old males do military service and take home their automatic weapons. The entire country is armed, and the Swiss army will sell citizens more weapons if they wish to have them, even rockets and anti tank guns etc.

Are you going to try breaking into someone's house when you know they have an assault rifle in there ? Are you going to pick a fight with someone who probably knows where you live and has an assualt rifle at home. What do the young guys that have weapons training and are made to do their military service think about clowns with hand guns, is it really so cool after all ? Not really.

What is the use of a criminal carrying a gun or a knife if most of the population have assault rilfles ?

Make it absolutely legal and treat people with respect, educate them and you remove the problem. Make it illegal, restrict it, and you make it a problem, you make it cool and you make it advantageous to criminals.

Allow Gun Ownership

Like many of us across Britain I was saddanded by the Dunblane tragedy and I mourned with the country however I was amazed by the knee jerk reaction to disallow the ownership of handguns.

The laws in place cannot legislate against the crimianal intent on using a firearm nor can they legislate against the use of a firearm by those with psychotic intentions.

The liberty of law abiding citizens was taken in one fould swoop by the new Labour Government, and yet the un crime in the UK has increased.

A firearm does not kill it is the person with intent who does. Thomas Hamilton had murder o his mind on that tragic day, it had been recomended that his firearms licence be taken away as he was no longer a member of a registered club, he had been ousted from the various clubs in his vicinity. The reccomendation was ignored by a higher ranking Police Officer. There are many If questions here but surely had the Police taken the reccomendation of the mid ranking officer who had discovered the discrepency in the licenseing laws then e tragedy would not have happend, certainly without firearms. If Hamilton had taken a jerry can of petrol into that school he would have done similar actions and yet Petrol would not have been illegal to use.

Law abiding citizens who had the enjoyment of using firearms in various disciplines had their liberty taken from them in a knee jerk reaction which has done nothing to stop the criminal and the psychopath. In fact recently we have a man who owns several pistols and has used them in a horrific crime of shooting. His upper floor in his house was littered with ammunition and he still owned handguns. And yet handdgun ownership has been banned. Why was his handguns not confiscated or indeed why didn't he hand them in when required? Because he was/is not a law abiding citizen. Those who have firearms certificates are responsible and folow the rules. Those who own handguns without the proper paperwork are usually criminals.

Handgun ownership in this country had always been stringent and can remain so in the fraternity of clubs. Give back our liberty for the sport many had enjoyed.

Why is this idea important?

Like many of us across Britain I was saddanded by the Dunblane tragedy and I mourned with the country however I was amazed by the knee jerk reaction to disallow the ownership of handguns.

The laws in place cannot legislate against the crimianal intent on using a firearm nor can they legislate against the use of a firearm by those with psychotic intentions.

The liberty of law abiding citizens was taken in one fould swoop by the new Labour Government, and yet the un crime in the UK has increased.

A firearm does not kill it is the person with intent who does. Thomas Hamilton had murder o his mind on that tragic day, it had been recomended that his firearms licence be taken away as he was no longer a member of a registered club, he had been ousted from the various clubs in his vicinity. The reccomendation was ignored by a higher ranking Police Officer. There are many If questions here but surely had the Police taken the reccomendation of the mid ranking officer who had discovered the discrepency in the licenseing laws then e tragedy would not have happend, certainly without firearms. If Hamilton had taken a jerry can of petrol into that school he would have done similar actions and yet Petrol would not have been illegal to use.

Law abiding citizens who had the enjoyment of using firearms in various disciplines had their liberty taken from them in a knee jerk reaction which has done nothing to stop the criminal and the psychopath. In fact recently we have a man who owns several pistols and has used them in a horrific crime of shooting. His upper floor in his house was littered with ammunition and he still owned handguns. And yet handdgun ownership has been banned. Why was his handguns not confiscated or indeed why didn't he hand them in when required? Because he was/is not a law abiding citizen. Those who have firearms certificates are responsible and folow the rules. Those who own handguns without the proper paperwork are usually criminals.

Handgun ownership in this country had always been stringent and can remain so in the fraternity of clubs. Give back our liberty for the sport many had enjoyed.

Right to concealed carry of firearms for self-defense

For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is:  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Previously in an identical post, I forgot to add this particularly up-to-date study regarding firearms ownership. If anyone has an interest in objective research and analysis regarding the facts of firearms and their carry, please visit this website and download the .pdf and read thoroughly: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.

The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.

Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.

However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.

Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.

The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.

Why is this idea important?

For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is:  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Previously in an identical post, I forgot to add this particularly up-to-date study regarding firearms ownership. If anyone has an interest in objective research and analysis regarding the facts of firearms and their carry, please visit this website and download the .pdf and read thoroughly: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.

The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.

Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.

However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.

Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.

The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.

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.

 

 

Remove Air Weapons From the Fire Arms Licensing System and Give Them A Seperate License.

As the law stands, all air weapons are on the same licensing procedure as any live round weapon.  If you apply for a high powered air rifle and are granted the license, then this now gives you entitlement to buy in excess of a 7.62 round which is the same as the kalashnikov, even our own armed services only shoot with a Nato 5.56 round.

 

It is madness to have this easy step into live round weapons from something so simple but dangerous as an Air Rifle.

 

Please, re catogorize Air Weapons and give them their own license and classification.

Why is this idea important?

As the law stands, all air weapons are on the same licensing procedure as any live round weapon.  If you apply for a high powered air rifle and are granted the license, then this now gives you entitlement to buy in excess of a 7.62 round which is the same as the kalashnikov, even our own armed services only shoot with a Nato 5.56 round.

 

It is madness to have this easy step into live round weapons from something so simple but dangerous as an Air Rifle.

 

Please, re catogorize Air Weapons and give them their own license and classification.

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.

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. 

Restore the right to own Firearms

The Government always, it seems, expects the nation to trust it.  Why does it not reciprocate and prove it trusts the people of Great Britain.

Banning ownership and legitimate use of Firearms has NO impact on preventing crime.  It's an assault on personnel liberty and Hypocrisy of the highest order.

In time of War and need, the people are called to arms to defend this great Nation. Without it's people , this country would be no more.

The Government then Trusts it's Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen to fight and even die to defend our way of life.

Once the conflict passes,——–"we don't trust you folks",—"but thanks for defeating our enemies". Total Hypocrisy and fundamentally wrong.

People have THE RIGHT , if they so choose, to own Firearms.

You cannot legislate against lunacy. A Gun is a piece of manufactured equipment,—-it has no mind of it's own, any more than a pencil does, if a word is misspelled.

Gun crime is commonly read about these days,———–Banning legal ownership "Really works", NOT !!

Why is this idea important?

The Government always, it seems, expects the nation to trust it.  Why does it not reciprocate and prove it trusts the people of Great Britain.

Banning ownership and legitimate use of Firearms has NO impact on preventing crime.  It's an assault on personnel liberty and Hypocrisy of the highest order.

In time of War and need, the people are called to arms to defend this great Nation. Without it's people , this country would be no more.

The Government then Trusts it's Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen to fight and even die to defend our way of life.

Once the conflict passes,——–"we don't trust you folks",—"but thanks for defeating our enemies". Total Hypocrisy and fundamentally wrong.

People have THE RIGHT , if they so choose, to own Firearms.

You cannot legislate against lunacy. A Gun is a piece of manufactured equipment,—-it has no mind of it's own, any more than a pencil does, if a word is misspelled.

Gun crime is commonly read about these days,———–Banning legal ownership "Really works", NOT !!

Repeal the knee jerk gun law implimented after Dunblane

The Dunblane massacre was a tragid event. A man used his licensed fire arms to kill innocent children. The same is true of the Hungerford massacre.  As a result of these tragic incidents hand gun ownership in the UK was comprehensively banned despite the ract that a 1996 select committee concluded such "panic" legislation would do little to prevent a repeat of these incidents.  

Thanks to the knee jerk legislation of the day many law abiding citizens lost the right to legally own hand guns for target shooting and competition. We can no longer field a pistol shooting team in the olympic games for instance.

After the most recent gun crime involving legally owned weapons, the Cumbria Shootings, although there were a few muted calls for further restrictions on weapons ownership much was made of not resorting to knee jerk legislation suggesting the people have lost the desire for such legislation since it has demonstrably removed rights they later regretted; a survey at the time of the Hungerford massacre suggested that a couple of months after the incident around 70% of people rejected the need for more gun control.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Dunblane massacre was a tragid event. A man used his licensed fire arms to kill innocent children. The same is true of the Hungerford massacre.  As a result of these tragic incidents hand gun ownership in the UK was comprehensively banned despite the ract that a 1996 select committee concluded such "panic" legislation would do little to prevent a repeat of these incidents.  

Thanks to the knee jerk legislation of the day many law abiding citizens lost the right to legally own hand guns for target shooting and competition. We can no longer field a pistol shooting team in the olympic games for instance.

After the most recent gun crime involving legally owned weapons, the Cumbria Shootings, although there were a few muted calls for further restrictions on weapons ownership much was made of not resorting to knee jerk legislation suggesting the people have lost the desire for such legislation since it has demonstrably removed rights they later regretted; a survey at the time of the Hungerford massacre suggested that a couple of months after the incident around 70% of people rejected the need for more gun control.

 

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.

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.

Restore our right to bare arms.

After the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and most recently, the tagic shootings in Cumbria. Gun laws have come under increasing pressure and scrutiny. Both the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings resulted in gun laws in this country being changed. Restricting the sale and ownership of certain firearms, in an attempt to stop it happening again. It didnt. 

Why is this idea important?

After the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and most recently, the tagic shootings in Cumbria. Gun laws have come under increasing pressure and scrutiny. Both the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings resulted in gun laws in this country being changed. Restricting the sale and ownership of certain firearms, in an attempt to stop it happening again. It didnt. 

reinstate firearms act 1968

As the Firearms Act 1968 was never inforced correctly, both the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies occured, which resulted in two over reactionary legislation changes, resulting after Dunblane with the ban on handgun ownership.

Why is this idea important?

As the Firearms Act 1968 was never inforced correctly, both the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies occured, which resulted in two over reactionary legislation changes, resulting after Dunblane with the ban on handgun ownership.

Reform the Firearms Act

The Firearms Act should be reformed to simplify the application process.  I propose only 1 question on the application form: "Do you wish to own a firearm?".  Anyone answering "yes" should be automatically disqualified from firearm ownership.

Why is this idea important?

The Firearms Act should be reformed to simplify the application process.  I propose only 1 question on the application form: "Do you wish to own a firearm?".  Anyone answering "yes" should be automatically disqualified from firearm ownership.

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.

Firearms legislation

Given that most of the UK's firearms legislation have been Knee Jerk reactions to events from its inception in 1929. We have had a recent tradegdy in Cumbria and the incidences of criminal use of firemarms would indicate that the legislation doesn't work.

 The last government slipped measures into the Violent crime reduction act and carried out a consultation on deactivated firearms based on very poor police claims which the home offices own stastics failed to back up. The post 1995 deactivation standard made the polices act harder and the claims in the media that it was easy to reactivate a pre 95 deactivated firearm is actually a hard and dangerous task and already covered by law and was therefore unnecessary. so The abandonment of pre 1995 deactivation standard would be a step forward

Maybe the time for emotive legislating needs to end and the governement need to sit down and coolly examine the law with stake holders espically the shooting community and the police and come up with laws that protect law abiding shooters and gun owners and protects the public from the illegal use of firearms.

We have some of the tightest firearms laws in the world but they target the law abiding but are unenforcable against the criminal.

Why is this idea important?

Given that most of the UK's firearms legislation have been Knee Jerk reactions to events from its inception in 1929. We have had a recent tradegdy in Cumbria and the incidences of criminal use of firemarms would indicate that the legislation doesn't work.

 The last government slipped measures into the Violent crime reduction act and carried out a consultation on deactivated firearms based on very poor police claims which the home offices own stastics failed to back up. The post 1995 deactivation standard made the polices act harder and the claims in the media that it was easy to reactivate a pre 95 deactivated firearm is actually a hard and dangerous task and already covered by law and was therefore unnecessary. so The abandonment of pre 1995 deactivation standard would be a step forward

Maybe the time for emotive legislating needs to end and the governement need to sit down and coolly examine the law with stake holders espically the shooting community and the police and come up with laws that protect law abiding shooters and gun owners and protects the public from the illegal use of firearms.

We have some of the tightest firearms laws in the world but they target the law abiding but are unenforcable against the criminal.

1997 Firearms act

We need to repeal this law, this was put in place as a kneejerk reaction to a horrific situation but was not thought out or correctly targeted and it has not been effective. This ban removed the legal ownership of handguns, which affected approximately 57,000 people (0.1% of population) who legally owned these weapons. This has stopped all recreational shooting to such an extent that we have the frankly ludicrous situation where it is illegal to practice the widely respected sport of target shooting to such an extent that we have had to pass an amendment to let this Olympic event go ahead in 2012.

Stopping legal ownership of handguns has not effected criminal ownership of these weapons, it has only stopped legal sports use of these.

Why is this idea important?

We need to repeal this law, this was put in place as a kneejerk reaction to a horrific situation but was not thought out or correctly targeted and it has not been effective. This ban removed the legal ownership of handguns, which affected approximately 57,000 people (0.1% of population) who legally owned these weapons. This has stopped all recreational shooting to such an extent that we have the frankly ludicrous situation where it is illegal to practice the widely respected sport of target shooting to such an extent that we have had to pass an amendment to let this Olympic event go ahead in 2012.

Stopping legal ownership of handguns has not effected criminal ownership of these weapons, it has only stopped legal sports use of these.

Violent Crime Reduction Act

Repeal the laws on buying Realistic Imitation Firearms.

The Violent Crime Reduction Act was yet again another knee-jerk reaction law brought in basically beause the previous government knew how to tackle gun crime amongst youths but are too afraid to admit it (yes, dishing out much harsher sentences for committing crimes involving guns/imitation guns). Instead they did what they always do. Bring in rushed legislation to make it look as though they are doing something about the problem. They thought that by curbing the sale and import of replica firearms, they would cut gun related crime. They can never seem ot realise that whatever laws they bring in, people intent on owning a gun, be it real or imitation, will get hold of one. Instead, they have just made it more difficult for non-criminal airsoft players to get hold of the tools with which they play their game.

I agree that if you don’t play airsoft, then you have no real need to buy one. But the law is so complicated at the monent for players that it needs to be addressed so that they can go into a registered RIF dealer/airsoft supplies shop and buy a new gun. This should be coupled with full details including the serial number of the gun, full details of the buyer, and details of their most regular site for playing airsoft.

Bottom line is, that the VCRA has not stopped imitation firearms getting into circulation, and no amount of legislation will.

The knee-jerk laws brought in after Dunblaine failed to cut gun crime and failed to stop any further such horrific incidents. Even an outright ban on firearms would not stop maniacal killing sprees as we have seen recently in Cumbria.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the laws on buying Realistic Imitation Firearms.

The Violent Crime Reduction Act was yet again another knee-jerk reaction law brought in basically beause the previous government knew how to tackle gun crime amongst youths but are too afraid to admit it (yes, dishing out much harsher sentences for committing crimes involving guns/imitation guns). Instead they did what they always do. Bring in rushed legislation to make it look as though they are doing something about the problem. They thought that by curbing the sale and import of replica firearms, they would cut gun related crime. They can never seem ot realise that whatever laws they bring in, people intent on owning a gun, be it real or imitation, will get hold of one. Instead, they have just made it more difficult for non-criminal airsoft players to get hold of the tools with which they play their game.

I agree that if you don’t play airsoft, then you have no real need to buy one. But the law is so complicated at the monent for players that it needs to be addressed so that they can go into a registered RIF dealer/airsoft supplies shop and buy a new gun. This should be coupled with full details including the serial number of the gun, full details of the buyer, and details of their most regular site for playing airsoft.

Bottom line is, that the VCRA has not stopped imitation firearms getting into circulation, and no amount of legislation will.

The knee-jerk laws brought in after Dunblaine failed to cut gun crime and failed to stop any further such horrific incidents. Even an outright ban on firearms would not stop maniacal killing sprees as we have seen recently in Cumbria.

Firearms

Repeal the knee-jerk 1988 Firearms Act and the two Firearnms Acts passed in 1997. Streamline the system for issuing certificates to one agency (currently issued by 50+ constabularies at vast expense) in order to save money and to have a national database making trend watching easier. Make regulatory infringements by certificate holders into fixed penalty notices instead of the current court processes – saving another fortune.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the knee-jerk 1988 Firearms Act and the two Firearnms Acts passed in 1997. Streamline the system for issuing certificates to one agency (currently issued by 50+ constabularies at vast expense) in order to save money and to have a national database making trend watching easier. Make regulatory infringements by certificate holders into fixed penalty notices instead of the current court processes – saving another fortune.