Firearms licensing changes

[Robin128]

As Previously started by Polchraine

Recommendations.

[Robin128]

From Dromia
Extract from the report:

3.0 Key points summary
3.1 In my view the current licensing system was properly operated by Cumbria Constabulary. There do not appear to be any features of this case that provide a clear opportunity to improve the system in such a way as to have prevented these events. It might be argued that given the apparent relative infrequency of such appalling events the licensing system is largely fit for purpose, and is professionally operated by police forces. Clearly it would be unreasonable to simply apply this thinking in the wake of events and not seek to determine whether reasonable improvements can be made. I have taken this as my starting point.
3.2 I am unable to make any specific recommendations for changes to legislation or guidance such as would have prevented these particular events.
3.3 I can make a number of recommendations for changes that I consider would improve public safety more widely in this area but I cannot tie them specifically into these events.
3.4 The key improvements I recommend concern;

3.4 The key improvements I recommend concern;

Establishing formal data links between the General Practitioner, mental health and police services so as to enable medical professionals to be able to alert police to concerns regarding certificate holders.

Making any appropriate enquiry of the applicant’s GP, at application for grant or renewal, at the applicant’s expense rather than under the current arrangements, which fall to be funded by the police service, in accordance with the current Home Office guidance.

Making formal enquiry of members of an applicant’s family at grant and renewal as to the applicant’s suitability.

Operating a single type of certificate for both firearms and shotguns.

3.5 Absolute prevention of murders and assaults of this very nature is, in my view, far more closely related to the fundamental question of the private ownership of firearms than the operation of the system of licensing. In short, very radical changes would be necessary to guarantee such circumstances could not occur again, no matter that they appear to be very rare.
3.6 The hard truth is that the system of certification is designed to reduce the risk of lawfully possessed firearms being misused criminally, not to eliminate it altogether. To achieve that would require a very different approach from Parliament and a different agreement between a government and the people it governs. The police service is not well placed to offer comment on such a change and so I have worked on the basis that a broadly
similar system to that in existence now will still be required, and have looked to improve it.

[Robin128]

Establishing formal data links between the General Practitioner, mental health and police services so as to enable medical professionals to be able to alert police to concerns regarding certificate holders.

Agreed. Data base sharing though.

Making any appropriate enquiry of the applicant’s GP, at application for grant or renewal, at the applicant’s expense rather than under the current arrangements, which fall to be funded by the police service, in accordance with the current Home Office guidance.

Disagree. Most GPs know nothing about firearms, other than prejudice and bias.

Making formal enquiry of members of an applicant’s family at grant and renewal as to the applicant’s suitability.

Absurd. Sibling rivalry and group think. Brother hates you so will tell lies to p1ss you off. Brother loves you but witholds the fact that you are a nutter.
Operating a single type of certificate for both firearms and shotguns.

Disagree. As originally discussed under similar thread on here, variation for additional SG. BS cabinet for SG cartridges.

In addition, note opinion that prescribed firearms control framework in Cumbria was working as intended.

Furthermore, note reco re suspended sentences. Existing FAC holders beware of retrospective action.

Rob

[Robin128]

the reports are here...

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/ ... tPart1.pdf

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/ ... tPart2.pdf


Following my first reading of this part 1 report I would make the following humble observations...

1. It was wrong for the Cumbria Chief Constable to be allowed to set the Terms of Reference for a review on his own Police Authority...It should have been the Home Office. see para 1.3 of the part 1 report.

2. re para "4.17 It is accepted practice that the responsibilities of the chief officer may be delegated appropriately." This is fundamentally wrong. Responsibility must never be delegated, authority may be delegated, provided there is a monitoring framework operating that provides reliable assurance that such delegations are being followed and that there is relevant information to underpin ongoing delegation review.

3. I am concerned that recommendations have been reviewed by other organisations, prior to finalisation leading to the risk of lack of independence and objectivity.

4. Given the very serious crime that Bird was allowed to perpetrate, the review should not have been a peer review.

The following extract from this report is noteworthy...

"There were no reasonable opportunities for the licensing system to have been the instrument of intervention thus preventing the appalling offences subsequently committed."

In my humble view, someone being known so many times by the Police and the courts should not be in possession of s1 or s2 weapons.

Furthermore, I am very concerned about Police Authorities cutting back on the staffing capacity of their firearms licensing departments, particularly as the departments are funded in part by application and variation fees and given the poor state on the UK economy and given the inherent risk of such a crime happening again and again....to the cost as usual to law abiding shooters.


Rob

[Sandgroper]

Operating a single type of certificate for both firearms and shotguns.

Disagree. As originally discussed under similar thread on here, variation for additional SG. BS cabinet for SG cartridges.

4.18 Linked to these proposals, I very much consider it sensible that one type of form is used for both shotgun and firearm certificates, using, as far as possible, the same applications form too. I do not recommend that requiring a person to give good reason for each shotgun (as would be the case with Section 1 firearms) is necessary as I do not think it will produce much public safety benefit. The most likely benefit, if it were to reduce the number of shotguns possessed by a person, would be limiting their number in the event of their theft.

Robin,
As long as the current licensing requirements for S1 and S2 remained, I for one would prefer having one certificate to cover both - ideally credit card sized. Before it was disbanded this what the FCC proposed along with removing the restictions on S1 ammunition.

[Robin128]

Sandgroper,

If it was just one cert instead of two, but with no other detrimental changes in law, that would be fine....more or less what we have with the co-terminous certs.

On the subject of Bird, the current control framework and law allowed the Police to revoke, not award certs... ie when someone keeps adding to their list of criminal laws broken.

Rob

[Mike2]

On the subject of one certificate for both firearms and shotguns - where do you think this would lead eventually?

"Well, it stands to reason doesn't it?" (spoken in an "Alf Garnett" type of voice.)

As for tagging the medical records of shooters so that the GP can inform the police when his or her patient is physically or mentally unwell looks like a good idea doesn't it?

You're a shooter - what would you do if you thought your GP would tell the police if you were unwell ?

[Robin128]

As for tagging the medical records of shooters so that the GP can inform the police when his or her patient is physically or mentally unwell looks like a good idea doesn't it?

You're a shooter - what would you do if you thought your GP would tell the police if you were unwell ?

As a shooter I am also at risk to the Ryan, Hamilton and Bird mentalist. So is my Wife, Son, Daughter, Grand-daughter etc.

If a FAC/SGC patient has gone mental and is being treated for same, by his/her GP, or anyone else for that matter, I should want the Police Firearm Cert Dept to know immediately. Why wouldn't I?

I would think the answer to your question might be different were Ryan, Hamilton and Bird asked the same question before they pulled their triggers, for the last dozen times.

Rob

[Blackstuff]

As for tagging the medical records of shooters so that the GP can inform the police when his or her patient is physically or mentally unwell looks like a good idea doesn't it?

You're a shooter - what would you do if you thought your GP would tell the police if you were unwell ?

As a shooter I am also at risk to the Ryan, Hamilton and Bird mentalist. So is my Wife, Son, Daughter, Grand-daughter etc.

If a FAC/SGC patient has gone mental and is being treated for same, by his/her GP, or anyone else for that matter, I should want the Police Firearm Cert Dept to know immediately. Why wouldn't I?

I would think the answer to your question might be different were Ryan, Hamilton and Bird asked the same question before they pulled their triggers, for the last dozen times.

Rob

To right! However, all of the people (that i've read about anyway) said that none of these 3 POS exhibited any outward signs of what they were about to do, right up to the point they aimed their guns at their vicitims, meaning that the medical profiling and non-home storage arguements being levied are pointless. :( I will however, be VERY interested in the conversation Bird and his friend had when Bird (mid-shooting spree) went to his house to try to get his (Birds) O/U back from said friend, and more importantly, why the friend wouldn't/didn't give it to him :?:

The darkside's evidence;

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Playe ... ingId=6846

Fortunately the extremists (GCN) imho came across as deluded fantisists and some of the committee pulled them up on quite a few points they made. :)

P.S. Well done Mr Berger!

[Mike2]

As a shooter I am also at risk to the Ryan, Hamilton and Bird mentalist. So is my Wife, Son, Daughter, Grand-daughter etc.

If a FAC/SGC patient has gone mental and is being treated for same, by his/her GP, or anyone else for that matter, I should want the Police Firearm Cert Dept to know immediately. Why wouldn't I?

I would think the answer to your question might be different were Ryan, Hamilton and Bird asked the same question before they pulled their triggers, for the last dozen times.

The danger arises when trust between the GP and patient (shooter) starts to break down.

If the patient believes that a result of asking his GP for help with a mental problem will be that the police will take his certificate, he will be reluctant to go to the GP - thus excerbating the situation. I'm simply stating what nearly every shooter I have spoken to has said about this proposal.

Secondly, GPs are under financial pressure. Their "Quality and Outcomes Framework" (QOF) aims to reward GPs financially for good clinical practice, but it means that they must treat patients for specific disorders in order to demonstrate this. "Low mood" "realtionship difficulties" "stress at work" or "difficulty sleeping" are not recognised as categories for the QOF, but depressive disorder" IS. I have personally delat with several cases where shooters found that they had been treated for "depression" according to their medical records, when they had simply gone to their GP for treatment for the likes of stress at work seeking medication to help them to sleep.

Then there is the matter of risk aversion - if a GP has a slight inkling that a shooter may be depressed yet has no real evidence, it would be logical and safe to tell the police - "just in case", as the GP will not want to feel responsible should that person shoot themselves or others. The police will likewise act "just in case" - after all, the GP had concerns, didn't he?

This is an extremely difficult and delicate area, and it hasn't been helped by people putting about rumours that Ryan, Hamilton and/or Bird had been known to suffer from mental problems. Yes, we all know it is the act of a manic to run amok killing people, but there were no indications of this sort prior to them starting to kill.

A difficult and delicate situation.