May be a dumb question but here goes ...!

[Ovenpaa]

Agreed, a centrally managed licensing system with 'officers' with a working knowledge of firearms and a common rule book would certainly make life a lot easier for many.

[Mike2]

it may very well be what's need to standardise throughout the country....

Yes, but would that be a good standard or a poor one?
Does the sort of policing used in the city centre suit that in the countryside?
Would the police be taken away from country areas where there is little crime to over-police the city centres?

I'm very wary of the idea of a national police force (yes BTP etc are "national" but only within their own strict boundaries) as I have seen the results of amalgamation of smaller forces into far bigger ones, with the consequent loss of contact with the public and the reduction of local accountability.

Perhaps a centre of excellence with inspectorate powers, and with the power to inflict sanctions on poorly-performing firearms licensing departments might be a better way?

[Robin128]

Good point Mike2...who monitors the monitors?

:)

[Sandgroper]

I must admit I don't understand the concern this country has about a single Police Force or at the very least amalgamation of Forces.

I made that statement, because having grown up in Western Australia (just over 10 times the size of the UK) we only have one force to cover the whole state. I admit there are differences in population and distribution, but it is still one force covering 10 times the area.

I thinks Sim's idea has merit, especially if it was the MoD or CNC that oversaw licencing. In a sense something like the Canadian Firearms Program which is overseen by the RCMP? http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm Although I suspect some Canadians might disagree.

Rob,
You could ask that question ad infinitum. If we were not going to down the line of a single body to administer firearms licencing, then we need a single body to set and enforce standards.
Just look at the different interpretations of the law and standards we have just in this thread!

[Robin128]

There are big differences in culture between places like Glasgow and Cardigan...I think there needs to be the current status quo..IMHO.

We vote in Wales soon about the WAG having power to make law...God, that's all we need...given what Scotland AG are trying to do with airguns.

Do we need a variation on the rule set in Wales and Scotland?

My point is...keep one common rule set for whole of UK..it's already different off shore and NI...and have our local coppers influenced by ACPO assoc and good orgs like BASC and of course the judiciary.

I think local forces keep things on an even keel...I wouldn't like an extreme force governing all of Wales for example...say the Chief Constable of Strathclyde running things here.

I don't mean to wander but explain it in a wider context...get it wrong at the top and authoritarianism takes its toll.

[Sandgroper]

OK NI already has it's own Force. One for Wales, one for England and one for Scotland.

However, this is all a side issue as Firearms law is not devolved (yet :( )

If Firearms law remains wholly with Westminster (ie national) then why can't a single body oversee the setting and maintaining of standards and the interpretation of the law? It seems daft that individual forces are allowed to interpret the law how they see fit and because of it, we get wide variations of service and what is "allowed".

E.G. Ovenpaa's force specifies cartridge, mine calibre - where is sense in that!

[Robin128]

OK NI already has it's own Force. One for Wales, one for England and one for Scotland.

However, this is all a side issue as Firearms law is not devolved (yet :( )

If Firearms law remains wholly with Westminster (ie national) then why can't a single body oversee the setting and maintaining of standards and the interpretation of the law? It seems daft that individual forces are allowed to interpret the law how they see fit and because of it, we get wide variations of service and what is "allowed".

E.G. Ovenpaa's force specifies cartridge, mine calibre - where is sense in that!

1. That's a very big IF Sandgroper.

2. Let's just have one force and let that one force interpret the law how it sees fit and we are all stuffed, consistently.

[Sandgroper]

2. Let's just have one force and let that one force interpret the law how it sees fit and we are all stuffed, consistently.

Or The status quo could remain where some can say, "You're being stuff by your Force, but I'm alright Jack."

If individual Forces can interpretate the law so widely, then something needs to be done to bring consistency to the current situation. Be it a consolidated act, a body to oversee the interpretion of the various acts, a reduced number of Forces or what ever, but you have to agree the current situation is ludicrous.

[Robin128]

I was looking at the greater good rather than I'm alright jack point of view.

I'd feel the same under Strathclyde...or under the few others that get it wrong.

I'm not convinced it is the law that is vague...although it is complicated. I do worry that the consolidation would be an attempt to introduce conflicts and new laws...the legal profession take the same view...see BASC responses.

[Sandgroper]

I was looking at the greater good rather than I'm alright jack point of view.

I'd feel the same under Strathclyde...or under the few others that get it wrong.

I'm not convinced it is the law that is vague...although it is complicated. I do worry that the consolidation would be an attempt to introduce conflicts and new laws...the legal profession take the same view...see BASC responses.

There is something wrong if it can interpreted so many ways, be it the number of acts, the law itself, the fact the Police have been allowed to exploit these inconstistancies or the whole muddled mess. I understand the concerns regarding a consolidation, but that's why we pay our membership to BASC et al.

I'm fortunate with Grampian (not always, but mostly very good ) , but I don't see why anybody should have to put up with a standard lower than the one I recieve.