Plymouth Coroner’s Report……’Root and branch reform’……

3595wilk

3595wilk

Member Extraordinaire
Joined
Jul 6, 2022
Messages
2,498
Reaction score
5,668
Location
West Oxfordshire
Seems this has been sent to the HO, with a response requested by early May. Cant find a link to the document itself, but media reporting is interesting.

Seems the presumption to grant is recommended to be effectively swapped around. The suggestion is that it should not be granted unless to a Chief Officer of Police believes it necessary. Wonder where that leaves ‘good reason’ .

From the coverage…….

Mr Arrow said that current laws carry a presumption that firearm and shotgun certificates “shall be granted” unless various requirements are not met, and drove Devon and Cornwall Police’s licensing unit to “tend to default in favour” of granting applications.

“I am concerned that this approach is at odds with public safety and the fundamental principle that owning a gun is a privilege and not a right,” Mr Arrow wrote.

“The public would be better protected if the legislation provided that a certificate ‘shall not be granted’ unless the applicant has satisfied the relevant chief officer of police that they are safe to hold a gun of any type.“

Full article here.
www.independent.co.uk

Britain’s firearms laws ‘need root and branch reform’, Plymouth shooting coroner says

Coroner says current laws are ‘at odds with public safety’, after incel gunman Jake Davidson was allowed to keep his shotgun despite previous violent attacks
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Privilege, rubbish, where does it say that in law ?

This means it will take even longer to process grants, variations and renewals. I suspect allot of renewals will be turned down. Its just another step since 1968 to slowly remove private gun ownership in the UK. But we already know that when Labour come to power that gun owners are going to be in for an even tougher time.
 
“The public would be better protected if the legislation provided that a certificate ‘shall not be granted’ unless the applicant has satisfied the relevant chief officer of police that they are safe to hold a gun of any type.“

So pretty much how it's already supposed to work then, anyone not satisfying the CO of their suitability or safety for either S1 or S2 won't get one (IF the issuing force follows the process).

They're basically wanting to define what the red flags should be and how to deal with it instead of leaving it up to the FLD to make it up as they go.

Load of hot air otherwise. Not much will change from a certificate holders perspective. Don't be a crim or a bellend and you'll get issued.
 
I was under the impression that SGC should generally be granted unless there was a reason NOT to do so. FAC were generally NOT to be granted unless there was a good reason to do so.

The thinking there being that SGC were commonly used for sport, agricultural purposes and soon. Whereas FAC were military grade weapons.
 
I default to the comment I’ve made previously, there have been more incidents of and more deaths as result of domestic Islamic extremist terror attacks in this country in the last 20 years than there have been deaths caused by legally owned firearms in the last 50-60 years yet no one has ever suggested public saftey would be better served by limiting British Muslims freedoms….. now I’m not suggesting we should limit their freedoms either but the logic used anytime there is any kind of incident with a licensed firearm suggests the government should be limiting their freedoms for public safety… just incase.

Sadly firearms ownership is an easy target… I fully expect to see the ban of all airguns / shotguns / firearms in my lifetime.
 
Petay said:
I default to the comment I’ve made previously, there have been more incidents of and more deaths as result of domestic Islamic extremist terror attacks in this country in the last 20 years than there have been deaths caused by legally owned firearms in the last 50-60 years yet no one has ever suggested public saftey would be better served by limiting British Muslims freedoms….. now I’m not suggesting we should limit their freedoms either but the logic used anytime there is any kind of incident with a licensed firearm suggests the government should be limiting their freedoms for public safety… just incase.

Sadly firearms ownership is an easy target… I fully expect to see the ban of all airguns / shotguns / firearms in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
Mate more people die on average per annum from dog attacks and being struck by lightning, but the do-gooders consistent push towards the impossible to achieve zero-risk society combined with a meek, weak population with a gun-free culture and no written constitution will mean I fear you're correct.

Saying that, I maintain in practice I very much doubt this current waffle will result in any noticeable change to a normal shooters experience of the certification process.
 
Firearms are but an easy target, and an even easier win.

They won't concentrate on the contentious issues
 
Taking just one glaring example. Teenagers are stabbing each other to death every. single. week in this country over postcodes, gangs, drugs and pointless rap videos. Young lives senselessly snuffed out, nearly always in public places or residential streets, often pre mediated and perpetrated by more than one attacker leaving the victim little chance. Brutal and inexcusable public executions over littlerally nothing of any real importance at all. The number of shootings on our streets carried out with similar motivations but of course by non FAC holders and with illegal weapons is also on the rise. I don’t have the figures to hand but the number of people murdered in this country by FAC holders and their legally owned firearms is the tiniest of drops in the gargantuan ocean of this type of human depravity in the UK.

To tackle the systemic problems that contribute to these killings, things like borderline lawless deprived areas, poverty, absent fathers and the financial appeal, glamour and perceived security of gang life would not only require an immense amount of resources but also a willingness to take ownership of the root causes with a commitment to impose monumental effort of societal and cultural changes of those that are involved / affected by it. So, pretty much not going to happen. Just let the kids murder each other and not make too much fuss about it, people get desensitised to it and meh, another stabbing, meh.

Without wishing to trivialise any persons death in any way whatsoever, on very rare and isolated occasions some whacko rubs a few people out with firearms they legally owned and eventually the tens of thousands of responsible FAC owners who have shot likely millions of rounds between them without incident have to be demonised and punished because guns are involved and guns are bad. Why? Firstly because the criticism and blame culture in this country is more terrifying and dangerous than any firearm ever could be. But mainly because it’s easy for some self serving clueless f*ckwits to sit around and virtue signal about how they are keeping the public safe from the bad people with bad guns via the medium of a new law / bill / agenda that took minimal effort or expense to vote in / agree on. Some people said something, some people had a vote, someone wrote something, easy.

Well newsflash buddy, the public aren’t safe. The public have never been less safe. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with people legally owning guns and everything to do with a myriad of other causes of the breakdown in society. So long as people are seen to be doing “something” and avoid a public backlash from the habitually offended they don’t care if what they are doing is actually effective or worthwhile. People are far more terrified of offending people, being branded a racist. a sexist, a bigot, transphobic or anti [insert whatever you like here] than they are terrified of people with guns. Sad but true.

[end of rant]
 
It’s a real shame that all shooters didn’t stick together whatever their discipline.

I remember some of us asking for help from fellow shooters in the 80s when they came for our semi-auto centrefire rifles. Many said, what do you need those for.

Then in the 90s we asked for help from fellow shooters when they came for our pistols. Again, many said, what do you need those for.

My point, they won’t stop until all private gun ownership is gone.

If and when they come for your bolt action centrefire or Section 1 shotguns you will all be asking for help, would be very easy for me and others to turn a blind eye. But we won’t.

If you, I, we let it continue then the only gun anyone will have is a water pistol with a restricted transfer port.

The choice is ours….
 
3595wilk said:
Seems the presumption to grant is recommended to be effectively swapped around. The suggestion is that it should not be granted unless to a Chief Officer of Police believes it necessary. Wonder where that leaves ‘good reason’ .

“I am concerned that this approach is at odds with public safety and the fundamental principle that owning a gun is a privilege and not a right,” Mr Arrow wrote.

“The public would be better protected if the legislation provided that a certificate ‘shall not be granted’ unless the applicant has satisfied the relevant chief officer of police that they are safe to hold a gun of any type.“
Click to expand...
They should do the same with cars.

If someone is killed by a car it is unfortunate, and, it would seem, socially acceptable.
Get killed by a gun and they need a scapegoat.
 
Archery1969 said:
It’s a real shame that all shooters didn’t stick together whatever their discipline.

I remember some of us asking for help from fellow shooters in the 80s when they came for our semi-auto centrefire rifles. Many said, what do you need those for.

Then in the 90s we asked for help from fellow shooters when they came for our pistols. Again, many said, what do you need those for.

My point, they won’t stop until all private gun ownership is gone.

If and when they come for your bolt action centrefire or Section 1 shotguns you will all be asking for help, would be very easy for me and others to turn a blind eye. But we won’t.

If you, I, we let it continue then the only gun anyone will have is a water pistol with a restricted transfer port.

The choice is ours….
Click to expand...
well that's the way the cookie crumbles when you're in a gun owning minority country and all the press the legal gun owner gets is bad.
it doesn't matter that there's 100 plus young blacks stabbed to death,just in London EVERY YEAR or there's gangsters blowing away other gangsters every pair of rails with guns that have been illegal to own for between 25 or 37 years.
the public are fed "the rhetoric" of whichever party is in power at the time (labour are the Democrats of the UK political system) and told it's "guns" and "guns" are bad but no one stands up and says ow't regarding the legalities or type of gun.
if you have seen/heard the footage of the (terrible) shooting of the young woman on Christmas Eve last year in Liverpool,you can clearly hear the gun used is a semi auto or a slowish cycling full auto.
I recall an AK-47 killing in Castleford about 20 years since by an ex SAS soldier on a nurse 12 or 15 years after we all lost ours after Michael Ryan went off the rails in Hungerford.
point being,if you want an illegal firearm,even now, it's easy enough to do.
remember the guy in Kent about 8 years since who was caught smuggling a boat full of Scorpion machine pistols/handguns and ammo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tac
Archery1969 said:
Privilege, rubbish, where does it say that in law ?

This means it will take even longer to process grants, variations and renewals. I suspect allot of renewals will be turned down. Its just another step since 1968 to slowly remove private gun ownership in the UK. But we already know that when Labour come to power that gun owners are going to be in for an even tougher time.
Click to expand...
The prospect of Tony Blair and Yvette Cooper running the country scares the hell out of me.
Just thinking about it gives me nightmares.
Starmer will just be a front man.
 
Enfield2band said:
The prospect of Tony Blair and Yvette Cooper running the country scares the hell out of me.
Just thinking about it gives me nightmares.
Starmer will just be a front man.
Click to expand...

Starmer is a front man, that's for sure. But so too was Blair - the only difference being that Blair was clever and good at it, whilst Starmer is an abject failure.

As for a prospective Labour government, just imagine a fruitcake like Angela Rayner or an illiterate halfwit like Diane Abbot getting their hands on the levers of power.
 
Simple, a check up from the neck up coupled with requirement that the weapon is kept at a range or workplace if used as part of their job as a probationary period, any arrest for aggression and revoke that licence and confiscate the weapon.
 
Coroners often come up with reports like this and almost always they have no more knowledge of the subject than the man in the street. Unfortunately their position lends weight to arguments which have no justification in facts. This sad case is, like most similar ones in the past, a failure of police procedures and there seems to be no stomach for these to be admitted and rectified. Someone has made an error in returning the gun and that person should be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
 
SniperShot said:
Simple, a check up from the neck up coupled with requirement that the weapon is kept at a range or workplace if used as part of their job as a probationary period, any arrest for aggression and revoke that licence and confiscate the weapon.
Click to expand...


There is barely enough clubs , ranges for people to join and your idea is going to make that worse.

When the airgun license started here the was an influx of people wanting to join airgun clubs so they could keep their airguns.

There was not enough clubs so people were selling their airguns. There is still huge waiting lists to join clubs 6 years after the AWC came in as there was barely any new clubs opening.
33k AWCs issued in scotland since 2016 and no where near enough clubs to hold that many members or their airguns .



I use my FAC rifles for pest control on a few farms, under your idea I would have to give up shooting( unless I joined a club ) I would assume and there is many more who shoot them as I do .

So unless you use them for your job or at a club that has space for new members and the safe storage of guns then no one else will be allowed them if your idea was implemented?

Not all farmers have time for pest control so people like myself are a great help for them . Your idea will stop that unless they are a pest control business.

Or am I reading your post wrong ?
 
Last edited:
SniperShot said:
Simple, a check up from the neck up coupled with requirement that the weapon is kept at a range or workplace if used as part of their job as a probationary period, any arrest for aggression and revoke that licence and confiscate the weapon.
Click to expand...
Suggesting that guns be kept in one location has been mooted in the past.
The conclusion is that it is impractical and would give terrorists and criminals potential access to a large cache of firearms.
It was decided that a few in cabinets located around the country in unknown locations was the best security.

Aggression? Shouting at someone who has upset you, road rage for example, can easily be construed as aggression and would probably be jumped on by those who want to remove firearms from public ownership.
We already have to be on our guard as to what we say and what we do in our daily lives, don't add to the problems that already exist.
 
It is largely irrelevant. Presumption in favour means granted unless there are reasons not to, which is within the rights of the Police to decide.

As for so many things these days, passing laws as a token of being seen to do things, rather than applying existing law and good practice (Dunblane being a prime example) is the cop out.

Enough of us who worked in development had planning applictions refused to know that "presumption in favour" is very easily overruled by "not this one, refused".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top