Is it just me that thinks this is daft?

Latest Articles

Is it just me that thinks this is daft?
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot

Author

Message

Penny Outskirts

Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 23385
Location: Planet, not on the....

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 10:58 am Post subject:
When Steve got his licence, they asked if his ex-wife was mentally stable... he lied

Nick

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 10:59 am Post subject:
And his new partner?

Penny Outskirts

Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 23385
Location: Planet, not on the....

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 10:59 am Post subject:

Nick wrote:

And his new partner?

Scarily I was in the room, and they seemed to think it was OK

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:00 am Post subject:

Nick wrote:

I didn't mean what's the following process, I meant how does the violent husband take it, and what does he do?

Hopefully they make the additional checks and lock him (or her) up.

Bebo

Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 12590
Location: East Sussex

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:01 am Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

As a suggestion, it is not without merit:

Quote:

The home secretary said it was "not appropriate" for people with a history of domestic violence to own guns.

Is she wrong?

On the face of it that's fair enough. But how do you stop a malicious ex-partner saying that they don't give permission for their ex-partner to own a gun, if that's going to be the requirement?

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:04 am Post subject:

It might be reasonable in theory but in practice I can't see it doing anything apart from making the process even more arduous than it is.

Most, if not all, the headline shootings done with legally held guns in the UK there were sufficient reasons for the police to consider withholding the licence anyway. As has been said is there much, or any, proof that there is a need for more legislation?

Even if there's proof what will probably happen is the worst offenders' spouses probably will not say anything and those from acrimonious splits will.

One thing that never seems to come up is should people who would fail to obtain a SGC or FAC be allowed to buy knives, drive cars etc which have all been used to kill people.

alison
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 12918
Location: North Devon

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:12 am Post subject:
I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.

vegplot

Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:20 am Post subject:

Why? Incident of gun crime with legally held firearms is very low in the UK.

She's probably correct in her assertion that people with a violent history shouldn't posses a firearms licence but is this currently a problem that need her attention to solve? Local Firearms Officers and Constabularies already have that discretion.

Suspect she's using the US shooting, which has almost no bearing to how the UK handles firearms legislation, as a political tool to boost Tory popularity with a non-vote losing but largely irrelevant policy proposal.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:31 am Post subject:

alison wrote:

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.

What is to stop vindictive ex-wives making false claims of abuse in any case?
If I was making the rules, I'd make the first point of "further investigation" an interview with the spouse to look for abuse.

vegplot

Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:36 am Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

alison wrote:

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.

What worries me is that it could remove the ability of the police to exercise discretion and become a tick box exercise.

alison
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 12918
Location: North Devon

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 12:18 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

alison wrote:

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.

That is what I was thinking.

Start moving towards divorce
put in a fraudulent claim or two
get divorced
make a fuss with gun application.

I can think of a couple of people who would think that was a right hoot.

Bebo

Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 12590
Location: East Sussex

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 1:58 pm Post subject:

vegplot wrote:

Suspect she's using the US shooting, which has almost no bearing to how the UK handles firearms legislation, as a political tool to boost Tory popularity with a non-vote losing but largely irrelevant policy proposal.

Not sure about that. I can see the mainly Tory hunting and shooting set not being happy if it might preclude them from owning a shotgun. I'd be annoyed with it, but as I'd turn my shotgun on myself before voting Tory anyway it wouldn't lose them my vote.

lyndsayfink

Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Posts: 22

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 4:37 pm Post subject:

I actually think this could be really dangerous in the way that effectively it puts some of the responsibility on to spouses but also, being married shouldn't mean an extra 'permission' in required. It's no so different from (women) needing their spouses permission to continue to work and all the other discriminatory practices that married women used to be subjected to.

Rather than a gun issue in particular (as this has been posted in the shooting place) I think it's much broader, married partners should not be required by law to have have a *say* in these things, any more than any other person who might have information about a person (ie if anyone thought that a certain person was dangerous they should be able to voice concerns).

And obviously, this won't stop bad people getting guns as if a partner knows, and they are still with that bad person, asking them to declare about a gun could at best act as a catalyst to get themselves to safety, but a worst add another opportunity for the abusive partner to control with fear and threat. And they'll still end up with a gun. And if anyone gets hurt the scared signatory partner will at least be questioned as to why they signed off and most likely blamed.

If the police need to character check, and a CRB doesn't cut it, then they should probably list publicly everyone who applies for a license and ask for submissions if people are worried, then check all of those fully. Lots of work and intrusive.

john of wessex

Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 2130

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 9:05 pm Post subject:
The difficulty as far as I can see though is how you 'trace' these things. What about boyfriends/girlfriends/unmarried partners who dont necessarily leave any kind of record? The biggest thing is proper action over domestic violence - which means taking action and keeping records

vegplot

Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:12 pm Post subject:

Bebo wrote:

vegplot wrote:

They have the same laws as we do?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

View Latest Posts