Changing rules on gun ownership - action required
Background
On 29 June the Home Office launched an eight-week consultation on proposals that will impact on the licensing of shotguns and rifles in England, Wales and Scotland for decades to come.
BASC is urging every shotgun and firearm certificate holder in Great Britain to spend five minutes completing a short Home Office survey in response to the consultation, which closes on 23 August 2023.
This is the most important consultation on firearms ownership in 35 years. You must not be silent and think others will do the work for you. The shooting community must respond in numbers. Make sure you have your say.
Recommendations to merge shotgun and firearms licensing conditions have been dropped prior to publication of the consultation. This was due to lobbying by BASC and others, on the grounds that the proposals were neither evidence-led nor proportionate.
However, there remain several harmful proposals that need to be opposed, and several helpful proposals to be supported.
BASC quick guide to completing the survey
The survey form contains a list of questions with the options to tick ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, or leave blank. There is a comments box at Q21 where you can write any comments as you wish.
BASC’s recommended answers are listed below:
Q1: No.
Q2: No.
Q3: Yes – more than five years.
Q4: No
Q5: No.
Q6: Yes.
Q7: Leave blank.
Q8: No.
Q9: No.
Q10: No.
Q11: No.
Q12: Yes.
Q13: No.
Q14: Yes.
Q15: No.
Q16: Yes.
Q17: Yes.
Q18: No.
Q19: Leave blank.
Q20: Leave blank.
Q21: Write any comments as you wish.
BASC detailed guide to completing the survey
Below is a detailed guide to completing the survey which explains the reasoning for BASC’s recommended answers and some suggestions on what to write in the comments box (Q21).
Q1. Answer: No
A new police power of entry and immediate seizure of firearms, shotguns and ammunition when certificate holders are uncooperative with the police.
The police already have adequate powers to enter a property where there is risk to life and to seize firearms and ammunition where there is a risk to the public safety or the peace. They also have the power of immediate revocation of any certificate. BASC does not believe that simply because a person is licenced to possess firearms that this should deprive them of basic civil liberties.
Q2. Answer: No
Mandatory prohibition.
The prohibition from possessing firearms by persons with serious custodial sentences has been enshrined in law since the Firearms Act 1920. It is a concept that has served public safety well Accordingly, prohibition should only apply where allegations of wrongdoing have resulted in a conviction. That does not stop a chief officer from declining to issue a certificate if the nature of an offence discloses any risk to public safety.
Q3. Answer: Yes and ‘more than five years’
Length of certificate before renewal required.
The medical marker is viewed as the prerequisite for the extension of certificate life as it links with police databases (PNC etc) to provide 24/7-365 monitoring of a certificate holder. When a marker has been added, the life of a certificate becomes an irrelevance.
Q4. Answer: No
Do you consider that people applying for shotgun certificates should provide two referees?
One referee for shotgun certificate applications was deemed sufficient as recently as 2013. Nothing in the subsequent decade has occurred to justify any increase. Consequently, this recommendation cannot be said to be evidence-led and on that basis, it fails BASC’s Keyham test because it would not have prevented the Plymouth killings.
Q5. Answer: No
Any referee to be a person of standing in the community.
This was discounted in 1998 in favour of anyone of good character who had known the applicant for two years. No evidence has been adduced to justify its reinstitution. The 2023 Statutory Guidance requires a referee to have known the applicant for the most recent two years and to have had a reasonable degree of contact with him/her in that time. This is more important than a person’s standing in the community.
Q6. Answer: Yes
Do you consider that referees should be able to demonstrate a good knowledge of the applicant’s circumstances, relevant to their suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun?
This is a sensible proposal. Without it a reference is useless.
Q7. Leave blank
Do you consider that the application form should provide a checklist for referees and require a written declaration to the effect that they have disclosed all relevant facts?
While this question has two parts, the tick box answer only has one part and we would recommend leaving the answer blank. If the two parts allowed separate answers, we would have recommended Yes to referee checklists as this is a sensible proposal. However, we would have recommended No to a referee declaration as this is neither evidence-led nor proportionate.
Q8. Answer: No
Do you consider that the Statutory Guidance should include more detailed guidance for the police on the information they should be looking to elicit from referees?
Sections 2.21 – 2.24 of the Statutory Guidance are comprehensive regarding the criteria for a referee. It states that the police should inform any referee they contact of the application and that they may enquire about any matter relating to the applicant’s suitability to possess firearms. That covers any eventuality. No evidence has been adduced to suggest that the Statutory Guidance is deficient.
Q9. Answer: No
Do you consider that the police should look at the circumstances when individuals change referees between application and renewal, and subsequent renewals?
Five years is a relatively long time during which the relationship between a certificate holder and referee may change due to death, relocation, estrangement, or lack of contact. Simply because a referee has changed does not indicate that the renewing certificate holder has something to hide and is being duplicitous. In any case BASC is only aware of a handful of cases since 1998 where referees have been found to be unsuitable by the police. Such circumstances are easily remedied by proposing another suitable referee.
Q10. Answer: No
Referees to be provided with a Unique Reference Number (URN) to facilitate contact with the police.
This proposal appears to be a solution to a problem that does not exist. No evidence has been adduced to show that contacting the police to express concerns about a certificate holder is or has ever been problematic. As the level of revocations is a tiny percentage of the certificates on issue, the provision of a URN for referee/police communication is wholly disproportionate.
Q11. Answer: No
Do you consider that the Statutory Guidance should be expanded and made more prescriptive in relation to suitability checks?
BASC’s experience is that the current (2023) Statutory Guidance is rarely followed. Rather than adding to it, the Home Office should ensure that chief officers abide by the terms of the Statutory Guidance and provide written reasons when they deviate from it.
Q12. Answer: Yes
Do you consider that the balance of probabilities test is the correct test to apply in the Statutory Guidance to information about a person’s suitability to hold a certificate?
The balance of probabilities test has been used in firearms licensing since the Firearms Act 1920 and has stood the test of time. As firearms licensing is not subject to criminal law, it is appropriate that the civil law test is applied to what is an administrative matter. No evidence has been adduced to show that the balance of probabilities test is in any way deficient.
Q13. Answer: No
Do you consider that neurodevelopmental disorders should be added to the list of relevant medical conditions in the statutory guidance?
These conditions cover a spectrum of severity, and each case should be treated on its merits.
Q14. Answer: Yes
Do you consider that GPs’ engagement with the firearms licensing process should be mandatory?
*NB. This question relates to GPs being mandated to place a marker on a certificate holder’s medical record, rather than mandating GPs to be involved in the verification process on applications.*
As firearms licensing is principally undertaken for public safety reasons, it follows that GPs’ placing of a marker on medical records should be mandatory. Too many GPs are risking public safety by opting out on the spurious grounds of conscientious objection – you cannot validly object in conscience to measures to improve public safety. GPs have a moral duty to participate and if they are unwilling to do so voluntarily, they should be compelled. This duplicates the system that applies to medical conditions and driving.
Q15. Answer: No
Do you consider that interim medical checks should be made on licensed firearms holders between the grant of the certificate and any application to renew?
The continuous monitoring of certificate holders by means of a marker on medical records provides a better safeguard for public safety than interim medical checks. Any medical check must be intelligence-led with the marker as an early warning system. A reminder from the marker that a patient had access to firearms when they presented with a condition, giving rise to concern about their suitability to possess firearms would be far more effective than random, untargeted interim checks.
Q16. Answer: Yes
Do you consider that the digital marker for use by GPs on the medical records of licensed firearms holders should be visible to other health professionals?
The marker needs to be visible to any health professional who needs to see a patient’s medical records. That said, this must be conducted on a “need to see” basis in order not to prejudice a certificate holder’s security by advertising that firearms are stored at a particular location.
Q17. Answer: Yes
Do you consider there should be more mental health advice and support for licensed firearms holders through advice leaflets and other support?
Certificate holders must be confident that they can seek help for mental health problems without automatically being deprived of their certificates. BASC assisted with the excellent Police Scotland leaflet on the subject and would welcome its extension elsewhere in the UK.
Q18. Answer: No
Do you consider a specific phone line should be introduced in addition to the services already available to report concerns about a licensed firearms holder?
There are already numerous phone lines for alerting the police to threats to public safety.
Q19. Answer: Leave blank
This is a biased proposal based on a Yes answer to Q18.
Q20. Answer: Leave blank
Raising awareness of avenues available to raise concerns about a certificate holder.
In BASC’s experience the public is perfectly aware of how to raise any concerns about a certificate holder to the police.
Q21. Free text box.
This is an opportunity to call for the following points not included in the consultation.
- Financial penalties imposed on those chief officers who fail to run efficient firearms licensing units.
- Sound moderators to be removed from the licensing regime.
- His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary advice on changes to firearms licensing to be mandatory rather than recommendations.
- Creation of a centralised office to control police standards and performance in firearms licensing.
- Firearms law to be codified and consolidated.
Personal details
The final page of the consultation asks you to fill in your personal details. This is standard practice for any public consultation and is to allow for the team monitoring responses to contact you to ask for more information on any of the answers you have given. It also safeguards against multiple responses from an individual.
You can also submit your response without filling these details in; just scroll to the bottom and click ‘Finish survey’, but we would advise leaving your details.