BBC: "People with a history of domestic violence to be banned from owning a firearm or shotgun in England and Wales".

[ips]

Good, providing the police act on evidence rather than the opinions of spurned partners or others with an axe to grind.

exactly my reason for saying in my above post if proven.

Having gone through a particularly un amicable divorce from the 1st Mrs nutter nearly 20 yrs ago i know full well what some women are prepared to say and do. So this could well be a major problem for some poor sod who is on the receiving end of a women wrath.

 

[Hotshot100]

exactly my reason for saying in my above post if proven.

Having gone through a particularly un amicable divorce from the 1st Mrs nutter nearly 20 yrs ago i know full well what some women are prepared to say and do. So this could well be a major problem for some poor sod who is on the receiving end of a women wrath.

Been there too. Mine wasn't Mrs Nutter ,she was a nutter among other things.

 

[Hotshot100]

i would call BS on this unless domestic violence is a convict-able/punishable crime and the person in question has been so convicted.  Leaving the decision of the guilt of a party, and the imposition of "punishments",  to a mere policeman is bad policy in the extreme.  Just like the drunk driver - a court action should have been necessary to justify the confiscation.  Anything less is police state bullsh*t

Not in this country it isn't. Slightest doubt about safety and the guns should be removed until the court makes a decision. Three times over the limit, your going to be found guilty. You were quite prepared to risk public safety by driving a car so who's to say that you wouldn't do the same with a gun.

 

[Hotshot100]

When none shooters ask me about owning guns or make any of the sort of silly remarks to which I am sure we have all been subjected my stock answer is that gun owners from necessity are the most law abiding people in the country. If we weren't we would quite rightly lose the right to own guns and enjoy our hobby.

Long may it stay so in our country.

Bit worrying though when a guy walked in to my local shooting ground last week as he obviously had no idea of the firearms transfer laws and calmly announced that he had been convicted of assault but the F.O. hadn't contacted him at all and this was two years ago which he thought rather odd as his mate had also been convicted of the same offence and had received a final warning from his F.O.

Break down in communications or some other explanation. I must admit that I was rather pleased that I had shot and was about to leave.

 

[Jan Powell]

Experience tells me many allegations of of domestic abuse are genuine, an equal number are either exagerrated or are downright lies. The problem is, as has already been said, the definition of domestic abuse is so broad that even the most ridiculously trivial incidents are included.

People have all sorts of reasons for reporting domestic abuse to the police despite what womens rights groups may tell you. Some are genuine, others are borne of malice and spite. Thankfully, Firearms Licensing managers aren't stupid, they can generally see through the nonsense.

I'm cautiously supportive of these new guidelines so long the decisions makers see beyond the obvious and consider the bigger picture.

Oh, and don't forget these guidelines are just that. There's no change in law or policy.

 

[Richard59]

Would have thought as a matter of course that any sort of violence that leads to a charge / conviction would surely would lead to the confiscation of any legally held firearms.

As for my doctors surgery ( irregular visitor so no regular GP seen ) being approached etc that's an infringement which is getting a bit too far

 

[bostonmick]

I don't think the sgc should be granted if there is a history of domestic violence in the home  and surely if the police were called to a incident and they would know if the house contained any firearms they should remove them anyway and sort out if and when they go back at a later date anyone who abuses drink drugs or people should not be able to hold a firearm of any kind. 

 

[Blackstar Ninja]

I think it's a step in the right direction as some have said its about being a responsible person

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

i would call BS on this unless domestic violence is a convict-able/punishable crime and the person in question has been so convicted. Leaving the decision of the guilt of a party, and the imposition of "punishments",  to a mere policeman is bad policy in the extreme.  Just like the drunk driver - a court action should have been necessary to justify the confiscation.  Anything less is police state bullsh*t

Not really, baring in mind that most cases of domestic violence never get reported, let alone the perpetrator convicted. And even when police are called to the scene, more often than not the violence has ceased and the woman who's been beaten refuses [for whatever reason] to press charges.

Any w@nker who's so weak that he feels the need to beat women can rightly be considered unstable, untrustworthy and irresponsible - all attributes which might give any police firearms unit just cause to withhold an application or refuse to a renewal. And no bad thing, either. Rather a disgruntled tosser with no guns than three dead women (as in the case which promoted this move).

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Over here DUI is an indictable offence - it will result in a conviction - it is an offence of strict liability - over the limit = convicted, no question.

With domestic violence, if the police have repeated complaints which show a pattern then this is sufficient evidence to refuse an SGC.  Quite rightly in my opinion.

So let the court adjudicate the DUI and THEN impose sanctions.

A "pattern" of domestic violence w/out charges filed or conviction obtained is nothing more than hearsay and should have no legal authority to enforce any sanctions of any kind by anyone - particularly a simple LEO with manufactured policy (whose?) devoid of basis in statute

I have no knowledge of GB individual rights and/or right of due process or how much of that may have be abrogated.  What I do know is that if you give up (your) right to due process to hang someone on the basis of slanderous hearsay alone (as in no adjudication) then when it comes your turn you best be well prepared to get right well bent over and expect little sympathy from those yet to catch the attention of the zealous enforcers of opinion.

It does not seem to me that some of you are really giving any thought to the ramifications of the policies you espouse.  NOTHING that the police involve themselves in is ever seen as an event in isolation.  Anything that expands the scope of their power, real or imagined, increases their power overall.  Or are you already so subservient to the police that they are the absolute manifestation of the law?

just saying that it sounds like you already in trouble - knowadImean?

Charlie

 

[Jan Powell]

Experience tells me many allegations of of domestic abuse are genuine, an equal number are either exagerrated or are downright lies. The problem is, as has already been said, the definition of domestic abuse is so broad that even the most ridiculously trivial incidents are included.
 
People have all sorts of reasons for reporting domestic abuse to the police despite what womens rights groups may tell you. Some are genuine, others are borne of malice and spite. Thankfully, Firearms Licensing managers aren't stupid, they can generally see through the nonsense.
 
I'm cautiously supportive of these new guidelines so long the decision makers see beyond the obvious and consider the bigger picture.
 
Oh, and don't forget these guidelines are just that. There's no change in law or policy.

 

[Hotshot100]

So let the court adjudicate the DUI and THEN impose sanctions.

A "pattern" of domestic violence w/out charges filed or conviction obtained is nothing more than hearsay and should have no legal authority to enforce any sanctions of any kind by anyone - particularly a simple LEO with manufactured policy (whose?) devoid of basis in statute

I have no knowledge of GB individual rights and/or right of due process or how much of that may have be abrogated.  What I do know is that if you give up (your) right to due process to hang someone on the basis of slanderous hearsay alone (as in no adjudication) then when it comes your turn you best be well prepared to get right well bent over and expect little sympathy from those yet to catch the attention of the zealous enforcers of opinion.

It does not seem to me that some of you are really giving any thought to the ramifications of the policies you espouse.  NOTHING that the police involve themselves in is ever seen as an event in isolation.  Anything that expands the scope of their power, real or imagined, increases their power overall.  Or are you already so subservient to the police that they are the absolute manifestation of the law?

just saying that it sounds like you already in trouble - knowadImean?

Charlie

Might be too late by the time it gets to court. Remove them immediately, they can always be given back if that's what the courts decide.

What can't be given back is somebody's life if they've been murdered. Who would get the blame if somebody was murdered with a legally held weapon? The Police of course.

Remove the potential danger first and fully assess the situation at leisure.

 

[PhilS]

So let the court adjudicate the DUI and THEN impose sanctions.

A "pattern" of domestic violence w/out charges filed or conviction obtained is nothing more than hearsay and should have no legal authority to enforce any sanctions of any kind by anyone - particularly a simple LEO with manufactured policy (whose?) devoid of basis in statute

I have no knowledge of GB individual rights and/or right of due process or how much of that may have be abrogated.  What I do know is that if you give up (your) right to due process to hang someone on the basis of slanderous hearsay alone (as in no adjudication) then when it comes your turn you best be well prepared to get right well bent over and expect little sympathy from those yet to catch the attention of the zealous enforcers of opinion.

It does not seem to me that some of you are really giving any thought to the ramifications of the policies you espouse.  NOTHING that the police involve themselves in is ever seen as an event in isolation.  Anything that expands the scope of their power, real or imagined, increases their power overall.  Or are you already so subservient to the police that they are the absolute manifestation of the law?

just saying that it sounds like you already in trouble - knowadImean?

Charlie

Might be too late by the time it gets to court. Remove them immediately, they can always be given back if that's what the courts decide.

What can't be given back is somebody's life if they've been murdered. Who would get the blame if somebody was murdered with a legally held weapon? The Police of course.

Remove the potential danger first and fully assess the situation at leisure.

Which, to me, is preferable to shoot first ask questions later.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

So let the court adjudicate the DUI and THEN impose sanctions.

A "pattern" of domestic violence w/out charges filed or conviction obtained is nothing more than hearsay and should have no legal authority to enforce any sanctions of any kind by anyone - particularly a simple LEO with manufactured policy (whose?) devoid of basis in statute

I have no knowledge of GB individual rights and/or right of due process or how much of that may have be abrogated.  What I do know is that if you give up (your) right to due process to hang someone on the basis of slanderous hearsay alone (as in no adjudication) then when it comes your turn you best be well prepared to get right well bent over and expect little sympathy from those yet to catch the attention of the zealous enforcers of opinion.

It does not seem to me that some of you are really giving any thought to the ramifications of the policies you espouse.  NOTHING that the police involve themselves in is ever seen as an event in isolation.  Anything that expands the scope of their power, real or imagined, increases their power overall.  Or are you already so subservient to the police that they are the absolute manifestation of the law?

just saying that it sounds like you already in trouble - knowadImean?

Charlie

Sorry Charlie, but having lived and worked in the US [so speaking from experience], all you do is highlight the fundamental difference in attitude between the UK and US. Your apparent paranoia about what you perceive to be "the police's intentions", and actuality, merely illustrates this delta when you prognosticate on the intentions of constabularies over here.

It's also important to understand that, over here, we "police by consent", whereas in the US, you have "law enforcement". These guidelines are there to augment the existing firearms laws - they are not laws within themselves. And frankly, if the police over here are given extra latitude to weed-out the wife beaters and other violent tossers from owning/possessing guns, then, as you can see by the vast majority of UK firearms owners who've already replied to this thread, they will get broad support in their efforts to do just that.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Sorry Charlie, but having lived and worked in the US [so speaking from experience], all you do is highlight the fundamental difference in attitude between the UK and US. Your apparent paranoia about what you perceive to be "the police's intentions", and actuality, merely illustrates this delta when you prognosticate on the intentions of constabularies over here.

It's also important to understand that, over here, we "police by consent", whereas in the US, you have "law enforcement". These guidelines are there to augment the existing firearms laws - they are not laws within themselves. And frankly, if the police over here are given extra latitude to weed-out the wife beaters and other violent tossers from owning/possessing guns, then, as you can see by the vast majority of UK firearms owners who've already replied to this thread, they will get broad support in their efforts to do just that.

I can only assume that attitude and complacency is the essential reason why GB gunowners/shooters are apparently perceived by the police (a law making authority by tacit consent) as an identified collection of criminals awaiting only an excuse for disarming and apprehension - since they can just walk in and check you out. If you consider how you got to where you are you may be able to discern your future.  One that you all seem dedicated to abet.  You assertion "the police over here are given extra latitude to weed-out" I find nothing less than frightening.  Right at "1984"-ish.

I'm sure it's only me, but I think I prefer a court-involved imposition of law.  Besta luck, folks

Charlie

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I can only assume that attitude and complacency is the essential reason why GB gunowners/shooters are apparently perceived by the police (a law making authority by tacit consent) as an identified collection of criminals awaiting only an excuse for disarming and apprehension - since they can just walk in and check you out. If you consider how you got to where you are you may be able to discern your future.  One that you all seem dedicated to abet.  You assertion "the police over here are given extra latitude to weed-out" I find nothing less than frightening.  Right at "1984"-ish.

I'm sure it's only me, but I think I prefer a court-involved imposition of law.  Besta luck, folks

Charlie

Sorry to say, Charlie, but sometimes you just babble paranoid assumptive nonsense.  I would accuse you of parallax error, but then it dawns on me you must just make it up as you go along.

 

[Redders]

Not really, baring in mind that most cases of domestic violence never get reported, let alone the perpetrator convicted. And even when police are called to the scene, more often than not the violence has ceased and the woman who's been beaten refuses [for whatever reason] to press charges.

Any w@nker who's so weak that he feels the need to beat women can rightly be considered unstable, untrustworthy and irresponsible - all attributes which might give any police firearms unit just cause to withhold an application or refuse to a renewal. And no bad thing, either. Rather a disgruntled tosser with no guns than three dead women (as in the case which promoted this move).

Just adding that sometimes the victim can be the male, beaten by the female! I had to address a situation at work once, where one of my male staff was regularly bruised (poor excuses given) and he admitted to his wife beating him (appropriate help was sought and the problem solved).

 

[Santa2512]

The other half ties me up and tortures me every night ...... bloody 50 shades .

(mind you i did wonder what the approach would be if the applicant was on the recieving end of abuse..... that in itself could preclude  an application, as they could feasably use it against the aggressor)

Mart 

 

[ips]

The other half ties me up and tortures me every night ...... bloody 50 shades

ha

 

[Wonko the Sane]

It is always interesting to learn how folks cope with social/political situations different than in the US.  Not particularly comforting, but for a while the legal system in place here will provide some impediment to implementing a GB similar grass roots type of court.  Not that it can't happen, but I'll likely not live to see it.  Thankfully.

Besta luck, guys