Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Is it just me that thinks this is daft?
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot
Author 
 Message
Penny Outskirts



Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 23385
Location: Planet, not on the....
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 10:58 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

When Steve got his licence, they asked if his ex-wife was mentally stable... he lied

Nick



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 33529
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

And his new partner?

Penny Outskirts



Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 23385
Location: Planet, not on the....
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 14474
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 12534
Location: East Sussex
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 12907
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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

vegplot



Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21297
Location: Ynys Môn
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 14474
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 21297
Location: Ynys Môn
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Hairyloon wrote:
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.


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: 12907
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Hairyloon wrote:
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.


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: 12534
Location: East Sussex
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 2089

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

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: 21297
Location: Ynys Môn
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 13 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Bebo wrote:
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.


They have the same laws as we do?

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com

<-- -->