UK gun laws: Licence applicants may need partners' approval

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Steve steveson**

People applying for gun licences could be asked to prove that their current or recent partners have consented to the application, Theresa May has said.

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

Ministers are examining if the extra check could "reduce the risk to domestic violence victims", she said.

Her comments came in a letter to MPs which was sent soon after the Newtown massacre, but published on Wednesday.

The massacre took place on 14 December at Sandy Hook Elementary School, near Newtown in Connecticut, leaving 20 children and six adult staff members dead and re-opening debate in the US on gun controls.
Suspended sentences

Mrs May wrote to the Home Affairs Committee, advising MPs that the government was working with the Association of Chief Police Officers on how to strengthen "guidance on how reports of domestic violence should be treated by police considering firearms applications".

She told the committee: "Although each case is considered on its merits, we will discuss with ACPO [the Association of Chief Police Officers] amendment of the guidance to make it clear that it is not appropriate to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate where there is a history or successive reports of domestic abuse.

"The proposal that the Canadian practice of consulting the partners of firearms applicants should be introduced here needs greater scrutiny and analysis of the evidence base, to establish whether such a measure would reduce the risk to domestic violence victims as intended."

In Canada, spouses or recent ex-spouses are required to sign gun licence application forms. If they decline, additional checks are carried out on the applicant.

Mrs May's letter constituted a "supplementary" response to the committee's 2010 report into firearms control, which was prompted by the murder of 12 people in Cumbria by gunman Derrick Bird.

The statement marks a shift in tone from the government's initial response, which said it would look into the proposal despite its "concerns that involving partners and recent ex-partners in signing applications may put them in a position of vulnerability and increased risk of renewed violence and abuse.

"Also, consent from a current partner may mean that the partner signs the application to ensure their imminent safety without consideration for future safety."

The home secretary also said that the government was considering ways to tighten medical background checks on applicants for gun licences.

Under the current gun-licensing regime, criminals who are sentenced to three months or more in prison face a temporary ban on firearm possession; those who are sentenced to three years or more are banned permanently from possessing a gun.
Supplying a firearm laws

But Mrs May told MPs that the government was now exploring the recommendation, also contained in the committee's 2010 report, to extend the ban to criminals receiving suspended sentences.

The report said: "The legislation should be amended to clarify that persons in receipt of wholly suspended sentences are subject to the same prohibitions from obtaining a licence to hold... firearms or shotguns as they would be if their sentence had not been suspended.
Continue reading the main story
" We do not believe it appropriate for those convicted of offences which are serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence to retain their firearms”

Home Affairs Committee

"We do not believe it appropriate for those convicted of offences which are serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence to retain their firearms.

"We are also of the view that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms."

Twenty years before the Cumbria shootings, Bird had been sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for a year, for stealing decorating materials from his then employer. He also had a drink-driving conviction.

But he had been allowed to keep his shotgun certificate, obtained before his 17th birthday.

In October 2012, Mrs May pledged to create a new criminal offence of supplying a firearm to tackle people who hire out weapons to gangs.

Ms May said those supplying guns were "as guilty" as those using them as the impact was just as deadly.

The maximum sentence for the offence, which will apply in England, Wales and Scotland, will be life imprisonment.

Current UK gun-control rules

Anyone with a gun needs to have a certificate, issued by their local chief police officer
The certificate must be renewed every five years, and can be revoked
Applicants are supposed to have a "good reason" for owning a gun, such as "sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin"
The chief police officer is expected to take into account previous cautions or convictions when deciding whether to grant or renew a certificate
They should also consider evidence of mental health problems, aggressive behaviour and alcohol or drug abuse
They may also consult the applicant's GP to obtain medical data
Convicted criminals sentenced to five years or more are banned permanently from owning a gun; those sentenced to three years or more are banned for five years

Want to see pointless knee jerk gun hatered, look at waht the UK government is suggesting... As if a drink drive convicton or petty theft 20 years ago make someone dangerous, and noone has ever lied to help there violent partner, or lied to spite an ex.

**KalashnikovMarine**

That's what strikes me, exes are usually not reliable sources of information on an individual. My ex-wife lied to a judge under oath about me. Thankfully for my sake she was caught in her own lies and had the book tossed at her. So what's saying "No" or refusing to sign something, especially if you know it'll give your ex a hard time eh?

I also wonder if it'd really help domestic violence victims. If the abuser is victimizing and controlling their partner already, the partner is already used to acting their part and keeping the abuse secret "Now you sign this piece of paper" or "Say nice things to the cop" are simple commands and easy to be pressured into.

**Kilkrazy**

So few people are killed with guns in the UK that it doesn't seem a serious problem to address in the area of domestic violence.

There are many more victims of lesser levels of domestic violence who need different kinds of help first.

**Steve steveson**

I suspect it will make things worse. Knowing how paraniod and controlling abuserd can be it will just be another excuse for violence. Person gets refused a licence because of something else and suddenly it will be "What did you say to them. What did you tell them about me. I know it was you".

The realy odd thing is that, with a total ban on hand guns and ideoticly strict control on all other firearms, they are not a problem in domestic abuse. You want to hurt a single person (i.e. your partner) in a fit of rage (I know domestic abuse takes many forms, not just angry violence) a kitchen knife or cricket bat is far more likely to come to hand than the gun, that is keeped in a locked room, in a gun safe, with amunition in another locked safe.

It just seems to be another bit of law from an urban MP with no idea about the countryside and how guns are used in the UK.

**Palindrome**

Steve steveson wrote:

The realy odd thing is that, with a total ban on hand guns and ideoticly strict control on all other firearms,

Handguns aren't completely banned, just very strcitly controlled, and the UK's gun laws are far from idiotic.

This seems to be yet another example of the type of knee jerk legislation that will do no one any good that seems to be the hallmark of modern governments.

**Mr. Burning**

Steve steveson wrote:

Under the current gun-licensing regime, criminals who are sentenced to three months or more in prison face a temporary ban on firearm possession; those who are sentenced to three years or more are banned permanently from possessing a gun.
Supplying a firearm laws

Convicted criminals sentenced to five years or more are banned permanently from owning a gun; those sentenced to three years or more are banned for five years

Want to see pointless knee jerk gun hatered, look at waht the UK government is suggesting... As if a drink drive convicton or petty theft 20 years ago make someone dangerous, and noone has ever lied to help there violent partner, or lied to spite an ex.

The ban on firearms for convicted criminals includes fireworks, catapults, paintball guns and flares.

**Steve steveson**

Palindrome wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:

The realy odd thing is that, with a total ban on hand guns and ideoticly strict control on all other firearms,

Handguns aren't completely banned, just very strcitly controlled, and the UK's gun laws are far from idiotic.

This seems to be yet another example of the type of knee jerk legislation that will do no one any good that seems to be the hallmark of modern governments.

Sorry, yes, black powder guns are legal and some long barrel pistols are legal. It is very limited.

The reason I call it ideotic is the mish mash of ill thought out laws and restrictions in place for some things, for example at one point about 10 years ago expanding ammunition was both band and legaly required for deer shooting at the same time. I also have serious problems with the storage requirements in the UK. The other problem I have is the handwave argument with the Olympics and top shooter. If your Olympic level you can get a permit for a target pistol, but to get to that level you must train overseas.

**Grey Templar**

This seems like a case of good intentions that just went totally the wrong way.

They really should have not brought subjective opinions into this. Or at very least only used the opinion of the other people as a consideration, and a minor one at that.

**daedalus**

Wow, that's crazy.

Literally, up to this very moment, I was utterly convinced you guys couldn't even HAVE guns.

By comparison to my previous (apparent mis)understanding, this ruling seems completely fair and reasonable.

**Peregrine**

Steve steveson wrote:
As if a drink drive convicton or petty theft 20 years ago make someone dangerous

Petty theft, no, but a drunk driving conviction means you're a

who doesn't care if they kill anyone with their dangerous behavior. If you drive drunk you should be happy if the only consequence is loss of your gun privileges, you should go to prison and never be allowed to drive again.

**daedalus**

Peregrine wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
As if a drink drive convicton or petty theft 20 years ago make someone dangerous

Petty theft, no, but a drunk driving conviction means you're a who doesn't care if they kill anyone with their dangerous behavior. If you drive drunk you should be happy if the only consequence is loss of your gun privileges, you should go to prison and never be allowed to drive again.

But from 20 years ago? Tell me you haven't endangered yourself (and or other people) in the last 20 years doing something stupid. I have, and I know plenty of other people who have, and I'm not just talking about drunk driving here.

I mean, I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime, but to perpetually deny someone the chance for redemption and a "normal" life often breeds a class of people far more dangerous than they were before hand.

On the other hand, I'm told that felony convictions and privatized prison systems truly stop repeat criminals. Truly.

**Peregrine**

daedalus wrote:
But from 20 years ago? Tell me you haven't endangered yourself (and or other people) in the last 20 years doing something stupid. I have, and I know plenty of other people who have, and I'm not just talking about drunk driving here.

Maybe if we actually take drunk driving seriously instead of just letting drunk drivers keep doing it over and over again with nothing more than higher insurance rates then people will stop driving while drunk. And if you think that you've reformed so thoroughly and deserve a second chance then you can always apply for a pardon.

I mean, I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime, but to perpetually deny someone the chance for redemption and a "normal" life often breeds a class of people far more dangerous than they were before hand.

Not being allowed to own a gun is hardly being denied a normal life.

**daedalus**

Peregrine wrote:

Not being allowed to own a gun is hardly being denied a normal life.

Well, no. I get by quite fine without one, though it's great fun firing one at the range occasionally.

What I was referring to there was "never be allowed to drive again."

**Kilkrazy**

In the UK we have got drink drivers down more or less to two groups -- stupid teenagers who haven't learnt better yet, and confirmed recidivist drinkers who simply won't give up and will drive without a licence or insurance if they want to drive.

The first group tend to either kill themselves and passengers, or grow up. More campaigns against teenage drink driving will help reduce the problem.

The second group are arguably worthy of very long term prison sentences, since the normal methods of control have been found not to work.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kilkrazy wrote:

The first group tend to either kill themselves and passengers, or grow up. More campaigns against teenage drink driving will help reduce the problem.

Do we have any evidence to back this up?? As far as I'm aware people keep throwing money into these sorts of programs, but teens still do it. Obviously teens become adults and some grow up, but there's always a new generation of teens to take up the mantle of idiots behind the wheel.

I am completely ignorant to the UKs drinking laws, but I know that the US could take a page from places like Germany where the legal age for drinking is much lower, IMHO having a lower age limit will reduce some of the "cool" factor to underage drinking, as well as allowing more parents to introduce libations in a more controlled environment without fear of recourse to them.

**whembly**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

The first group tend to either kill themselves and passengers, or grow up. More campaigns against teenage drink driving will help reduce the problem.

Do we have any evidence to back this up?? As far as I'm aware people keep throwing money into these sorts of programs, but teens still do it. Obviously teens become adults and some grow up, but there's always a new generation of teens to take up the mantle of idiots behind the wheel.

I am completely ignorant to the UKs drinking laws, but I know that the US could take a page from places like Germany where the legal age for drinking is much lower, IMHO having a lower age limit will reduce some of the "cool" factor to underage drinking, as well as allowing more parents to introduce libations in a more controlled environment without fear of recourse to them.

Yup... my folks let me get gak faced around 14/15 yo... learned the hard way to control it and it wasn't a big deal in my house.

**Palindrome**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I am completely ignorant to the UKs drinking laws, but I know that the US could take a page from places like Germany where the legal age for drinking is much lower, IMHO having a lower age limit will reduce some of the "cool" factor to underage drinking, as well as allowing more parents to introduce libations in a more controlled environment without fear of recourse to them.

In my experience the legal limit in the UK is more of a guideline. From my own standpoint virtually all the times that I have drank to unconciousness have occured before I was 18 (1 of which resulted in hypothermia and was a very useful learning experience).

The UK as a whole has a very unhealthy atitude towards drink though.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I am completely ignorant to the UKs drinking laws, but I know that the US could take a page from places like Germany where the legal age for drinking is much lower, IMHO having a lower age limit will reduce some of the "cool" factor to underage drinking, as well as allowing more parents to introduce libations in a more controlled environment without fear of recourse to them.

While I agree with you in theory, can you imagine the reaction in America if we lowered the drinking age to 18 all of a sudden? The streets would run green with vomit. College students would be dying in droves. Our drinking culture isn't quite like others. Its an all or nothing gamble, and if we tried to lower it now it would end up in disaster. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy but there is no way American youth could handle a lowered drinking age. The reason it works there is from generations upon generations of culture. It just won't work here.

And I say this as an alcoholic 25 year old, not some curmudgeony, abstaining old man. I would have loved a younger drinking age. Probably would be dead too.

On topic, this law seems absolutely garbage to me, but I'm not from the UK so, can't really comment other than exes are terrible judges of character both ways.

**Peregrine**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
College students would be dying in droves.

You mean that the same college students that have virtually unlimited access to alcohol would somehow drink more alcohol because they are given the ability to drink it in public where it's easier for someone to say "that's it, you've had enough"?

**dogma**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

And I say this as an alcoholic 25 year old, not some curmudgeony, abstaining old man.

In what sense do you mean "alcoholic"?

**DutchKillsRambo**

Peregrine wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
College students would be dying in droves.

You mean that the same college students that have virtually unlimited access to alcohol would somehow drink more alcohol because they are given the ability to drink it in public where it's easier for someone to say "that's it, you've had enough"?

Absolutely. Its nowhere near unlimited its relegated mostly to parties and/or friends with fake ID's. Not to mention it would open up high schools to a completely different level.

Trust me I fully think it should have never been raised to 21. I just think it would be disastrous if we lowered it now. At least for a few years it would be chaos. Maybe I'm not giving us enough credit but the way I view American drinking culture now, especially amongst youth, is horrendously bad. Maybe you and the people you associated with were/are different but most times the entire goal of drinking for everyone I know was to get as drunk as possible as quickly as possible. The whole culture of pre-gaming is in my defense here.

And dogma I'm not going to list my sins here, I've just finally learned how to control some of worst aspects. I don't say it as a badge of pride as I can't really say stomach pumpings, rehab, and waking up in your own piss and vomit more times than I can count are cool. And I type this after my 8th beer of the night. So what do I really know and really what have I learned.

But this all OT from UK gun laws so.

**anika001**

This seems like a case of good intentions that just went totally the wrong way.

They really should have not brought subjective opinions into this. Or at very least only used the opinion of the other people as a consideration, and a minor one at that.

**Kilkrazy**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

The first group tend to either kill themselves and passengers, or grow up. More campaigns against teenage drink driving will help reduce the problem.

Do we have any evidence to back this up?? As far as I'm aware people keep throwing money into these sorts of programs, but teens still do it. Obviously teens become adults and some grow up, but there's always a new generation of teens to take up the mantle of idiots behind the wheel.

I am completely ignorant to the UKs drinking laws, but I know that the US could take a page from places like Germany where the legal age for drinking is much lower, IMHO having a lower age limit will reduce some of the "cool" factor to underage drinking, as well as allowing more parents to introduce libations in a more controlled environment without fear of recourse to them.

This study http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/v9/mb_v9_a4_macpherson.pdf compares campaigns in Australia and New Zealand. The conclusion is that an advertising campaign by itself may or may not not have any effect, but when combined with police enforcement it is effective.

This kind of problem does not have a quick and easy solution. Drink driving in the UK has been reduced over 30 years or more by a gradual switch of public opinion caused partly by advertising campaigns. Smoking too has been reduced.

As you say, the problem with teenagers is that a new cohort comes up every year, however if growing up in a culture that drink driving is wrong, they probably are less likely to do it.

With modern media usage you need to reach teenagers via Twitter and apps rather than just TV.

Britain has quite a drink problem although not associated with drink driving. There are two aspects to it -- binge drinking by younger people, and middle-age, middle-class over-drinking (not binging but drinking every night of the week.) The medical evidence in rising liver disease cannot be denied.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I've always thought that dropping the drinking age to 16 or 18, then bumping the /driving age/ to 21 would be more efficient. Three years to figure out your tolerance THEN you can have the two tons of steel with an engine.

Not that that's practical in most of the United States. Public transit? Y'all mean walking right?

**Ensis Ferrae**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I've always thought that dropping the drinking age to 16 or 18, then bumping the /driving age/ to 21 would be more efficient. Three years to figure out your tolerance THEN you can have the two tons of steel with an engine.

Not that that's practical in most of the United States. Public transit? Y'all mean walking right?

I agree.... especially for the fact that in the US, if you are 18, you are viewed as being responsible enough to vote, buy tobacco (which is arguably worse than drinking), and you are old enough and responsible enough to go to war.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I've always thought that dropping the drinking age to 16 or 18, then bumping the /driving age/ to 21 would be more efficient. Three years to figure out your tolerance THEN you can have the two tons of steel with an engine.

Not that that's practical in most of the United States. Public transit? Y'all mean walking right?

I agree.... especially for the fact that in the US, if you are 18, you are viewed as being responsible enough to vote, buy tobacco (which is arguably worse than drinking), and you are old enough and responsible enough to go to war.

Not like the drinking age stops any one either. I could always get booze when I wanted it and I was a good kid.

**dogma**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I've always thought that dropping the drinking age to 16 or 18, then bumping the /driving age/ to 21 would be more efficient. Three years to figure out your tolerance THEN you can have the two tons of steel with an engine.

Not that that's practical in most of the United States. Public transit? Y'all mean walking right?

The hilarious thing is places that don't have bike lanes, but ban bikes from sidewalks.

**Grey Templar**

Even without a bike lane the bike still has to be on the road. Bikes are vehicles and must remain on the road. The sidewalk is for pedestrians only.

Nothing hilarious about it. Some areas are just nice enough to drivers that they make a special lane for bikes so there isn't interference with other drivers.

**Kilkrazy**

In the UK it is illegal for cyclists to go on the pavement, but people don't mind children doing it.

Our bike lanes are mostly complete rubbish.

**Squigsquasher**

Can we just cut to the chase and ban the damn things altogether?