There's clearly been a failure here on the part of officers in the firearms dept ...wouldn't surprise me,though if that dept is staffed by civilians with maybe a sergeant supervising but I'm going to hazard a guess. Initial or further checks after the aggressive incident with two youths that involved the police weren't done thoroughly enough, as per protocol because the dept was under-staffed. It's possible that it's, at least, a contributing factor for what has turned out to be a catastrophic error of judgement in handing back the licence/gun. I assume,though that a licence/gun must be returned unless there are good grounds not to..like having been involved in a high level of aggression but we'll see when the findings of the investigation are complete. I see the police won't confirm if the shotgun he used was the one covered by his licence. Witnesses talk of a pump-action shot gun.
Firearms Licencing Department(s) are run by the police but usually employ civillians, not police officers. The Home Office issues guidelines to the different police forces, some do things differently than others, so there probably are some police forces where police officers are involved. The civillians are frequently shooters themselves, they don't need to be but it helps if they can provide the public with information and advice based on real-world experience. Many of the civilian staff are either ex-police or ex armed forces.They need to be organised, careful people who are capable of judging character, and generally they do this extremely well.
I think that all police licensing departments are suffering from limited resources but this should NOT affect public safety in a negative way. What usually happens is that grant applications and renewals have to be dealt with more slowly, they are not dealt with less carefully.
We don't know what went wrong at Devon & Cornwall, but certainly - based on what appeared in the public domain within a few hours of this shooting - this individual should never have been granted a certificate in the first place. The person(s) responsible for both granting the certificate and returning it after seizure will have to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives.
In the UK, single, double and tripled-barrelled shotguns as well as those which have a lever action, pump-action, semiautomatic and fixed magazine capacity of no more than three cartridges are legal with a valid Shotgun certificate and meeting the basic safety requirements for firearm possession in the UK. Types of shotgun ammunition, such a solid slug, can only be bought following the granting of a Firearm Certificate (FAC).
Corrrect, but tripled-barrelled shotguns are a bit of a curiosity, personally I've never seen one. Solid slugs are available to FAC holders but they really just turn a shotgun into a poor rifle and are very much an American thing
But in relation to pump-action shotguns.... banned are .. Semi-automatic or pump-action rifles which fire centre-fire ammunition
These are rifles, not shotguns.
Did he get a caution or was it a case of no further action ? Either way, I assume he applied to get his licence and gun back in July and to do so was obliged to attend an anger-management course. My opinion is that a person that has the capacity for such a level of anger that it involved the police should never have access to a shotgun or firearm. An anger management course should never be a condition for someone to have seizure revoked . I wonder who the two character referees were when he initially applied for a shotgun licence ? The police might not have disovered his membership of that Incel group..mysogynists..but he was on Facebook. His account on Facebook and Youtube have since been cancelled for 'breaching their policy' so he must have posted unsavoury comments on there. He was also posting on Reddit
Someone on a shooting forum linked to his YouTube channel and I saw his posts before they were deleted. The content was horrific, and it seems strange that the police didn't seem to look at them before making their decisions.
We have a small, remote rural farm and farmers are easy targets for thieves, who are generally after expensive machinery, not guns. I'm not excusing it, but some farmers are a little careless with their gun security, they are subject to the same safe storage rules as householders and all guns should be locked up at all times when not in actual use, it should be impossible to steal them from "the outskirts" or from a truck. I remember a case where someone was attacked by a bull, a tractor driver saved the mans life by shooting it with a rifle that he had wrongly left in his tractor, and his certificate was then revoked.
One thing I noticed early on was that the .22 ammunition had a warning "Lethal up to 1000yards" ~ a salutary reminder that (sporting) guns can kill if mis-used. NB I think I recall that a box 20 rounds was 50p!
Yes, even the tiny and humble .22 rimfire can be lethal at 1000 yards, probably at nearly twice that. But the typical point black range is around 67 yards, and their maximum effective range is about 100 yards, maximum. Presumably it's because rifles can kill at much greater ranges than shotguns that governments consider them to be more dangerous and that they are on a different type of certificate.
The expression that comes to mind is that if someone applies for a Firearms Certificate they should be required to prove themselves to be a "Fit & Proper Person".
Yes, that is the case for Firearms Certificates, where the applicant is also required to have good reason for possession. But it doesn't apply to shotgun certificates, where there is a presumption of entitlement and the police have to have good reason to refuse rather than the other way round, and the applicant doesn't need to have a good reason for wanting a shotgun. But, the most popular reason for wanting a shotgun is to shoot clays, and the vast majority of would-be shooters shoot under supervision at a licensed club before applying for their certificate, and the Firearms Licencing Officer then phones the club secretary to check, and to get his/her opinion re suitablility.
Furthermore, in the light of extreme views being expressed (in any reported circumstances) and/or mental illness developing, a little like drivers over 70 being required to renew their license every 3 years...............should not those that hold firearms be required (sorry if this happens already?) to have a yearly renewal with the same proof required as in the case of a new applicant???
It used to be 3 years and then became 5 years, and personally I think that a lot can change in such a long time. The shooting community strongly supports public safety and, when people belong to clubs, the police tend to get told about any concerns that may arise. The renewals are subject to exactly the same checks and the same criteria as the first application.
. But are you that if all the fairly recent gun deaths were accidental, That‘d be OK?
