The Field – August 2019

WWW.THEFIELD.CO.UK 7

Removingfirearmslicensingfrom thepolice

wouldnot compromise public safety

THElawpermitscitizenstopossessfirearms,

providedthatthosewhodosomeetvarious

criteriaintendedtoprotectthepublic.Only

thosewithgenuineneedorrequirement,a

faultlessrecordandwho are deemed not

tobea threatordangerareabletopossess

guns. None of which prevents criminals

fromacquiringorhavingaccesstothem.

Firearmslaw,asit affectsshootingenthu-

siasts,isa mish-mashofseveralActsthat

often contradict each other, rather than

provideclearguidance.TheHomeOffice’s

Guidetofirearmslicensinglawisintended

toensureconsistencybetweenpoliceforces.

However,thereare 41 chiefofficersableto

interpretthelawanddecidewho,in their

area,is allowedtopossessfirearmsand how

thelicensingprocessis carriedout.

Duetodifferencesininterpretation,some

areashavepoorrecordsinrespectoffire-

armslicensing,makingit a postcodelottery

forthosewhorequiregunstoparticipatein

theiroccupationorchoiceofrecreation.

Removing firearms licensing from the

police and creating a National Firearms

RegistrationAuthoritywould not compro-

misepublicsafetyandmightreleasepolice

officersforotherduties.It wouldhavea code

ofconductandspecificrequirementtocarry

outthelicensingprocesstothesamestand-

ard,andcost,throughouttheUK.Adequate

staff, working online, should produce an

improvement in service.

Atpresent,acquiringa gunlicencecanbea lottery.PaulFievezcallsforthecreationof

a nationwide authority to oversee this, along with the consolidation of firearms legislation

Centralise firearms licensing

At present, registered firearms dealers

(RFDs) have a complex system involving

multipleledgers andlettersofnotification

torelevantfirearmslicensingdepartments.

Theslightest change – sellingone gun to

upgradetoanother–requires a variation.

Why? If there is no change of calibre or

category,whynot:‘Oneoff,oneon’?Com-

puterised systems would create a single

registerofallprivatelyownedfirearmsand

their legitimate owners. RFDs would be

dealingwithoneauthority,without any loss

of,ordetrimentto,publicsafety.

Clearly, the police cannot be excluded.

They should, however, be but one of several

agencies consulted. Provided safeguards

werebuilt intothesystem,I wouldnotbe

unhappyif thefollowingwereconsulted:

Criminal Records Office, to ensure that

informationsuppliedis factual;

The police,who could statewhetherthey

hadanyreasonforopposingtheissuingofa

firearmslicence/shotgunpermit,withchal-

lengesagainstdecisions heard in private by

expertadjudicators;

Socialservices,otheragenciesandpartners

couldalsobeaskedfortheirviews,although

it would be simpler to ask applicants if they

aresubjecttoa courtorderprohibitingcon-

tact with ex partners orvisiting a former

homeorchildren,theanswereasilyverifi-

ableagainstCountyCourtrecords.

Askingdoctorstosupplyinformationto

the police is contentious, with many GPs

assumingthatbycooperatingtheyarecer-

tifying an applicant as fit to own guns. I

disagree.Theymerelyconfirmanapplicant

has,ordoesnothave,medicalconditionsas

specifiedona governmentlist.It is nomore

than a medical MOT. And, theoretically,

patientrecordsare‘flagged’andanongoing

watchfornewsymptomsordeterioration of

existing conditions maintained.

While it must always remain the right
ofanindividualtoguaranteeorrefuse,the
rightofconscientiousobjectionshouldnot
extendtorefusingfactualinformationfrom
medicalrecords.Applicantsgivepermission
fortheirGPtobecontacted.Thereshould
bea legalobligationtosupplyinformation.
Exceptwheremedicalgroundsforconcern
exist, the doctor should comply without
prejudicialcomment.
Some GPs, and other privacy watch-
dogs, might argue that requiring doctors
toprovide information,would,ultimately,
result inbreaches of confidentialityelse-
where.This argument isfacile. Itignores
thefactthatpermissionhasbeengivenfor
access. Also, there are many precedents
wheremedical practitionerscanbecom-
pelled tosupplyconfidential information.
To coroners, for example, without either
the patient’s or the next-of-kin’s knowl-
edgeorconsent.
Changing the licensing system to a
nationwideauthoritywouldrequire parlia-
mentarytimeanddetermination.
NorthernIrelandandScotlandbothhave
centralisedFirearmsLicensingServicesand
sucha bodyis longoverdueinEnglandand
Wales,too,which,togetherwithconsolidat-
ingexistinglawsintooneupdated act, would
notcompromisepublicsafety.
Areviewoffirearmslegislationisimmi-
nent. Hopefully,allshootingorganisations,
regardlessoftheirspecificreasonforexist-
ence, havesubmissions prepared andwill
campaign (jointly?) to ensurethat we are
treated fairly and not penalised for our
choiceofrecreationorbusiness.Individuals,
withanyinvolvement in shooting, should do
soaswell.
Shootingin Britain isvastlydifferent to
thesituationthatexistsinAmerica.TheNRA
(NationalRifleAssociation)is successfuland
organised. Itdemonstrates to government
thatshootingenthusiastsare notdisparate
groups tobeignoredbutmanythousands
ofvoters,whosevoicesshouldbeheard and
whoseviewsshouldbeconsidered.
We,andtheorganisationsthatrepresent
us,shouldadoptthesameattitude.
PaulFievezis a photographerand
journalist.Hehasbeenanenthusiastic gun
for more than 40 years.
DUNCAN IRELAND

OPENINGSHOTS

COMMENT