No Second Amendment in the UK

[seeth07]

Security, always locked away in gun cabinet whilst not in use, more than

Guess I don't pass. No kids in my house though. One gun shy of a full cabinet and it's at the smith awaiting custom parts! Here soon!

 

[SAJ-99]

I thought you might be interested in what I am currently in the middle of at the moment, renewing my gun licences through my local police force, they last 5 years.

Lets start with the easy one, the Shotgun application, I can have as many shotguns as I like, as long as they can't take any more than 3 cartridges, any more than that then you need the more difficult to obtain Firearms Certificate, I still need a 'good reason' to have one, be that clay pigeon or bird shooting.
Ammo, you can have as much as you like.
I need a 'referee', someone that has known me for more than 2 years who can vouch that in their opinion they know of no reason why I shouldn't be granted one.

Now the Firearms certificate, for any rifle, shotgun capable of holding more than 3 cartridges, or a pistol which can only hold 2 rounds.
For each calibre you have to state what they will be used for, hunting or target shooting, hunting you have to state what species per calibre, and also the associated sound moderator (suppressor) you rarely get issued 2 of the same calibre.
If its a new application you are strictly limited to an area of land that the police have cleared for use of that calibre, that is called a 'closed' certificate, they also impose a 'mentoring' condition, whereby you can only use the firearm in the presence of an 'experienced' user, that can be removed if the 'mentor' states you are safe etc.
The 'closed' condition can stay in place for 5 years which means every time you get granted permission to hunt on a new piece of land the police have to inspect it before you can hunt it, that often means the landowner has second thoughts, worrying an inexperienced hunter will be on his land.
Ammo, you are limited, I ask for 1000 rounds .22 and 750 of .243

The doctors certificate, you state you have no medical condition that could prevent you from having a gun, i.e depression
They can then contact your doctor and some county police forces charge you anything they want, maybe another $100 on top of the $100 you are already paying
Any conviction, that can even be a speeding fine you might not get granted permission, in fact they could confiscate all your guns if that has only just come to their attention!

Security, always locked away in gun cabinet whilst not in use, more than 6 guns you have to fit an alarm.

I'm sure I have missed off a few things but that's the gist of it.

Fingers crossed it all goes through without a hitch.

Cheers

Richard

Seems like it is intended to keep firearms out of hands of those that shouldn’t have them, with the preference being to tell someone ‘no’ rather than say ‘yes’ and be wrong. Just curious, how many mass shootings are there in the U.K. each year?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Most laws are partially enforced - how often are people at 0.081 alcohol content pulled over. How many home improvement projects go with permitting and inspection? How many trailers are over weight? Etc etc etc. Literally thousands of laws are in the books and only enforced when for some other reason there is a problem. I don’t like it either, but not really a useful argument in 2020 America.

And I agree to worthless 50 cent locks are pointless. But a proper safe in a home with minors is still a good policy in my opinion. That and universal background checks are about the only two gun control laws I support.

You should have moved to Rochester

What would be the enforcement mechanism other that some sort of point of sale rule? I'll give you the lots of laws aren't enforced point, but I just don't understand how you could possible enforce this on any level without further encroachment on 2A and private property rights.

and yeah... at least it's not NYC

 

[VikingsGuy]

What would be the enforcement mechanism other that some sort of point of sale rule? I'll give you the lots of laws aren't enforced point, but I just don't understand how you could possible enforce this on any level without further encroachment on 2A and private property rights.

and yeah... at least it's not NYC

The same way enforcement works for domestic abuse, child abuse, tax fraud, zoning violations, embezzlement, poaching, trespass, etc, etc, etc, etc, - somebody blows the whistle/calls in a complaint. I would hate to live in a world where every law came with fulltime government oversight and in-home checkup - that would be the ultimate police state. Instead, we set laws and people violate at their own risk. Just enough are caught to deter the majority into compliance. I reject the two extremes - no laws because we aren't willing to go door-to-door to confirm, or a police state that goes door-to-door to confirm full compliance on all thousand or so laws the average person is subject to.

 

[LuketheDog]

Locked firearms (or carried on your person) with minors in the house should be a law everywhere. The alarm thing, as you note, is a worthless money waster.

I believe this is coming in Colorado under our current governor...

 

[Kiwi]

I personally can't stand laws that aren't enforced.

I don't honestly know why we have a 21 drinking age. Underage drinking is widely and wildly accepted. I'd venture 95% of American's who are going to drink have had a drink before age 21.

How are you going to enforce this? What's the mechanism? When you buy your first gun, do you have to buy a safe? What if you inherent one? What if you buy from a private party? Do police get to enter your house to check? How do we know you own a gun, and are storing it correctly? Gun registry?

Gun licenses like Mass? For the record Mass does have this law and they enforce it by requiring licenses for guns. The licenses are issued by the town you live in not the state. You local police chief gets to say whether you can own a gun or not. If you just don't like you they can choose not to approve your license, if this happens you have to file suit within 90 days. You move to a different town, you have to reapply. All serial numbers of firearms are recorded by the state. Shells and powder must be stored in a locked container as well... oh and forget reloading like brockel or honestly any of us do, because you are limited to 16lbs of smokeless powder, 2 lbs of black powder, and 10,000 rounds of ammo. Want more whelp have to get another license. Licenses last 5 years, $100 a pop each time. Also just for good measure the state has a list of the approved guns you can buy, this isn't a AR or high capacity mag thing, the state requires that all gun manufacturer submit guns for "safety" testing (they drop it a bunch), if a manufacturer doesn't submit there gun to the state and pay for it to be tested (like 50k they can't sell in the state, no Kimber 911s for Massholes. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/03/28/Approved Firearms Roster 03-2019_0.pdf

So yeah....

That said, requiring manufacturers to include a trigger lock when they sell a gun... knock yourself out.

You'd like New Zealand then lol we don't have a drinking age.

And yes, in NZ the police (firearms officer) checks your safe, and interviews the adults to check they are ok with firearms in the house, when you apply or renew a firearms licence. You need a licence to buy a gun and the shops check, private sellers are meant to.

 

[Aussie_hunter_JD]

How it's enforced here is that police can turn up to your house and Check your safe. I had it last week, check off that what you have is what's listed and it's secured properly.

 

[devon deer]

Seems like it is intended to keep firearms out of hands of those that shouldn’t have them, with the preference being to tell someone ‘no’ rather than say ‘yes’ and be wrong. Just curious, how many mass shootings are there in the U.K. each year?

Security, it's to stop (delay access by third parties) others getting access to the guns.
And in a way to protect you, if a burglar enters our property and a firearm was to hand it's the owner that would get in more do-do than the thief.
But, things have changed over the years, if a burglar breaks in armed with a knife for example you have the right to use 'reasonable force' to protect yourself, and if the burglar ends up injured or worst case scenario dead the chances are you will not be prosecuted.

Mass shootings with legally held firearms, I was 60 a few weeks ago, in my time 3, Hungerford 1987, result ban on all automatic rifles, Dunblane 1996, ban on all hand guns, Cumbria 2010 shootings using a shot gun and .22 rifle, no ban on any firearms.

Cheers

Richard

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The same way enforcement works for domestic abuse, child abuse, tax fraud, zoning violations, embezzlement, poaching, trespass, etc, etc, etc, etc, - somebody blows the whistle/calls in a complaint.

A bunch of those aren't fair comparisons because those crimes all have victims. Improper firearm storage would be a victimless crime. If your child gets into your gun and accidentally kills themselves or another child you can already be charged with child abuse. Whether you are or not will be up to the local cops/DA. Not sure an added misdemeanor is going to matter when you lost a kid, and are being charged with a felony.

A more apt comparison is seatbelt laws... but you're in public, you get busted at traffic stops, so even that comparison is flawed. Maybe more akin child locks on cabinets or outlets. Nowhere has those laws. Where we do have laws that regulate those risks we shift the responsibility again to the manufacturer. Child proof pill bottles, containers, etc. Drinking age is 21, which is higher in most jurisdictions than the age to own a long gun 18... do we have safe alcohol storage laws to prevent underage drinking? (Oh right we don't give a crap about that law being flagrantly broken everywhere , even though a couple hundred kids die per year of alcohol poisoning)

I could be wrong here, but I can't think of a jurisdiction that has firearm storage requirements that doesn't have firearms licenses, Europe (UK, Germany, Switzerland, etc) or in the US; Mass. NY for handgun, DC for Handguns, CA for Handguns.

Instead, we set laws and people violate at their own risk. Just enough are caught to deter the majority into compliance."

Fair point.

Speed limits, 21 drinking age, blaze orange, pet registration, etc just drive me nuts.

 

[Shangobango]

honestly, I like this requirement, I think it could do a lot for our high suicide rate among youths. Not in love with the alarm part, but that's mainly cause I think they're a waste of money in general.

Obviously, we have much easier go with firearms in the US, but I also think we could learn from other countries as well.

There I said, let the onslaught begin haha!

I’d much rather see mandatory gun safety training for youth and adults alike.

I’m not sure how mandating where one keeps things inside their own home will ever be widely accepted or enforced in the vast majority of the U.S.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Speed limits, 21 drinking age, blaze orange, pet registration, etc just drive me nuts.

So which alternative do you prefer. None of them or police state level lock down on them? And I don’t just mean those three, I mean all laws you can break in the privacy of you own home.

I think the middle state of affairs - laws without automatic inspection (4thA and all that). Freedom comes with responsibility and consequences. Set the expectations and then hold folks accountable when it pops up.

As for where are there gun lockup rules, A number of states (incl. Cal) have a “locked” rule, I am just suggesting it get upgraded standards. But I will accept some percentage of non-compliance versus having automatic police in home visits. No need for us to choose one extreme or the other.

 

[seeth07]

Set the expectations and then hold folks accountable when it pops up.

This is such a key point made. The accountability is what will set the expectations because if punishment doesn't exist for not following the law, no one will comply. In this case with requiring all firearms to be safely locked away in a safe, the policing would likely happen after the fact as @wllm1313 pointed out. If an unlocked firearm is used in the crime via it being stolen (whether by an intruder or a family/friend member), the accountability part would be to bring down a harsh punishment on the gun owner for not following the law and as a result, eliminating the opportunity for the crime to happen.

 

[noharleyyet]

Speed limits, 21 drinking age, blaze orange, pet registration, thought police, etc just drive me nuts.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is such a key point made. The accountability is what will set the expectations because if punishment doesn't exist for not following the law, no one will comply. In this case with requiring all firearms to be safely locked away in a safe, the policing would likely happen after the fact as @wllm1313 pointed out. If an unlocked firearm is used in the crime via it being stolen (whether by an intruder or a family/friend member), the accountability part would be to bring down a harsh punishment on the gun owner for not following the law and as a result, eliminating the opportunity for the crime to happen.

My key point is that we have hundreds if not thousands of laws that govern behavior that is not immediately evident much of the time - and I neither want to drop them all, nor have door to door cops enforcing them all. Where are all the 4A lovers out there to jump on this? Or is the 2A the only A we care about? The middle ground is not perfect, but it works fairly well in practice. As for never discovered.

 

[devon deer]

Best of luck in getting all your permits in order and approved. Do you still own the Blazer in 30-06 or are you doing all your red deer hunting with the .243? To bad you can't just take one of the local police force out for a roe buck hunt. They would quickly see that your intent, purpose, and emphasis on safe gun handling are all above board.

Yes sold it @Sawtooth very accurate is the Blaser, but just too damned heavy, I have applied for a 7mm-08 and plan on getting a Sako.
.243 is knocking over the red's just fine.

The police are way to busy, especially at the moment, to be honest I expect all that will happen in my application is a quick phone call and they will give me what I want.
Cheers
Richard

 

[devon deer]

@devon deer seems like if you weren’t born into it is almost impossible for someone in the UK to start hunting? Fair assessment?

Its difficult for sure as we don't have any public land, so newbies are reliant on friends or outfitters to take them out with a rifle, much easier for them to get a shotgun than a rifle, but if they provide 'good reason' then the police can't refuse them.
Cheers
Richard

 

[seeth07]

Its difficult for sure as we don't have any public land, so newbies are reliant on friends or outfitters to take them out with a rifle, much easier for them to get a shotgun than a rifle, but if they provide 'good reason' then the police can't refuse them.
Cheers
Richard

Or a good buddy they met on Hunt Talk

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

My key point is that we have hundreds if not thousands of laws that govern behavior that is not immediately evident much of the time - and I neither want to drop them all, nor have door to door cops enforcing them all. Where are all the 4A lovers out there to jump on this? Or is the 2A the only A we care about? The middle ground is not perfect, but it works fairly well in practice. As for never discovered.

The thing you are missing Vike, is when it comes to 2A debates most logic flies out the door. Everything you have said is 100% true, and yet people will fear that the police would break down their door for confirmation, or say the law is pointless because it can't be properly enforced. But like you said, most laws are not enforced like that any way. Police don't break down your door to confirm you're not selling crack unless there is probable cause which gave a search warrant. Does that mean we should make crack legal just because there isn't 100% enforcement of the laws? Heck no, 100% compliance guarantees a police state like North Korea, or China.

I don't think requiring a safe would be any different from the millions of laws we currently have, and abide by. Will every one? no I don't think so, but a large portion of the law abiding society would and that would make a difference.

 

[SAJ-99]

My key point is that we have hundreds if not thousands of laws that govern behavior that is not immediately evident much of the time - and I neither want to drop them all, nor have door to door cops enforcing them all. Where are all the 4A lovers out there to jump on this? Or is the 2A the only A we care about? The middle ground is not perfect, but it works fairly well in practice. As for never discovered.

Seems like owning a gun is a privilege not a right for @devon deer, where citizens voluntarily allow the police to show up randomly and ask to check the safe. I have no problem with that approach, if it stopped mass shootings. It would cause quite a kerfuffle here to change to a Constitutional privledge with a lot of “from my cold dead hands”. I’m ok with that too, because they probably shouldn’t own a gun anyway. I wish at some point Americans could have a reasonable discussions on guns (or anything for that matter). But to your point, I think, maybe some consistency in defense of all the Amends would be a good starting point.

 

[MO Betta]

If an unlocked firearm is used in the crime via it being stolen (whether by an intruder or a family/friend member), the accountability part would be to bring down a harsh punishment on the gun owner for not following the law and as a result, eliminating the opportunity for the crime to happen.

Ah, yes. Punishing victims for the actions of criminals, great idea. That will eliminate crime.