christel wrote:The UK firearms departments can't make the rules up as they go along, especially not if the firearms law is clear.
Get BASC/SACS/WHOEVER on the case?
The Farcebook link had the following reply from the head of PS
Statement from Head of Firearms Licensing, Police Scotland:
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Good afternoon Alex.
Thank you for your email of 28 September 2016 in which you address a number of matters surrounding the current challenges being addressed in respect of the information sharing arrangements between General Practitioners and the Police. You have been aware from our many discussions that Police Scotland, along with Home Office and Scottish Government policy officials have been working hard to address the challenges faced. I believe I could not have been more transparent in my dealings with you on behalf of your organisation.
I understand the position of the Scottish Association for Country Sports (SACS) insofar that you represent your membership, however I believe that in order to deal with your points accurately, context and proportion has to be applied.
You rightly highlight the contents of the Home Office Guidance on Firearms Licensing Law, last updated in April 2016. I have publicly stated that Police Scotland will follow the Guidance as it is intended to allow for consistency of practice throughout not only Scotland, but the UK. For the avoidance of doubt, I am a strong believer in the Guidance. I know that you are aware that it is proposed that the Guidance should be placed upon a statutory footing whereby the Police and the Courts should have regard to its contents. As you know, the contents of the guidance are being considered by policy officials at the Home Office in anticipation of this change. That said, the issues surrounding the information sharing protocols have required that Police Scotland considers its position in respect of the matters such as temporary permits given the statutory obligations set out in Sections 27 and 28 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).
Section 27 and 28 of the 1968 Act require a Chief Officer of Police to be satisfied that, amongst other matters, an applicant can be permitted to have in their possession a firearm or shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. Satisfaction is defined as ‘full assurance or certainty’.
Firearms are lethal weapons. They are designed to kill or seriously injure. In firearms licensing, the overarching consideration is public safety at all times. The wider public, I believe, would expect no less and would expect the police to be satisfied in respect of an individual’s suitability to possess firearms and to carry out the necessary enquiry to have that assurance that the wider public would not be placed in danger.
Paragraphs 4.87 to 4.96 of the HMICS report deal with Temporary Permits issued under the terms of Section 7 of the 1968 Act. The report reflects on the process of issuing temporary permits certificates by English and Welsh forces and principally deals with how the forces examined were inconsistent in their applicant of the guidance whilst addressing backlogs. At no time were the current challenges around the information sharing protocols referred to, given that they hadn’t arisen at that time.
We have spoken about Sections 7’s and how they increase the workload on processing centres. This is addressed in paragraph 4.93. You are aware that Police Scotland have almost eliminated the need for Section 7 permits in Scotland with improvements in process and resourcing. For the period 1 April 2016 to 29 September 2016, Police Scotland processed 8214 firearm and shotgun certificates. 7697 of these were issued prior to expiry (93.71%) with 517 being issued after expiry. You are aware of the numerous reasons for non-issue, including contentious matters and in a small number of cases, the failure of the GP to supply a medical report.
There are generally few complaints in respect of Police Scotland turnaround times for certificates and other matters. You know that I seek to use the shooting organisations as an external barometer in respect of performance and general service delivery and you have not made me aware of performance matters.
SACS seek to have the Chief Officer of police issue a temporary permit in the absence of satisfaction from a significant line of enquiry, namely medical history. By definition this means that the Chief Officer of police does not know the medical history of an individual and, has now been proved, there have been a number of individuals identified who have not been frank in respect of their medical history on their current application or past applications to access firearms. This fundamentally exposes the public to a risk, which may be considered unnecessary. In essence, SACS are asking that Police Scotland may issue temporary certificates to people who should not have guns.
The maintenance of public safety is essential, however in addition the issuing of temporary permits will affect the renewals as each temporary permit doubles work; the permit has to be issued and the permit or certificate has to be later renewed.
You refer to ‘the GP refusal fiasco’. The definition of fiasco is ‘complete and ignominious failure’. There are approximately 966 GP practices in Scotland. I am aware that 72 are not taking part in the information sharing protocols. The vast majority of GPs are taking part and are supplying the medical details. Last week, 96% of certificates were renewed before expiry. The system is identifying individuals who pose a danger to the public safety and who have not disclosed significant health concerns. I would challenge your inflammatory assertion that the process is a failure.
Notwithstanding that, Chapter 5 of the HMIC report quite articulately sets out the reasons for contacting GPs prior to issue of a certificate. It is simply a matter of public safety. This chapter includes Recommendation 11 which recommends that the system does not allow licensing to take place without a current medical report from the applicants GP, obtained and paid for by the applicant in advance of an application for the granting or renewal of a certificate and which meets requirements prescribed by law.
I am sure that SACS would agree that public safety is paramount. Legislatively it is a requirement. The wider public would expect it and the shooting community will understand it.
Throughout this process, prior to its implementation and since, I have continually briefed you in respect of the ongoing work, both internally and externally in relation to this matter. SACS are a valued and trusted partner of Police Scotland and I hope that that partnership can continue as we work towards resolving your members concerns.
Best wishes.
Fraser
Fraser Lamb
Chief Inspector
Firearms and Explosives Licensing
Police Scotland
A few colouring-in additions of my doing....
IF PS seem to think that firearms are ONLY designed to kill, I take it that non-military & non-police designs are now free from control?
Would like my S&W M41 target pistol back.
& VERY interesting that they potentially acted illegally on over 500 renewals!
(If no S.7 were issued for the late renewals were the certificate holders told that they were not in breach of the law? Or were they made to store their property at an RFD?)
