Turn on thread page Beta

B1335 - Handgun Ownership and Regulation Bill 2018 watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    What is this?/I'm confused
    Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

    If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

    Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


    B1335 - Handgun Ownership and Regulation Bill 2018 - the Rt Hon Jammy Duel, Seconded by: the Hon. Connor27 MP


    Handgun Ownership and Regulation Bill 2018

    An Act to reintroduce strictly regulated handgun ownership to the UK for those who demonstrate the ability to handle handguns safely and are of sound mind.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1: Definitions
    (1) For the purposes of this bill a "handgun" shall be defined as a single action, double action, or semi-automatic weapon designed for one handed use;
    (2) For the purposes of this bill a "certification body" shall be defined as any gun club or other body registered with the Home Office to be able to certify competence with a handgun;;
    (3) For the purposes of this bill a "Registered Psychiatrist" shall be a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists or any other body recognised by the Department of Health as a professional organisation of psychiatrists.

    2: Competence certification
    (1) Any certification body may award Competence Certification that has demonstrated thorough understanding of safe storage and handling of handguns and ammunition;
    (i) The standards expected for certification shall be set out by the Home Office;
    (2) Competence certification expires ten years after being issued;
    (3) Competence certification can be renewed at any time;
    (4) Failure to show the necessary competence when attempting to renew certification will lead to immediate voiding of existing certification, irrespective of how long certification has been held.

    3: Psychiatric evaluation
    (1) All prospective handgun owners must pass a psychiatric evaluation carried out by a registered psychiatrist;
    (2) An examinee is deemed to have failed if they are diagnosed with or suspected to have, pending final diagnosis, any mental disorder which may cause them to pose an elevated threat to themselves or the public as defined by the Home Office and Department of Health;
    (3) An examinee is deemed to be in good mental health for 5 years after passing a psychiatric evaluation;
    (4) Psychiatric evaluations purely to prove good mental health for handgun ownership shall not be covered by the NHS;

    4: Criminal Record Checks
    (1) A prospective handgun owner must pass a criminal record check;
    (2) A prospective handgun owner is deemed to have passed a criminal record check if:
    (a) They do not have any charges for violent or firearms related offences for which they were not acquitted on their criminal record; and
    (b) They do not have any charges on their criminal record for the prior 5 years for which they have not been acquitted on their criminal record; and
    (c) have not served a jail term of any length in the prior 5 years.

    5: Handgun licencing
    (1) Handgun licences shall be issued on a "shall-issue" basis if the applicant:
    (a) possesses competent certification in accordance with Section 2; and
    (b) has passed a psychiatric evaluation in accordance with Section 3; and
    (c) has passed a criminal record check in accordance with Section 4;
    (2) A handgun licence shall be revoked if:
    (a) The holder ceases to hold a valid competence certification in accordance with Section 2; or
    (b) The holder ceases to be deemed in good mental health in accordance with Section 3
    (i) unless the holder is diagnosed with depression the; or
    (c) The holder is found guilty of any crime in accordance with law;
    (d) 10 years has passed since the issuing of the license, unless renewed;
    (3) A handgun licence shall be suspended and all the holders handguns seized by the police if the holder is charged with any crime until such a time that they are acquitted or the licence is revoked;
    (4) A handgun license shall be suspended if the holder is diagnosed with depression until such a time that they are found to be in good mental health in accordance with Sec
    (5) After revocation, or suspension pursuant to Section 5 Clause 4, of their licence any former licencee must rescind ownership of all firearms of have them verified as disabled by the police, and must rescind ownership of all ammunition within 7 days.

    6: Sales, registration, and storage of handguns and ammunition
    (1) All handguns must be registered with the police;
    (2) Handguns may only be sold to individuals who produce on purchase a valid handgun licence;
    (3) Ammunition may only be sold to a licence holder for handguns they have registration documentation for;
    (4) Handguns and ammunition must be in secure storage when:
    (a) on public land;
    (b) on private land unless consent to the contrary is given by the landowner and the registered owner has the handgun on their person or is supervising the safe use of the handgun.

    7: penalties
    (1) Any individual found to possess a handgun in contravention of Section 5 shall be liable to a fine nor more than £50,000 per firearm, and/or a prison term not exceeding 5 years per handgun;
    (2) Any individual found to possess not more than 250 rounds of ammunition that no handgun they are registered as owning can fire they shall be liable to a fine of not more than £100 per round;
    (3) Any individual found to possess more than 250 rounds of ammunition that no handgun they are registered as owning can fire shall be liable to a fine not more than £100 per round and a prison term not exceeding 10 years;
    (4) Any individual found to sell a handgun in contravention of Section 6 shall be liable to a fine of not more than £50,000 and/or a prison term not exceeding 5 years;
    (5) Any business found to sell a handgun in contravention of Section 6 shall be liable to a fine of not more than £100,000 and/or a suspension of their licence to sell firearms;
    (6) Any individual found to sell ammunition in contravention of Section 6 shall be liable to a fine of not more than £100 per round and/or a prison term not exceeding 5 years;
    (7) Any business found to sell a handgun in contravention of Section 6 shall be liable to a fine of not more than £250 per round and/or a suspension of their licence to sell firearms;
    (8) Any certification body found to issue certification in contravention of Section 2 shall be liable to a fine of not more than £50,000 and revocation of their ability to issue certification for not more than 10 years.

    8: commencement and extend
    (1) This Act extends to England and Wales;
    (2) The provisions of this Act come into force immediately following Royal Assent.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the Handgun Ownership and Regulation Act 2018.

    Notes
    This bill allows for the ownership of handguns and carry of on private property to those who have demonstrated themselves competent in handgun safety, and show no signs of undue danger to themselves or others through ownership of a firearm. Section 2 means that only those who have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are, from a practical and theoretical standpoint, safe with a handgun may own one. Section 3 means that only those who do not post an elevated risk to themselves or others can legally own a firearm. Section 4 excludes from legal ownership those who have a proved violent history, or a recent history of crime, no matter how petty.

    The original handgun bans were unnecessary knee jerk reactions and over the last 20 years there has been no evidence to show that this has made the country any safer:
    the homicide rate remains unchanged
    Spoiler:
    Show



    The reduction of violent crime did not accelerate
    Spoiler:
    Show



    Reported overall crime rates were not reduced, and estimated crime rates did not decrease any faster


    And before anybody shouts "but America" there is also no strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates either in the US:
    Spoiler:
    Show



    Or globally
    Spoiler:
    Show




    The original bans were emotionally motivated and there is no evidence of any tangible benefit, consequently all the bans achieve is to prohibit otherwise sane and law abiding citizens from the right to bear arms on private property with the consent of the land owner, and this bill intend to mark a compromise between this right, and ensuring that it is only law abiding, sane individuals who can demonstrate they are safe to own a gun are the only ones able to do so.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    This was badly timed...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye, of course.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    This was badly timed...
    This was poor timing I agree.

    As for the bill itself. No, and my mind will not be changed on it.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    Aye, reintroducing handguns would be a great victory of our freedom here and has the potential to bring in greater revenue for the economy
    (Original post by ns_2)
    This was badly timed...
    Here and off site, I’ll say this: if it’s regulated reasonably, what is the actual reason to oppose it? Yes yesterday was an awful incident but we have seen time on time again the most amount of crime in the US tends to occur in the more regulated states.
    I encourage all our members to support Jammy’s bill

    Edit: most fun crime... yeah I really am great at English sometimes
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ns_2)
    This was badly timed...
    It was submitted yesterday afternoon and Dayne was the one who decided to put it up today

    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    This was poor timing I agree.

    As for the bill itself. No, and my mind will not be changed on it.
    #TommytheLiberal
    At least this time you're openly admitting to having a closed mind that cares not for evidence.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No. Statistically, it may not make crime any worse, but does it make anything any better?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Aye, reintroducing handguns would be a great victory of our freedom here and has the potential to bring in greater revenue for the economy


    Here and off site, I’ll say this: if it’s regulated reasonably, what is the actual reason to oppose it? Yes yesterday was an awful incident but we have seen time on time again the most fun crime in the US tends to occur in the more regulated states.
    I encourage all our members to support Jammy’s bill
    At present, I am not endorsing or opposing the Bill; however, were the maximum support for this Bill desired, it ought to have been delayed at least for a week - with such a devastating and destructive event still vivid in our minds, said event is undoubtedly going to influence many members of the House.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It was submitted yesterday afternoon and Dayne was the one who decided to put it up today



    #TommytheLiberal
    At least this time you're openly admitting to having a closed mind that cares not for evidence.
    Give it a rest
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Aye, reintroducing handguns would be a great victory of our freedom here and has the potential to bring in greater revenue for the economy

    Here and off site, I’ll say this: if it’s regulated reasonably, what is the actual reason to oppose it? Yes yesterday was an awful incident but we have seen time on time again the most fun crime in the US tends to occur in the more regulated states.
    I encourage all our members to support Jammy’s bill
    The US is not a good example, instead we should look towards Switzerland and Austria which are much closer to our own society and indeed similar to our laws before New Labour.

    (Original post by Michelle08)
    No. Statistically, it may not make crime any worse, but does it make anything any better?
    It most certainly makes things better, as the ability to defend one's property or body with a firearm against those who wish to harm or steal allows crime to be prevented and injustice to be prevented.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by ns_2)
    At present, I am not endorsing or opposing the Bill; however, were the maximum support for this Bill desired, it ought to have been delayed at least for a week - with such a devastating and destructive event still vivid in our minds, said event is undoubtedly going to influence many members of the House.
    In fairness, this was down to me. I put up bills when they are submitted and there are no other bills waiting unless I am given a specific date that the proposer wants them to be put up.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    America has those types of shootings so frequently that nothing would ever get done if people had to wait for a suitable amount of time to pass before being able to discuss these types of measures. Before such a time has been reached, there'll be yet another.

    What is being defined as "secure storage" in this instance? This sounds like something which probably ought to be regulated, to ensure there are safeguards against things like robbery of handguns. Are there concerns about family members knowing where a key is kept and therefore being able to take the owner's gun without permission? It is a factor which has led to school shootings being possible in America, as the individual who had the psychological disturbance also happened to know how to gain access to their family's weapons storage.

    The bill has compelling safeguards for the handgun owner, but if their immediate family network doesn't also meet those same standards of psychological competency then we start entering potentially risky territory. It isn't necessarily feasible for an entire extended family to be evaluated, therefore the focus should then be on the duties the handgun owner has to actually store a device safely so that only they have access to it in all feasible eventualities. I can't help but wonder whether simply saying it must be "secure storage" is too vague and open, given the grey areas which exist within risk management.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    This is poorly timed when many will have heard of the US school shootings in the past few days. Given my consistent views on this, a strong nay from me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Aye, reintroducing handguns would be a great victory of our freedom here and has the potential to bring in greater revenue for the economy


    Here and off site, I’ll say this: if it’s regulated reasonably, what is the actual reason to oppose it? Yes yesterday was an awful incident but we have seen time on time again the most amount of crime in the US tends to occur in the more regulated states.
    I encourage all our members to support Jammy’s bill

    Edit: most fun crime... yeah I really am great at English sometimes
    Regulated in the sense that guns are still possible.

    I will never support this bill. And anyone who does - think of the children in the US who no longer have a life because freedom is deemed more important than lives lost to guns this year.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    I am quite content with the status-quo and consider this bill to represent needless change. Good effort though.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Regulated in the sense that guns are still possible.

    I will never support this bill. And anyone who does - think of the children in the US who no longer have a life because freedom is deemed more important than lives lost to guns this year.
    As Saunders has said, and rightly so, the American way of gun control isn’t great. With greater civil liberties comes a lower incentive and probability of a crime, you as a Liberal must believe it
    As for the ‘think of the children argument, no one can deny that yesterday was a great loss in life. I’d prefer to not bring that into an argument here and judge this bill on its merits and effects on civilian life, not basing it on the isolated incident of yesterday
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I will never support this bill. And anyone who does - think of the children in the US who no longer have a life because freedom is deemed more important than lives lost to guns this year.
    As gun rights have proven to have very little impact on homicide rates, I would reply to that by asking you to think of the people who have lost their life or valued possessions because they are not permitted to possess a firearm. Bad events are not a reason to oppose something's legality if the statistics prove that they are not a problem to society on balance in countries more comparable to our own and indeed our own country before 1997.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LPK)
    America has those types of shootings so frequently that nothing would ever get done if people had to wait for a suitable amount of time to pass before being able to discuss these types of measures. Before such a time has been reached, there'll be yet another.

    What is being defined as "secure storage" in this instance? This sounds like something which probably ought to be regulated, to ensure there are safeguards against things like robbery of handguns. Are there concerns about family members knowing where a key is kept and therefore being able to take the owner's gun without permission? It is a factor which has led to school shootings being possible in America, as the individual who had the psychological disturbance also happened to know how to gain access to their family's weapons storage.

    The bill has compelling safeguards for the handgun owner, but if their immediate family network doesn't also meet those same standards of psychological competency then we start entering potentially risky territory. It isn't necessarily feasible for an entire extended family to be evaluated, therefore the focus should then be on the duties the handgun owner has to actually store a device safely so that only they have access to it in all feasible eventualities. I can't help but wonder whether simply saying it must be "secure storage" is too vague and open, given the grey areas which exist within risk management.
    Secure storage, as is already the case for rifles. (12 year old) guidance can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ty_leaflet.pdf
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Regulated in the sense that guns are still possible.

    I will never support this bill. And anyone who does - think of the children in the US who no longer have a life because freedom is deemed more important than lives lost to guns this year.
    Why is it that the advocates of firearm bans always resort to emotional argument in the absence of evidence based argument?

    See the notes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Secure storage, as is already the case for rifles. (12 year old) guidance can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ty_leaflet.pdf
    Ah, that's useful to know. Thank you!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 2, 2018
The home of Results and Clearing

1,639

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.