COMMENT GTW


P


olice around the world have something of a dread of the ‘domestic dispute’


and respond with care to calls to incidents that often involve violence or threats of violence. T ere is no such thing as a


typical domestic dispute, but a very real scenario involves the policeman being called to a home in which the husband (allegedly or actually drunk) is threatening or has used violence. Often the policeman will mediate and may help resolve the issue, but he might have to resort to more-vigorous measures, perhaps arresting the violent husband. Within a short time the wife


may withdraw her complaint and even join the husband in complaints against the police force. Conversely, if the offi cer takes


no fi rm action and leaves what he believes to be a resolved dispute, violence may fl are again and the result may be a tragedy. Much, probably most,


domestic violence involves people with a history of violence, crime or drunkenness, and in those jurisdictions that have gun control, the police are unlikely to have licensed the people to have fi rearms. Some researchers


violence, but the evidence does not support the opposite theory, that everyone involved in even a single incident of violence can be labelled as likely to murder their spouse. T e medical profession,


and particularly psychiatric specialists, have long been seeking tests that would allow them to predict future violent conduct with some degree of accuracy. It is certainly not possible


to consider the medical evidence here, but if there is a consensus, it seems to be that such predictions are extremely diffi cult for medical professions, and more so for the police. But a licensing system imposes a particular burden on the police and perhaps on the wider judicial system. Most licensing authorities


will refuse to grant a licence to a person with even a modest history of violence or drunkenness. But there is now a move towards the imposition of statutory provisions intended to prevent or reduce domestic violence but these depend on the police or the courts making predictions of future violence. In Canada recent partners of the applicant are consulted and


in 1995 set up a system of police safety orders valid only for a matter of days.


If the police make such an


order, the person named must hand any fi rearms to the police, along with his fi rearm licence. T is may be followed by


a protection order issued by the courts that confi rms the confi scation of fi rearms and licences. T ere is a right of appeal. All Australian states have


a system of ‘Apprehended Violence Orders’ issued by the courts. Firstly an interim order is made without formal evidence and then the courts may make a substantive order after hearing evidence. T e latter aff ects the individual’s right to have fi rearms for a period of up to 10 years depending on the state in which the order is made. Firearms are confi scated by the police and licences are revoked. Once again, there is a right of appeal.


English Common Law has


long allowed for the confi scation of fi rearms or other weapons from a person who is causing or likely to cause a breach of the peace, but they must be returned when the danger is believed to


presence of a fi rearm is causal in domestic homicide and lobby for strict gun control.


Some researchers seek to show that the


(often members of the medical profession) seek to show that the presence of a fi rearm is causal in domestic homicide and lobby for the strictest possible gun control to prevent such violence. Other researchers demonstrate that this is not the case and that there is no link between homicide (including domestic homicide) and the level of legitimate fi rearm ownership or the extent of police control over ownership. T e evidence seems to show that those who commit domestic homicide are likely to have a criminal or medical history of


may raise objections to the grant of a licence. Such objections will at least extend the process of granting and may result in refusals based on an unwillingness of the licensing authority to reject even dubious objections from the spouse. Some will see that as a modest attempt to identify those prone to domestic violence, while others will see it as a perfect way for a disgruntled partner to obtain some sort of vengeance. Other countries take matters further. New Zealand’s Domestic Violence Act brought


be ended. T e police might then revoke


the relevant licences with immediate eff ect but the owner may challenge that decision in the courts. A person causing or likely to


cause a breach of the peace may be taken before a Justice of the Peace to be bound over, and the Justice may include a condition prohibiting the possession of fi rearms. T at system may be more


fl exible and balanced. Gun owners will not wish to waste their time or sympathy on perpetrators of crimes such as


Colin Greenwood


Background: Retired UK police superintendent.


Academic achievements: In 1969 he won a research fellowship at Cambridge University, Institute of Criminology, to study the development of fi rearm legislation.


Current occupation: He is now a forensic fi rearm expert. Colin frequently appears in courts as an expert witness in fi rearm cases.


Additional information: Colin is a consultant to the British Gun Trade Association.


Shooting pedigree: He has shot since childhood and competed in small-bore and full-bore rifl e events, with pistols of all calibres, and represented the British police in the European Police Pistol Championship.


Favourite gun disciplines: Colin has shot game around the world and still shoots game and clays. He is involved with target rifl e shooting, stalks, collects British rifl es (particularly rook rifl es) and is a keen handloader.


www.guntradeworld.com 41


domestic violence. T at a problem exists cannot be disputed, but whether formalised interventions, with their potential for misuse and the inevitable high costs, represent the best way forward is certainly a matter for debate. It seems highly likely that


offi cials will play safe, seeking to use these ‘preventive’ measures to the potential detriment of legitimate gun owners and hunters. Gun owners and their


representative associations should consider such matters with great care to ensure that the unanswerable question of how to prevent domestic violence is not answered to their serious detriment and to no general good.


GTW


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52