YouTube home Comedy Week on YouTube
Upload

NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To Great Britain

NRAVideos NRAVideos·1,760 videos
58,758
302,396
Like     Dislike 172

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like NRAVideos's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to dislike NRAVideos's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to add NRAVideos's video to your playlist.

Uploaded on Jun 25, 2007

England's increasingly repressive firearms laws often are praised by those who would restrict the American right to arms, so it is important to realize that those firearms laws, which now prohibit the private possession of handguns, rest heavily on one foundation--the British gun owner licensing system. The right to keep and bear arms had been alive in England for eight centuries when Parliament enacted the Pistols Act of 1903. The Act, which prohibited the sale of pistols to minors and felons, also dictated that pistols could be sold only to those who possessed a gun license. Since the license could be obtained at a post office with only the payment of a fee, and since no license was required to keep a pistol solely in the home, there was no opposition. But within a few short years, the licensing system had moved from the post office to the police station. Suddenly, Britons who wanted to own handguns--or rifles--had to prove they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit. Shotguns were considered "sporting" and were exempted from licensing requirements until 1967.

Anti-gun lobbyists in the United States have called for a "needs-based licensing" system and some politicians have lined up to do their bidding.

Is licensing gun owners a good idea? After all, "we license people to drive cars don't we?" If requiring gun owners to obtain a government license seems like a harmless idea to you, you may want to know about "Firearms Form 101." That's the "Application For A Firearms Certificate" that must be filled out by Britons in order to purchase a rifle or muzzleloading handgun. A separate form is required for a "shotgun certificate."

Section 27 of the Firearms Act of 1968 (as amended by the 1997 Act) requires a chief officer of the Police Firearms Licensing Department to be satisfied that the applicant is "fit to be entrusted with a firearm." (Emphasis added) As the applicant, you must provide: * Your home address for the last three years. * Your occupation and business address. * Information about previous convictions, including traffic violations. * Information about any history of Epilepsy. * Information about past treatment for drug use, depression or nervous disorders. * The name of your doctor, and permission for the police to search your medical records to obtain "factual details" about your medical history. * A list of the firearms you already own, including caliber, type, maker's name and serial number. * A list of the ammunition you already own, including caliber and quantity. * A list of the firearms you wish to purchase, stating the reason for wanting to purchase them and where you plan on shooting or hunting with them. * A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you wish to possess at any one time, by caliber. * A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you plan to purchase at any one time, by caliber. * An address where the guns will be stored, for possible future inspection. * Information about whether you have previously held a firearms certificate, or a shotgun certificate. * A letter signed by the secretary of your shooting club or each landowner where you plan to hunt attesting to the fact that you have permission to shoot at those locations. * Four passport size photos of yourself. * A fee of L56 (approximately $90).

As an applicant, you must also designate two "referees" who will fill out a reference form regarding your character. This form will never be shown to you even though it weighs heavily in the final decision to approve or deny the application. The "referees" must: * Have known you for at least the last two years. * Not be a member of your family, a firearms dealer, a police officer or a police employee. * Be of "good character." * Sign the application form declaring that it has been answered truthfully. * Sign and date the back of one of your passport photos attesting that it is an accurate representation of you at that time. * Explain in what capacity they have known you. * Indicate if they are members of a shooting club, and if so their license number and role in the club. * Provide their "opinion as to the applicant's suitability to possess firearms." * Provide information on your personal history, including any history of emotional problems, mental or physical disabilities and explain how knowledge of the information was gained. * Explain any difficulties you have with members of your family which "may give cause for concern given that a firearm or ammunition may be available in the household." * Explain their knowledge of your experience with firearms. * Explain their knowledge of your attitude toward firearms. * Be subjected to a background check and allow personal information to be held on a police computer.

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Ratings have been disabled for this video.
Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

All Comments (2,316)

Sign in now to post a comment!
  • Ben North

    It's funny because in the 20 years since the ban in Australia there has not been a single mass shooting. It's odd then that the shooters say they gav up their guns for "nothing." Don't human lives count as anything? Thi video has really dated badly.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Ben North's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Ben North's comment.
  • ourorboros2

    you seem to be under this odd delusion that criminals follow the law, how strange, thats what you pro-gun people always accuse us off.

    no, having more guns in our society means more guns which are either stolen or simply sold onto people like this.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate ourorboros2's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate ourorboros2's comment.
    in reply to MarineAqua45 (Show the comment)
  • MarineAqua45

    If this was in Northern Ireland,those two would have been cut down by a Glock 17,fired from this soldier,as over there concealed-carry is legal (Its very difficult to get a permit though)& also the cops are routinely-armed too.Its a shame really,but this is the UK mainland.Most people don't know how stringent the laws were in the past,compared to other countries.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate MarineAqua45's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate MarineAqua45's comment.
    in reply to Leonard Duke (Show the comment)
  • MarineAqua45

    Even in the old days when cartridge-pistols were legal,those two would never have gotten licenses.They wouldn't have gone anywhere near a police station to get an application form unless they were stupid & would have been caught.The process takes months,with extensive CRB checks,etc.They were known to The Home Office & The Home Office controls firearms licensing,along with individual police forces.We do have guns in our society,held by legitimate users.The 1968 Firearms Act is strict enough.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate MarineAqua45's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate MarineAqua45's comment.
    in reply to ourorboros2 (Show the comment)
  • Sara Ustick

    Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.
  • Sara Ustick

    “Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.
  • Sara Ustick

    Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.
  • Sara Ustick

    Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,”

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Sara Ustick's comment.
  • Loading comment...
Loading...
Loading...
Working...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later