shotgun & firearms warning

[Steppenwolf]

so my new cert arrives today, along with a warning letter, that any future trouble from my step son and they may remove both my tickets

 

That is out of order and not it is not lawful. Your son doesn't have acess to the guns so why would they be removing them from you if it's your son getting into trouble?

[Steppenwolf]

To a degree you should be responsible for other people you live with. If they are under 16 then you do take responsibility as that's what you signed up for when you became a parent. It may well be your right to have a gun but for the safety of others the FAO has to take everything in to account. If you lived with a convicted armed robber would you still come on here and complain that you had your license taken off you? Would you say that it wasn't fair and that the actions of others shouldn't affect you or would you be sensible and accept that it was the right decision? It sounds more like your FAO was covering his back and giving a little warning so that if your son does get in trouble again you know what to expect. As most FAO's are civilians working for the Police then this is in no way a 'caution'.

I guess you didn't read the opening post where he says his son has learning difficulties and a mental age of 6-8, so he probbaly doesn't understand when you tell him off. He probbaly has no real concept that he could get his dad in serious trouble and he could lose his gun license.

[stubby]

. If you lived with a convicted armed robber would you still come on here and complain that you had your license taken off you?

if that was the case, it's doubtful you would have a license in the first place is it?, lets just stick to the facts on this one shall we, so much better than "what if's"

as steppenwolf has pointed out, if you leave a reply, have the time to read the first post at least to get all the facts,

[FoxyChris]

I guess you didn't read the opening post where he says his son has learning difficulties and a mental age of 6-8, so he probbaly doesn't understand when you tell him off. He probbaly has no real concept that he could get his dad in serious trouble and he could lose his gun license.

Thanks, but I did read the original post. My reply was aimed more generally at the people replying that they shouldn't be responsible for others in their household when clearly there is a case that in some circumstances they should. I agree that the OPs step-sons mental age should be a consideration and that sounds exactly like what the police have done in not giving him a formal record but they are also right to remind him to be extra vigilant given his son may not understand what he is doing.

[FoxyChris]

Hmmmm, seems I'm not being as clear as I thought I was when I typed my reply. Firstly, I've read every post on this thread so I can ignore your advice to 'take time to get all the facts'. I agree that just because his son was caught shoplifting it should not have any bearing on the OPs license. What I was doing was looking at the wider issue of other people affecting your suitability to hold a SGC.

 

However, my reply was aimed more towards the replies by Kes and Mossy who suggest that other people in the same household as you should not make any difference to your license. I believe that everyone living with a SGC holder should factor in to the decisions made by FAO. It's my personal opinion and I'm sure other people with have a different view and think that it's an individual right. My armed robber example was a bit extreme but try and think about it in broader terms.

So, for example, you live alone and have a number of guns at your house and still have many years left on your SGC. You then meet someone, fall in love and they move in. However, what you don't know is that they got themselves in lots of debt previously and have been dealing drugs for a local gang to pay their way out. Whilst you go to work your partner has various local criminals attending your address to visit your partner. Still think that's a suitable person to have in your house and that you should get to keep your guns?

 

So Stubby, your reply that he wouldn't get a license in the first place is instantly put in place by the fact that they already had a SGC in place PRIOR to the change in circs. And this isn't a 'what if' situation as it happened in a village not to far from me. He was a respectable person with no reason not to issue a SGC. On the face of it she was a decent girl from a good background. They lived in a massive country house with nice cars and I'm sure the FAO had no problem with the set up. But if the FAO found out what the Police were investigating her for do you think it would be a good idea letting him keep his SGC?

 

Whilst this has drifted somewhat from the original post I was addressing the wider issue of 'Should other people affect your ability to hold a SGC?' which was raised by other people earlier on. Hope this makes sense now.

[HDAV]

If you took the Certs from everyone with a petty crime in their past there would be few cert holders let the ones who have dependants who have had a run in with the law. This is the FLO being ultra anal IMO and would hope any revocation on these grounds get kicked out by the courts on appeal. I am due for my renewal in a couple of months and already have the feeling that it won't be friendly chat over a cuppa like it was for initial grant.

[bostonmick]

I can see nothing wrong in what the police do as far as checks into others who live at the same address.yes you have a cabinet yes keys are hidden.a wrong un cannot be trusted.the police are flexible as there are a lot of fac/sgc holders who have criminal records. But some people just won't see anything other than their own bigoted view. As they say in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.well there is certainly a lot of royalty on this forum.happy shooting atb

[KFC]

I can see nothing wrong in what the police do as far as checks into others who live at the same address.yes you have a cabinet yes keys are hidden.a wrong un cannot be trusted.the police are flexible as there are a lot of fac/sgc holders who have criminal records. But some people just won't see anything other than their own bigoted view. As they say in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.well there is certainly a lot of royalty on this forum.happy shooting atb

I've only got one eye.

HRH

[brett1985]

If he is responsible for that person then it should. If the kid walked past your car with a tin of paint from his step dad's garage and poured it over your car, you would soon be questioning what the responsible parent was doing, or thinking of, letting the son loose with a tin of paint from the garage.

 

not exactly the best way to make a point, but i think we all understand what your getting at.

 

but playing devils advocate with your example,

i would say that the responsible parent was probably at work, trying to earn a living and had absolutely no idea what darling tyrone was up to. as is the case with many of these things, tyrone is a little hell raiser and is a law unto himself and try as he might, his step dad cant afford to give up work and sit at home all day keeping the little darling locked up and not take his eyes off of him for fear of what he might do if left unattended.

 

as im sure you are aware, the point i am trying to put accross is that while you are responsible for your offspring, you could not/should not be completely responsible for everything they do. they have a mind of their own and will make flippant and uneducated decisions without a seconds thought to anyone else. something which you shouldnt be held accountable for.

sometimes, there is only so much you can do as a parent.

 

to the op, while i agree that what your local force has done may be a little odd, i dont see anything wrong with it. agreed, they could have approached it differently though.

 

if it was me, i would probably take it as more of a heads up, and deal with it before it gets any worse (which i dont doubt that you have already done anyway)

 

brett

[Kes]

I can see nothing wrong in what the police do as far as checks into others who live at the same address.yes you have a cabinet yes keys are hidden.a wrong un cannot be trusted.the police are flexible as there are a lot of fac/sgc holders who have criminal records. But some people just won't see anything other than their own bigoted view. As they say in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.well there is certainly a lot of royalty on this forum.happy shooting atb

 

Wow - love the sympathetic, understanding, non arrogant way you deal with this sensitive topic.

[bostonmick]

 

Wow - love the sympathetic, understanding, non arrogant way you deal with this sensitive topic.

Thank you kind sir.

 

 

Why would I need to be sympathetic the guy got his certs.all that happened was he was basically told to keep an eye on the child.if someone has their certificate revoked or refused because they have a criminal living with them how is that wrong.and as I said the police do use discretion. On the whole they do an excellent job under sometimes very difficult circumstances. Atb

Edited August 19, 2014 by bostonmick

[merseapaul]

I had a similar problem with my now son in law who was temporarily living with us at the time. Don't want to bore with details but fao basically told me they are not overly concerned with minor offences like theft but anything to do with abuse or violence towards another person say aggravated burglary and I can say goodbye to my guns and rifles!. Just my opinion... I make them right.

[Bazooka]

I guess you didn't read the opening post where he says his son has learning difficulties and a mental age of 6-8, so he probbaly doesn't understand when you tell him off. He probbaly has no real concept that he could get his dad in serious trouble and he could lose his gun license.

Does that mean as a parent all your responsibility for the child is overlooked? Any blame, for any misdemeanor, will, and should be, with the parent/parents. Even more so if there is a good reason the child should be watched closer due to no fault of his own.

 

 

not exactly the best way to make a point, but i think we all understand what your getting at.

 

but playing devils advocate with your example,

i would say that the responsible parent was probably at work, trying to earn a living and had absolutely no idea what darling tyrone was up to. as is the case with many of these things, tyrone is a little hell raiser and is a law unto himself and try as he might, his step dad cant afford to give up work and sit at home all day keeping the little darling locked up and not take his eyes off of him for fear of what he might do if left unattended.

 

as im sure you are aware, the point i am trying to put accross is that while you are responsible for your offspring, you could not/should not be completely responsible for everything they do. they have a mind of their own and will make flippant and uneducated decisions without a seconds thought to anyone else. something which you shouldnt be held accountable for.

sometimes, there is only so much you can do as a parent.

 

to the op, while i agree that what your local force has done may be a little odd, i dont see anything wrong with it. agreed, they could have approached it differently though.

 

if it was me, i would probably take it as more of a heads up, and deal with it before it gets any worse (which i dont doubt that you have already done anyway)

 

brett

In that case, would you take a chance with little Tyrone? If you were asked the honest question by the firearms officer, can little Tyrone be trusted while you are at work?

Would you say -no? Would it not be the parents responsibility to make sure the child was being watched carefully/closely while they were at work by someone reliable that they could put their trust in? It is their responsibility to make sure the kid is being well looked after while they are at work.

[Dekers]

Perhaps best we look at the generalities of this one rather than the specifics of the actual incident.

 

Nobody here has enough information, or very possibly qualification either, to make a judgement on Stubby/his lad.

 

[Kes]

Perhaps best we look at the generalities of this one rather than the specifics of the actual incident.

 

Nobody here has enough information, or very possibly qualification either, to make a judgement on Stubby/his lad.

 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it is possible to try and deal with the principle (in terms of your own view) without trying to assess the specifics in this case - some comments bear this out. That was my intention in commenting

[CharlieT]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it is possible to try and deal with the principle (in terms of your own view) without trying to assess the specifics in this case - some comments bear this out. That was my intention in commenting

 

And on that note it may help posters understand the procedures firearms licensing are advised to take by the ACPO/HO when coming to decisions on grant/renewal.

 

It would be worth all reading http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/Procedural_Good_Practice_Guide.pdf

 

This document details the checks that are made on applicant's friends, family and associates, whether they live in the applicant's home or not !

.

[wymberley]

 

And on that note it may help posters understand the procedures firearms licensing are advised to take by the ACPO/HO when coming to decisions on grant/renewal.

 

It would be worth all reading http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/Procedural_Good_Practice_Guide.pdf

 

This document details the checks that are made on applicant's friends, family and associates, whether they live in the applicant's home or not !

.

Damn me, Charlie; had a quick shufti and it's a miracle any of us are even allowed a catapult!