Jump to content

restrictions being quietly slipped in?


kdubya
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was talking yesterday about a lad who has applied for a SGC, and the fact he has been told he will be granted one providing his gun/guns are kept at a registered club? today I became aware of another chap (neighboring force) who has been sent a letter to the effect that he MUST join a clay club and that the ground owner must certify after a period of not less than 3 months that he his safe and competent after which his FLO will revisit him prior to any grant, as far as I am aware neither of these "conditions" are required or are chief constables now being told to "tighten up" as one force you would think rouge CPO two = collusion or directive? interesting times ahead me thinks.

 

KW

Edited by kdubya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it differs from force to force........i have seen that in action 20 years ago when at a clay club...a young lad applied for an SGC...and was told to continue his membership for a period of 6 months ...and at the end a letter from the clay club secertary should accompany the application.....

 

i think this is acceptable in certain cases....it prevents young people ...or even older ones for that matter...blagging their way thro to a SGC....and having no interest in the sport side...but emphasis put on the "possesion" aspect of it.............used to have the same people in pistol shooting...there were 3 basic types......

 

  • Purists...target shooting
  • Historical (collectors)
  • sexual thrill seekers

 

 

I think that "good reason" to posess a weapon must be proved....and how that is done is up to the individual FEO's.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was talking yesterday about a lad who has applied for a SGC, and the fact he has been told he will be granted one providing his gun/guns are kept at a registered club? today I became aware of another chap (neighboring force) who has been sent a letter to the effect that he MUST join a clay club and that the ground owner must certify after a period of not less than 3 months that he his safe and competent after which his FLO will revisit him prior to any grant, as far as I am aware neither of these "conditions" are required or are chief constables now being told to "tighten up" as one force you would think rouge CPO two = collusion or directive? interesting times ahead me thinks.

 

KW

I can only think that in the first case, there must be someone else resident at his address who is viewed by the police as an unacceptable risk.

 

In the second case, the police are going outside their remit. I would ask the person to ask his police force for their 'requirements' in writing, and then take it to BASC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right lets get it clear I am unsure about what I'm about to say.

 

But as long as there is a single days game shooting available, anywhere in the country what gives them the right to say where you keep your guns, one of those pegs on that day could be yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was talking yesterday about a lad who has applied for a SGC, and the fact he has been told he will be granted one providing his gun/guns are kept at a registered club? today I became aware of another chap (neighboring force) who has been sent a letter to the effect that he MUST join a clay club and that the ground owner must certify after a period of not less than 3 months that he his safe and competent after which his FLO will revisit him prior to any grant, as far as I am aware neither of these "conditions" are required or are chief constables now being told to "tighten up" as one force you would think rouge CPO two = collusion or directive? interesting times ahead me thinks.

 

KW

 

I have a shooting buddy who on his first application was granted HMR, .22LR, shotgun. section 1 shotgun and 308, with no mentoring conditions, I think this was in the same or neighbouring force (Durham and Cleveland) a few months ago

 

I don't doubt the op's facts but there's maybe more to the storey, or the change is very new, or there's a big disparity on the decision making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it differs from force to force........i have seen that in action 20 years ago when at a clay club...a young lad applied for an SGC...and was told to continue his membership for a period of 6 months ...and at the end a letter from the clay club secertary should accompany the application.....

 

i think this is acceptable in certain cases....it prevents young people ...or even older ones for that matter...blagging their way thro to a SGC....and having no interest in the sport side...but emphasis put on the "possesion" aspect of it.............used to have the same people in pistol shooting...there were 3 basic types......

 

  • Purists...target shooting
  • Historical (collectors)
  • sexual thrill seekers

 

 

I think that "good reason" to posess a weapon must be proved....and how that is done is up to the individual FEO's.....

Can't agree with this I'm afraid. There is no requirement to prove 'good reason' to possess a SGC, unlike a FAC, and once SGC has been granted nothing at all to prevent that applicant from purchasing half a dozen shotguns. There is also nothing to prevent an applicant from joining a clay pigeon club, gaining their SGC and then never attending that club again.

The six month probationary period for pistol clubs may have put off certain applicants, but find the 'sexual thrill seekers' type suggestion as quite hilarious. I got a great adrenalin rush from competitive practical pistol and equally great thrills from blasting fruit etc into smithereens, but can't recall walking around with an erection as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it differs from force to force........i have seen that in action 20 years ago when at a clay club...a young lad applied for an SGC...and was told to continue his membership for a period of 6 months ...and at the end a letter from the clay club secertary should accompany the application.....

 

i think this is acceptable in certain cases....it prevents young people ...or even older ones for that matter...blagging their way thro to a SGC....and having no interest in the sport side...but emphasis put on the "possesion" aspect of it.............used to have the same people in pistol shooting...there were 3 basic types......

 

  • Purists...target shooting
  • Historical (collectors)
  • sexual thrill seekers

 

 

I think that "good reason" to posess a weapon must be proved....and how that is done is up to the individual FEO's.....

If there is one thing that the shooting community should should ensure it is that an individual firearms officer should never be allowed to decide who has a good reason . We have the Firearms Act and agreed guidance notes and good reason should never be determined by any individual no matter who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with kdubya,definitely interesting times ahead,I am licencesed under Durham and although I have good reason for FAC and hold SGC,on renewal of the SGC I was asked "do you realy need to shoot?" renewal has been with them since 26/11/14 still no word.They even tried to remove both my sons & my certs under the old revoke through association trick,where we had to prove that my son had no connection of friendship with a friends friends.

I mean I have a policeman who shoots on one of my permissions (as a guest) does that mean through knowing him I am associating with criminals.It wouldn't surprise me one bit if what kdubya says is true. I have never been in any kind of trouble in my life and to be treated like a criminal is totally unacceptable oh and to add insult to injury also been refered too as old man.The fact of the matter is that these licensing authorities are trying but failing to gain public confidence and still making stupid mistakes.

We keep referring to diff authorities doing different things or having different rules,there should be not differentials irrespective of force area if the are following home office quide lines ( for God sake it was only a couple of years ago when 2 FEO's stood in the dock at the Atherton tribunal and admitted they where not aware there was home office guidance)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a shooting buddy who on his first application was granted HMR, .22LR, shotgun. section 1 shotgun and 308, with no mentoring conditions, I think this was in the same or neighbouring force (Durham and Cleveland) a few months ago

 

I don't doubt the op's facts but there's maybe more to the storey, or the change is very new, or there's a big disparity on the decision making.

1st case Cleveland 2nd Durham,in the 1st case I dont know the background just that he cant keep the guns at home ( no good for pigeon shooting at 6am then) on the second the letter stated due to having no experience! you MUST join a clay club and after 3 months if the ground owner considered you safe and WRITE'S to us to confirm this then a revisit will be made? I always thought owning a shotgun was a right and that no reason to own was required, looks like Durham (thank god they aint my area) are just making it up as they go along.

 

 

KW

Edited by kdubya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussed the reason to own a shotgun with police officer when renewing licence a few years back (when it was a serving officer who had the job of doing the gun licences etc.) he said that you can just want a s/gun to have and polish and put away its down to you the police have no grounds to ask why you want or object on reasons to own a shotgun. Don't think any change to this in law since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st case Cleveland 2nd Durham,in the 1st case I dont know the background just that he cant keep the guns at home ( no good for pigeon shooting at 6am then) on the second the letter stated due to having no experience! you MUST join a clay club and after 3 months if the ground owner considered you safe and WRITE'S to us to confirm this then a revisit will be made? I always thought owning a shotgun was a right and that no reason to own was required, looks like Durham (thank god they aint my area) are just making it up as they go along.

 

 

KW

 

Would this be something his shooting organisation could help him with? (I'm with BASC) or a good reason to join one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had similar with mine earlier last month with South Yorkshire police sending out a different version of the approved/agreed "diversity" form along with renewals notice and a cover letter "suggesting" that a if a fully completed application was not received within 14 days then renewal may not be renewed before expiry date ....

 

Contacted BASC who promptly sorted things out with the relevant authorities and having informed me that the "form" that was sent out and received was in fact Illegal.

 

As above, if any abnormalities occur then take it up with the likes of BASC for clarification as it appears that more and more are coming to light .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it differs from force to force........i have seen that in action 20 years ago when at a clay club...a young lad applied for an SGC...and was told to continue his membership for a period of 6 months ...and at the end a letter from the clay club secertary should accompany the application.....

 

i think this is acceptable in certain cases....it prevents young people ...or even older ones for that matter...blagging their way thro to a SGC....and having no interest in the sport side...but emphasis put on the "possesion" aspect of it.............used to have the same people in pistol shooting...there were 3 basic types......

 

  • Purists...target shooting
  • Historical (collectors)
  • sexual thrill seekers

 

 

I think that "good reason" to posess a weapon must be proved....and how that is done is up to the individual FEO's.....

You do not need to provide any reason to own a shot gun. If you are deemed suitable then it is your right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand I know people who have a clean record but shouldn't be allowed a firearm. Measures need to be in place that these people will be responsible.

I was made to have three lessons and a letter written by the coach to advise that I was safe and competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear about this. It is the job of the police to check if the applicant is unfit by reason of criminality, national security and ill health to hold a SGC - and that's all. Despite the high handed attitude and patronising tone of their letters they aren't "granting" anything to anyone. You have a perfect right to a SGC as long as the lawful reasons to refuse it don't apply to you.

 

I've said before that the arrogance of the ACPO in believing that they can make up laws as they go along needs to be held in check and I for one am thankful that BASC is willing go into bat on our behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand I know people who have a clean record but shouldn't be allowed a firearm. Measures need to be in place that these people will be responsible.

I was made to have three lessons and a letter written by the coach to advise that I was safe and competent.

 

Im not in favour of red tape or conditions but to give a balanced view its not a bad thing to have a competent person check that your safe, I remember the first time i got a semi auto the different layouts of each different make of gun is at first quite something to get used to & even now if i use a fellow shooter's gun at a range I will ask for a quick run through if its something a bit different ......BUT to answer my own post, the problem would be its a slippery slope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear about this. It is the job of the police to check if the applicant is unfit by reason of criminality, national security and ill health to hold a SGC - and that's all. Despite the high handed attitude and patronising tone of their letters they aren't "granting" anything to anyone. You have a perfect right to a SGC as long as the lawful reasons to refuse it don't apply to you.

 

I've said before that the arrogance of the ACPO in believing that they can make up laws as they go along needs to be held in check and I for one am thankful that BASC is willing go into bat on our behalf.

as above.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...