Jump to content

timps

Members
  • Posts

    1,773
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by timps

  1. Try looking here https://www.cpsa.co.uk/search?q=radar#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=radar&gsc.page=1 "A Guide to Target Distance and Target Speed Discipline Discipline Target Distance Approximate Target Speed Olympic Trap 76m +/- 1m (83yd +/- 1yd) Double Trap 55m +/- 1m (60yd +/- 1yd) ABT Trap 75m +/- 1m (82yd +/-1yd) (56mph +/-1pmh) DTL 45.72m to 50.3m (50yd to 55yd) (42mph +/-1mph) Olympic Skeet 65m to 67m (71yd to 73yd) (High 53mph Low 54mph +/- 1mph) National Skeet 50m to 52m (54.7yd to 56.9yd) (High 43mph Low 44mph +/- 1mph) Trap discipline measurements taken from Front of Trap House. Skeet discipline measurements taken from Exit window of High and Low House Three shooting grounds have been independently checked by board members, confirming compliance with the correct target distance for the Trap and Skeet disciplines the speed measured related to the guide details. From 1st April 2012 the Standard practice for grounds is a target as set out in the discipline rules. The three grounds checked by the board, already use a Speed Gun as a target measurement set up tool. Bill Jones"
  2. Yes if you are convicted of threatening behaviour or assault but not if just charged. You will lose your guns whilst it is being investigated but if no conviction you will get them back and as I understand it, but could be wrong, he was never convicted. I was a witness and gave a statement to an alleged assault, the police arrested, charged and issued a restraining order for the individual to keep out of the village. The above was based on the alleged victim’s statement and two witnesses. The reason why the charges were dropped was the landlord and landlady plus about 15 other people including me gave statements to the defence solicitor and were prepared to give them under oath in court, where as the two for the prosecution did not want to now attend court. The difference in statements were. Prosecution: Defendant runs over with bottle in hand and hits alleged victim over the head with a bottle causing cut to defendants’ hand and cut to victim’s head. Defence: alleged victim runs over flying headbutts defendant (who by the way was dancing with the landlady and had no idea of the impending head butt) both crash into a table of drinks, glass everywhere, cuts to head and hand happened, alleged victim thrown out of the pub. Less than two years later the lad applied for and got his certificate, I don’t think it’s right for him to be banned or lose his certificate based on the above. His dancing is bad but doesn’t deserve a flying headbutt never to own a gun, however maybe the police should have insisted on dance management lessons. Now I am not saying this is what happened in Plymouth(no anger management here) but if he had a certificate at the time his guns would have gone whilst investigated then given back. So, without the full disclosure of what happened in Plymouth it’s too early to completely condemn the police or even exonerate them.
  3. But what specific legislation and/or restrictions would you put forward to combat this? Employing an army of FEO’s to scroll daily through every social media platform checking names and potential aliases against a central database of every licence holder in the country and reading hours of drivel, “you ok hun” posts and pictures of last night tea just in case? Or are you suggesting we now as licence holders hand over our internet privacy to the police where everything we do online is monitored? Looking at someone’s digital footprint after they have done something is easy, my Facebook is locked down to friends only, my presence here is a nickname the police would be unaware of. However, if I was to commit some kind of atrocity someone on my social media friends list would give the media access and as plenty on here know my real name that would also be guaranteed to be passed on as well. People will always come forward after an event stating they ‘knew’ but strangely they never thought to come forward before to preempt it. Im not saying the police acted correctly in this case, I genuinely don’t know, I just don’t see how you can legislate to search the digital footprint of every licence holder, and even if they did getting around it to remain anonymous from normal police resources is still easy.
  4. You don’t actually need a S11(6) permit for the grounds instructors as Section 11A(3)(ii) also covers non certificate holders borrowing a shotgun. As I posted in the post you quoted, under this section a non certificate holder can borrow a shotgun in the presence persons authorised in writing by the occupier (person running the clay shoot) which in the case of a clay ground would only be one of their instructors or staff, there is then no need for a S11(6) exemption only to give the instructors / staff a piece of paper stating they are authorised. As I said in the previous post it is completely the wrong interpretation of authorised in my opinion for any ground with an S11(6) exemption in place but I can see that being the direction some FEO’s will be wrongly insisting on. Confusing the requirements of 11A(3)(ii) which needs someone authorised in writing from the shooting ground with the requirements of S11(6) which just needs a certificate holder. A post a while ago was from someone who is involved in a shoot who was told by the FEO that they could only allow non certificate holders to shoot with their instructors so it has already happened at one ground if that post is to be believed. FEO’s don’t always follow current guidelines, take medical reports for instance, the majority of police forces in England and Wales have now departed from Home Office guidance notes and are imposing mandatory GP screening for all applications for shotgun, firearm and explosives certificates. With the wording on North Yorkshire police website I can see them insisting on it, combine that with the previous thread stating they have been told to do this and you can see why I came to this conclusion.
  5. Maybe who knows, 1 gun doesn’t condemn or make the whole brand that’s for sure but it definitely put us both off the brand. I guess by the fate of Lanber unfortunately others felt like us. I’m glad yours wasn’t like my mates.
  6. If you look at the world of competition shooting none of the bigger shoots ever seems to get won by the ‘budget’ gun makers. I often read anecdotal forum posts of the farmer turning up to the shoot with his Baikal held together with twine beating the skeet vest and expensive gun brigade, just I’ve never seen it at any of the registered shoots or big shoots. But I have seen big shoots won by entry level Miroku or Beretta’s and not all of them are sponsored, they have chosen and bought the gun, so that’s where I guess the change happens for whatever reason. When I first started, me and my friend were shooting at least 300 sometimes more clays a week, he had a new Lanber and I had a 2nd hand Browning Citori 325. The Lanber shot great, I thought maybe I should have gone for one, however, just after a year and a half of this amount of shooting the Lanber was like a piece of old rope and my Browning was still as tight as the day I first shot it. If he had just shot a few clays a month then the Lanber would have been a great gun, he swapped it for a Beretta 682 gold e and never looked back. But money doesn’t always buy reliability seen enough issues with Perazzi and Krieghoff to know that. My DT10 back when it was newish gun was my limit between price and value closely followed by my Caesar Guerini that replaced it.
  7. According to Admiral’s website it’s not voluntary and you must tell them, however, it is only needed on renewal. https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/what-do-i-tell-my-insurer I only checked as that’s who I insure my son with.
  8. Having shot a bit of FITASC I like the card system, not too sure if it would transpose into un-squadded ESP shoots. However, reading the minutes of the CPSA meeting it looks like the CPSA are going with making it a rule but with no penalty which in my mind is just the same as having a sign saying “please put your empties in the bin” some will and some wont.
  9. This very subject is being discussed at CPSA board level and looks like it is going to be in the rules for CPSA registered shoots at some point soon. Not too sure how it is going to be enforced if there is no penalty but hopefully referees can shame people to pick up after and point to rules to back them up. https://www.cpsa.co.uk/files/download/920/2021-February.pdf page 5
  10. I wouldn’t use PVA on a floor as PVA remains water soluble after drying so any damp and it will reconstitute back to its former liquid state, I’ve investigated quite a few jobs where this has happened and floors are more likely to suffer damp issues. SBR is not water soluble after drying so I’d go for an SBR primer for flooring.
  11. As I posted earlier on in this thread some time back If you look at guidance, instruction 3 of your own certificate it tells anyone filling the certificate in what they must and must not do. “If you are selling shotgun (s) which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the firearm should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above).” Accordingly instruction 3 is binding on any seller including dealers. Seeing as you paid the original RFD down south and only paid the local RDF a handling fee he has broken the law by not following instruction 3 on your certificate. In the eyes of the law there is no debate or grey area he sold the gun then he must make the necessary entries on the buyer’s firearm or shotgun certificate. Regardless of how your FEO originally reacted many are now enforcing this law after an audit. Usually with a quiet word with the RFD to comply for future transactions or risk loosing their certificate.
  12. It is how the individual FEO is going to interpret it all, that is the biggest problem. Some will interpret the ‘authorised person’ not as a certificate holder as it is described under the firearms act but as in section 11A of the firearms act which is to do with borrowing a shotgun. Under this section a non certificate holder can only use it in the presence persons authorised by the occupier in writing which in the case of a clay ground would probably only be an instructor. It is completely the wrong interpretation in my opinion for any ground with an exemption in place but I can see that being the direction some FEO’s will be wrongly insisting on. I do get the problem some grounds have as I have witnessed it myself, clueless bloke gets his first shotgun then takes 6 blokes from the pub to the clay ground, they were ultimately told to leave but not before scaring everyone half to death with incompetent gun handling. I also know the experienced shooters side, paying for an instructor who knows less or no more that he does to teach a family member is not fun either.
  13. This question has cropped up more and more recently on several forums including this one. It seems that in certain areas the chief of police is now insisting on instruction of some sort to make use of their exemption. As the section 11(6) exemption is issued by the Chief of police and it has recommended guidelines of issue, those guidelines of issue can vary from force to force and even ground to ground. I know at MCSC you have to sign the exemption form or show your licence as the local police have made it quite clear they are in breach if they don’t. https://northyorkshire.police.uk/what-we-do/licensing/firearms-licensing/section116-exemption-clay/ Regarding the above link they state:- “All uncertified shooters are to be properly supervised, by an authorised person, throughout the shoot and receive instruction before any weapon handling takes place.” As a certificate holder you are considered an authorised person under the firearms act however the properly supervised or instruction is the sticking point for some FEO’s as they insist that it is someone the ground approves of rather than being a random certificate holder. So to answer your question with the increase in posts about the subject it does seem more common or alternatively you are all going to the same ground.
  14. timps

    Discovery +

    It’s also on Amazon Firestick just put it on my dad’s so he can watch my account.
  15. If you read the Home Office guidance it quite clearly tells you. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf So by default you can still use your gun.
  16. I actually pressed 1 on the HMRC fraud line phone call because I was bored and they were going to issue a warrant for my arrest immediately if I didn’t. It was the most fun I’ve had on a phone call, who’d have thought that Dave from HMRC (Mumbai office) could be so touchy and hang up on me after patiently explaining my crime, I was a convincing victim but the silly questions started which I think gave it away. I asked him was the fraud because I had been involved in a car accident that wasn’t my fault. Was it because I was miss sold PPI. Surely it couldn’t be because there was a problem with my talk talk internet router even though I’m with BT. The one that made him flip was asking if there was a pigeon in my HMRC bank account and did they need to jet wash it to fix the problem. Obviously he doesn’t watch Phonejacker as I gave my name as George Agg-dug-wingo at the start, I know I got the pronunciation wrong because I couldn’t quite remember it but still made me laugh I even said monies. I wish I had the foresight to record it. I do know someone who nearly fell for it because of personal mileage and petrol receipts he spoke to the guy and only hung up just before he gave his card details. He rang me straight after to see what I thought, when I tried to sell him a timeshare mid conversation he hung up on me as well😂
  17. The USA tried it with the Professional Sporting Clays Association Pro Tour. They got some sponsorship and filmed it for a few seasons, I guess trying to emulate the PGA golf tour. The tour was cancelled for the 2018 season. https://youtube.com/user/PSCAtour I’m not too sure how many shooters would actually watch it let alone the general public, the viewing demographic is not really there for shooting competitions. I compete and get very bored watching X amount of competitors shoot. 120 birds. I would and have watched the super final but as a competitor I hate them to the point I no longer shoot every major religiously. That can be the problem, you make the shoot more spectator friendly but less competitor friendly. If the USA cannot make it work where there is large scale gun ownership, the right to bear arms and big corporate sponsorship I don’t hold out any hope of it working here. I think we can either attract more competitors or increase the spectator base not necessarily both.
  18. If you read BS 7558 which is the British standards for gun cabinets, they have always known the limitations of the standard from day one. It starts off in the introduction of BS 7558 by saying they assume the average potential thief is an opportunist and not a determined criminal specifically seeking to obtain firearms, who in their own words would be difficult to counter effectively by inexpensive means. So, they are not interested in that type of thief as they accept you are never going to stop them without a bank vault which is why the “reasonably practicable” bit of the legislation to store firearms is there. Therefore, all they want to know is can the cabinet withstand a 5-minute attack from common hand-tools and not noisy power tools or specialist tools or knowledge. The tools listed in BS 7558 are Club hammer 1.8 kg, Jemmy, Flat cold chisel overall length 200 mm and blade width 25 mm. The Lab has 5 minutes to inspect then a further 5 minutes to attack, if it can be removed it from its mount (if the mount fails rather than the cabinet then this does not count) or gain entry within 5 mins it fails. A second test is then performed by a 2nd person on a second cabinet for a further 5 min, at any vulnerable point(s) identified in the first test with no prompting during the test. The problem is where you send it to be tested to get certification, if the laboratory uses a 25 year old lab technician who plays as a prop forward at weekends you will get a different result than a laboratory that uses someone who is near retirement age and never done anything physical in their life. I have seen on youtube $3000 gun safes that have been opened with a cutting wheel in under 2 mins by cutting the side or top just keep away from the over engineered door. No idea how my £300 Brattonsound Sentinel Plus would fair but the increase in price is probably only going to gain less than a min against that type of attack so pointless. The only way to truly protect is to get a commercial grade safe like NoBodyImportant’s safe but at $27000 that’s not an option for most.
  19. Private parking companies cannot issue fines they issue invoices and it is all to do with contract law and heard by a district judge. I have successfully quashed countless of those for family and friends as they are never argued properly. The police issue fines and they are heard in a criminal magistrate court totally different and in this case either covered under under the road traffic act or the highways act as an offence. Both can be used for parking on a verge. Defending one is easy the other a lot harder. Ignorance of the law is no excuse ignorance of terms and conditions of a private invoice is a very effective defence.
  20. If there is a pavement and a solid white line you can park on the road. However where there is no pavement it could be considered illegal. Also making pedestrians walk into the road because their pathway is obstructed can also be considered illegal. Why they state “considered” is quite simply that it is up to the magistrate to decided if it was to indicate no pavement or if it was causing an obstruction. The usual test is can they get a pram past without going into the road. Magistrates are normally irritated by motoring offences and very rarely give you time to speak. My mate tried to fight a fixed penalty 3 points £100 fine just last week. They didn’t let him speak and just gave him 3 points and a bill for £500 for his troubles.
  21. As there is no pavement you could be breaking the law. Not too sure on costs but the penalty for non endorsable fines is usually 50% more and court costs on top. “In some cases, the single white line is there to indicate that there’s no pavement – if this is the case then it’s illegal to park there.” https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/parking-guide-yellow-lines#white
  22. Unless he presidentially pardons himself or has been suggested by his acolytes resigns at 11:55 a.m. on January 20 and have Mike Pence as acting president issue a pardon. But you are right I think it is about to get very interesting.
  23. If it is the Mercedes dealer in sunny Bolton then they are certainly not trusted in my family. Both my parents have Mercedes. Every time they go there they need new tyres. My mum fell for the you need an alloy wheel straightening on her C class I told her it was a sharp practice but she proceeded anyway. Two months later it is in for warranty work and the same wheel needed straightening again and you can guess what needed straightening again at the next service. Needless to say I got the money credited back to her. Same garage my dad was told he needed new brake discs for his E class, the car was still on it’s first set of pads and they had plenty left on them. When the manager was questioned about why Mercedes brake discs are made out of a softer material than the pads he made up some indefensible drivel that the new type of pads wear the discs quicker than the pads. Needless to say my mum uses my friends garage as the car is now out of warranty my dad is booked in there next week for warranty work. It will be interesting to to see what the vehicle checklist throws up seeing as he has had new tyres fitted at Costco.
  24. Gordon for what it is worth I agree with you, the certificate is next to useless. The problem with testing it is how do you go about it, the legislation as written is so broad brush on purpose so the chief of police could react to unforeseen problems with licencing without the need to change the legislation in parliament and the delay that would impose. Unfortunately, they assumed the police would follow guidance not just impose their will, and without a change in legislation I don’t really see how a court case could impose restrictions on the chief of police with the wording of the act. It will always be seen as a legislative / political issue rather than a legal one by judges, I fear. Unless some high flying QC that knows what they are doing gets on board which is always a hope.
  25. What you have to remember Home office guidance is not law and the police / courts can ignore it, the only thing that is relevant is the actual Firearms act. The problem we have is clause 27 for firearms or 28 for shotguns "28 Special provisions about shot gun certificates. [F11(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace." It is such a broad-brush legislation it gives the chief officer of police the ability to refuse a grant or renewal based on whether he/she is satisfied or not which is completely subjective to the individual chief officer of police hence the discrepancies between forces. Cases have gone to court on security issues and the above sections have been successfully used to win those cases for the police or pass the threshold for reasonableness so costs are not awarded against the police even though they lost the case. All it takes is the chief of police to stand up in court and say he/she is not satisfied without a medical check or on security or (insert whatever) and section 27 / 28 of the firearms act requires them not to grant or renew. Obviously the above is an oversimplification of the problem and no QC has any idea which way the judge would go on this but the question for BASC members is, would winning one case set a precedence that the police have to follow in all future cases. Judges are going to be very reluctant to give a blanket ban on a chief officer of police having a judgement call to ask for medical reports or (insert whatever) as they see fit. So how does any single judgement set a precedence that overrides the actual firearms act. They are just going to say in this instance each court case has individual circumstances therefore does not set a precedence for all other cases. The same as security of shotguns, this is still not defined in law even though there have been court cases won and lost on it. Therefore, going to court to win an individual case which doesn’t set a precedence would seem pointless fight to try and overturn the need for medical checks on mass. I’m not defending BASC I think their communication on all this was horrendous but I am often called upon to be an expert witness and see the only people that win in court are those that are paid to be there not the litigants so I can see why they are reluctant. I’m in the CPSA so I am still covered for the moment anyway. Just my opinion on it for what it is worth.
×
×
  • Create New...