ordnance Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) How is a shotgun not a firearm. ? This is a thread that was on another post got me thinking. Under the law you have the right to own a shotgun. Firearms ownership not a right Edited November 25, 2011 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 It is It's only legal definition that defines it as a separate type of weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted November 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) It is It's only legal definition that defines it as a separate type of weapon. Ok i found it a bit confusing when i looked it up. What is a Firearm? The term ‘firearm’ is defined as a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. PSNI. Met police. What’s the difference between a firearm and a shotgun? In simple terms, a firearm has a rifled barrel and fires bullets; a shot gun (or musket) is smooth bore and fires cartridges or blanks Edited November 25, 2011 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guinty1 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 As far as the law goes anything that meets the definition of a firearm as defined in section 57(1)of the firearms act 1968 amended is a firearm. Therefore a shotgun is a firearm. Firearms law can be complicated and difficult for the ordinary man on the street to understand and interpret as there are so many factors that can effect the classification of a gun. For example a shotgun can be section 1, section 2 or section 5 depending on its dimensions,action and capacity. Many firearms cases can end up in court for clarification as it may not be clear whether or not an offence has been committed. On a final note just to complicate things a stun gun is a prohibited section 5 firearm even though it doesnt have a barrel and it doesnt fire any projectiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) As far as the law goes anything that meets the definition of a firearm as defined in section 57(1)of the firearms act 1968 amended is a firearm. Therefore a shotgun is a firearm. Firearms law can be complicated and difficult for the ordinary man on the street to understand and interpret as there are so many factors that can effect the classification of a gun. For example a shotgun can be section 1, section 2 or section 5 depending on its dimensions,action and capacity. Many firearms cases can end up in court for clarification as it may not be clear whether or not an offence has been committed. On a final note just to complicate things a stun gun is a prohibited section 5 firearm even though it doesnt have a barrel and it doesnt fire any projectiles. True a lot of seems as clear as mud. Edited November 26, 2011 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 How is a shotgun not a firearm. ? This is a thread that was on another post got me thinking. Under the law you have the right to own a shotgun. Firearms ownership not a right Where in the legislation does it say you have a 'right' to own a shotgun? As far as I'm aware, the only difference between a shotgun and a section 1 article is that you don't have to show 'good reason' to own a shotgun. That isn't the same as having a 'right.' In this country, no one has the 'right' to own any kind of firearm, it is a privilage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) just to complicate things a stun gun is a prohibited section 5 firearm even though it doesnt have a barrel and it doesnt fire any projectiles. I isn't complicated... a stun gun is a 'prohibited item/article/device' under section 5 of the firearms act. The act doesn't refer to a stun gun as a 'firearm' Fully prepared to be proved wrong on this but I don't think I am! (got man flu... can't be bothered to start trawling through the legislation!) Edited November 26, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 We do have the right to own a shotgun in this country, the onus being on the police to provide good reason why we shouldn't. The opposite is true of a firearm where we have to prove good reason for Owning one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 How is a shotgun not a firearm. ? This is a thread that was on another post got me thinking. Under the law you have the right to own a shotgun. Firearms ownership not a right As has been said, shotguns are firearms per se. You do have the right to have a shotgun, but its only academic as you don't have to have a need or premises to shoot one on as we have many a clay ground. Not sure what you're getting at old bean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) Also, we as, normal people unless you are criminal or police have no interst in S5 weapons, our interest is S1. The post by Guinty (sp?) is tabulated and paraphrased, don't worry about it. Edited November 26, 2011 by kyska Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Where in the legislation does it say you have a 'right' to own a shotgun? As far as I'm aware, the only difference between a shotgun and a section 1 article is that you don't have to show 'good reason' to own a shotgun. That isn't the same as having a 'right.' In this country, no one has the 'right' to own any kind of firearm, it is a privilage. See Nick's reply above but I would also like to know why the heck you call it a privilege. In my view if I/we have a reason to want a firearm be it for sport or work then we have every right to expect our application (request) to be granted. This is not a privilege and the sooner people stop looking on it as such the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 See Nick's reply above but I would also like to know why the heck you call it a privilege. In my view if I/we have a reason to want a firearm be it for sport or work then we have every right to expect our application (request) to be granted. This is not a privilege and the sooner people stop looking on it as such the better. I would have to agree is privilege the right word. I dont think it should be seen that the police are doing you a favour letting you have a firearm shotgun or what ever you choose to call it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) We do have the right to own a shotgun in this country, the onus being on the police to provide good reason why we shouldn't. The opposite is true of a firearm where we have to prove good reason for Owning one I dont have a shotgun at the moment. Here the law has changed recently regarding shotguns. . Where before you had to go trough the firearms branch to change a shotgun i think now you can buy one at the dealers without having to send your FAC away for a variation similar to England. But looking at my renewal form it asks me to list all firearms i already owne so if i had a shotgun i would have to list it. So they are classing it as a firearm. It also asks you to state fully reasons for the possession of each firearm which would include a shotgun Edited November 26, 2011 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I dont have a shotgun at the moment. Here the law has changed recently regarding shotguns. . Where before you had to go trough the firearms branch to change a shotgun i think now you can buy one at the dealers without having to send your FAC away for a variation similar to England. But looking at my renewal form it asks me to list all firearms i already owne so if i had a shotgun i would have to list it. So they are classing it as a firearm. It also asks you to state fully reasons for the possession of each firearm which would include a shotgun In the England there is a distinct difference between fac and sgc, we just buy a shotgun and notify, no sending off the cert, fac pretty much the same as long as you have a slot. Either way we don't send our certs away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 See Nick's reply above but I would also like to know why the heck you call it a privilege. In my view if I/we have a reason to want a firearm be it for sport or work then we have every right to expect our application (request) to be granted. This is not a privilege and the sooner people stop looking on it as such the better. Of course it's a privilage... you do something to blot your copy book and the 'privilage' is taken away.. If it was a 'right' it couldn't be taken away! In the UK, sadly, we don't have the second amendment... we don't have the 'right' to bear arms... the Home Secretary 'allows' us to have them subject to us being found to be 'fit & proper' to own them... as previously stated the only difference between SGC & FAC is that one doesn't need to show 'good reason' for ownership... Quite happy to get me coat here.... as soon as someone shows me the legislation that states we have a 'right' to own shotguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Of course it's a privilage... you do something to blot your copy book and the 'privilage' is taken away.. If it was a 'right' it couldn't be taken away! In the UK, sadly, we don't have the second amendment... we don't have the 'right' to bear arms... the Home Secretary 'allows' us to have them subject to us being found to be 'fit & proper' to own them... as previously stated the only difference between SGC & FAC is that one doesn't need to show 'good reason' for ownership... Quite happy to get me coat here.... as soon as someone shows me the legislation that states we have a 'right' to own shotguns. Vipa, the right is underwritten for shotguns, as we have clay grounds, thats enough as it can't be questioned. If you are sad about the lack of US laws, maybe work toward moving there my friend, can you imagine the mess on the streets with the right to 'bear arms' in the UK, crazy ideas mate...you had a few? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guinty1 Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Interpretation.. (1)In this Act, the expression firearm means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and includes. (a)any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and. (b)any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and. ©any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon; The above is taken directly from 57(1) of the 68 act and as you can see paragraph (a) specifically includes prohibited weapons in what is included in this definition. A stun gun is a firearm and is caught under section 5 (1)(B) for the purposes of the act. Obviously it is not a lethal barrelled weapon i was just trying to show what can be caught under the 68 act as a firearm. As for firearms law not being complicated look at paragraph b of the above. It doesnt give much of a clue to what is a component part. Many people maybe under the impression it only involves pressure bearing parts of guns, but that is not strictly true and there are recorded cases of individuals being convicted of having certain gun components that are not listed as keep sakes on keyrings from their time in the forces. The home office guide to police lists the parts that are considered as component parts,but this is just a guide not law and therefore it is ultimately up to a court to decide what is a component part. To say that firearms law is not complicated shows a certain amount of naivety on the subject. The above example is just the tip of the iceberg and there are other hot potatoes such as antique guns and air weapon powers but to name a few. Ps for some reason the above post has replaced part of my post with a smiley face it should read "section 5 1 b" Edited November 27, 2011 by guinty1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Vipa, the right is underwritten for shotguns, as we have clay grounds, thats enough as it can't be questioned. If you are sad about the lack of US laws, maybe work toward moving there my friend, can you imagine the mess on the streets with the right to 'bear arms' in the UK, crazy ideas mate...you had a few? A 'right' is something that, under the constitution, cannot be taken away... the 'right' to free speech, the 'right' to a fair trial etc.... by the very nature that something requires a vetting procedure and specific legal permission, can be denied or revoked, by definition, is not a 'right'.... if it is not a 'right'..... then, again by definition, due to the fact that, after vetting, The State 'allows' you to own a firearm, has to be a 'privilage' or at least a 'concession.' Not having to show 'good reason' is not the same as having a 'right.' Whilst not British, I quite like this interpretation... Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away" My reference to the US was simply to point out that the ONLY country in the world where citizens have the 'right' to own firearms is the good ol' US of A under their second amendmend, (and even there it isn't an absolute right as fellons can't own guns!) It wasn't a statement of desire to live there... although a nice log cabin somewhere in the Rockies or Alaska sure would be nice! Edited November 27, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasons gold Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 our rights are set out in the magna carter Google the right to bear arms, and you will start to realise that the american constitution was loosely based on our rights of the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) our rights are set out in the magna carter Google the right to bear arms, and you will start to realise that the american constitution was loosely based on our rights of the time I'm pretty sure that's the same set of rules that say it's ok to kill a Welshman within the main city walls of York... as long as it's with a bow.... Go and try it.... see how your 'rights' stand up!!! I do wish people wouldn't quote 1,000 year old texts claiming they apply in the 21st century. Perhaps we should all go and hand ourselves in to the Police for not performing our legal duty of an hours longbow practice after church on a Sunday... Edited November 27, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasons gold Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 It's a fact these laws are still in existence but you seem to pick and choose the laws you want to add weight to your argument Just accept your wrong that it is a right and not a privilege Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) It's a fact these laws are still in existence but you seem to pick and choose the laws you want to add weight to your argument Just accept your wrong that it is a right and not a privilege Yep, ok, i'm wrong... next time you have your renewal visit you go ahead and tell your FEA that it is your right to own a shotgun and see where that leads you! And.... FYI.... what you refer to is actually this... "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". Which dates from the 17th century. now, I may be a little dim but no matter how I re-arrange that sentence I can't for the life of me get it to say citizens have a right to own a shotgun Hope you ain't a Catholic :o Edited November 27, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 By wording it looks like the right is subject to person. For example a certain group of people have the right to have shotguns IF you do something wrong you no longer fall under said group so you don't have the right. That's how it was explained to me by other shooters anyway. The other thing is that Air rifles and pistols are also classed as firearms despite the missile not being projected by what basically is an explosion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant hit rabbits 123 Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 Damn it! Again with the Catholic persecusion! I'll go hand in my shotguns now before I am arrested for following the pointy white hat man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 Of course it's a privilage... you do something to blot your copy book and the 'privilage' is taken away.. If it was a 'right' it couldn't be taken away! In the UK, sadly, we don't have the second amendment... we don't have the 'right' to bear arms... the Home Secretary 'allows' us to have them subject to us being found to be 'fit & proper' to own them... as previously stated the only difference between SGC & FAC is that one doesn't need to show 'good reason' for ownership... Quite happy to get me coat here.... as soon as someone shows me the legislation that states we have a 'right' to own shotguns. The US 2nd amendment 'right' to bear arms doesn't allow convicted felons (and other persons deemed unsuitable) the right to possess firearms. Rights are subjective, not absolute. The only difference between the 'right' we have to own a shotgun and the US 2nd amendment is that you have to do far less in this country to have that right removed. The wording of Section 2 of the 1968 Firearms Act infers the right as it states the Chief Constable shall issue a shotgun certificate unless . . . This is why i thought it would be such a tragedy if certification was all brought in line with current Section 1 controls, Section 2 is the last remaining glimmer of a right to possess guns in this country ATB Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.