TomV Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Anyone have any details on this? http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9485899.Strensall_area_man_shot_in_face_at_pheasant_hunt/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 A reminder to be careful, fortunately he only suffered very minor injuries by the sounds of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P~MX Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I heard a (story) about 2 weeks ago where a guy turned up at a clay shoot ****** as a **** and loaded up his semi auto only to pull the trigger and shoot another guy at only a few feet away in the shoulder, he apparently did a runner and went back to the pub where Police found him but he denied havin drink taken at the time of the accident ! I'm not sure if this is 100% true though . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I wasnt aware of any law stopping you from drinking and shooting. He ran out of panic not cos he was sloshed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotland rifles Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 well the first one is a good one as all was well, but the second one sounds as if it may have issues un-resolved. bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fielddweller Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I wasnt aware of any law stopping you from drinking and shooting. He ran out of panic not cos he was sloshed. Well i certainly wont go shooting with you if thats your beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Well i certainly wont go shooting with you if thats your beliefs. Read it again. He doesn't say that it's right, just that there's no law against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Well i certainly wont go shooting with you if thats your beliefs. Oh god another silly little stirrer on the forum who cant read. Read it again 'fieldweller'. Did i say i went drinking and shooting? or did i say that i wasnt aware of any law that says you cant drink and shoot. There, you see two completely different things are they not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonD Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I heard a (story) about 2 weeks ago where a guy turned up at a clay shoot ****** as a **** and loaded up his semi auto only to pull the trigger and shoot another guy at only a few feet away in the shoulder, he apparently did a runner and went back to the pub where Police found him but he denied havin drink taken at the time of the accident ! I'm not sure if this is 100% true though . I have heard the same thing from a club member that was there, IIRC it was Gloucestershire but haven't seen or heard anything on the news. Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieh Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Well i certainly wont go shooting with you if thats your beliefs. If you are that antisocial you wouldn't get invited,have you ever been on a driven day, i have carried a hip flask while shooting for over 30 yrs wouldn't leave the house without it Geordie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning 425 clay hunter Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Does there really need to be a law about drinking and shooting at the same time, I thought it was called common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Does there really need to be a law about drinking and shooting at the same time, I thought it was called common sense. Exactly, there isnt one and there shouldnt be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver pigeon 3 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I have heard the same thing from a club member that was there, IIRC it was Gloucestershire but haven't seen or heard anything on the news. Jon. Which club in Glos was it? I have not heard anything on the grapevine around here yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I thought you were supposed to shoot on a pheasant shoot! :yp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 so someone is so badly injured they are walking out of hospital the next day and its a big story. The police found no crime or anything along those lines it sounds like an accident, could be a ricochet off a tree could be all sorts of things its hard to say but you would think if it was a direct shot then the police / licensing authorities might have taken a little longer to sort it out. As for the second sounds more like Jackanory, and like many who actually go shooting I'm partial to a sloe gin on a shoot day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwie Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 The clay shoot was in Gloucestershire it was a semi auto involved 3 people were injured 2 were minor 1 serious it was an accident the shoot has been cleared of any wrong doing not sure as to what has happened to the shooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin128 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Firearms Law...Home Office Guidance to the Police 2002 5.7 A court in England and Wales that imposes a suspended sentence may order the forfeiture of a firearm or cancel a firearm or shot gun certificate. Even if a court does not make such an order, chief officers of police have the power to revoke a firearm or shot gun certificate in certain circumstances. In particular, when they are satisfied that the holder is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, is otherwise unfit to be entrusted with a firearm or can no longer be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace. The fact that an order has been made under section 52 of the 1968 Act in respect of the applicant (notwithstanding that only a suspended sentence was passed) might also be regarded by chief officers as giving them reason to believe that the applicant is unfit to be entrusted with a firearm or possess a firearm or shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. 10.15 As the role of the referee is to offer advice to the police on the applicant’s fitness to possess firearms, the police should be satisfied that the referee is honest and reliable, and can be trusted to offer a fair and sensible view of the applicant. The police will also wish to consider whether a potential referee has criminal convictions (an assessment will have to be made in the individual circumstances taking account of the offences and when they took place), is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, has had a firearm or shot gun certificate revoked due to their misconduct, or might otherwise be considered unfit. 10.26 The most important duty imposed by the 1968 Act on the police is that of deciding whether or not a firearm certificate should be granted. The criteria which chief officers of police should apply in exercising their discretion are set out in section 27(1) of the 1968 Act. A chief officer must not grant a certificate to any person whom they have reason to believe to be: A) prohibited by the Act from possessing a firearm: for example a person to whom section 21 of the 1968 Act applies; or (b)of intemperate habits or unsound mind; or C) to be for any reason unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. As this issue is central to the role of the police, fuller guidance on fitness is set out in Chapter 12. Also reefered to in para 11.11, 12.2, 12.16 and... II. Intemperate habits 12.8 Factors for consideration include: a) Evidence of alcohol or drug abuse that may indicate that a person is unfit to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self-control. The relevant case law here is “Luke v Little” (1980) supported by “Chief Constable of Essex v Germain” (1991). An assessment will need to be made into the circumstances of each case. Usually, it will be a pattern of behaviour that causes concern but there may also be cases where one-off incidents will bring into question the fitness of somebody to possess firearms. In the case of “Lubbock v Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders” (2001) the Sheriff ruled that the revocation of a firearms and shot gun certificate following one isolated drink driving incident was justified given the individual’s general attitude towards the offence; Edited January 24, 2012 by Robin128 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Firearms Law...Home Office Guidance to the Police 2002 5.7 A court in England and Wales that imposes a suspended sentence may order the forfeiture of a firearm or cancel a firearm or shot gun certificate. Even if a court does not make such an order, chief officers of police have the power to revoke a firearm or shot gun certificate in certain circumstances. In particular, when they are satisfied that the holder is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, is otherwise unfit to be entrusted with a firearm or can no longer be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace. The fact that an order has been made under section 52 of the 1968 Act in respect of the applicant (notwithstanding that only a suspended sentence was passed) might also be regarded by chief officers as giving them reason to believe that the applicant is unfit to be entrusted with a firearm or possess a firearm or shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. 10.15 As the role of the referee is to offer advice to the police on the applicant’s fitness to possess firearms, the police should be satisfied that the referee is honest and reliable, and can be trusted to offer a fair and sensible view of the applicant. The police will also wish to consider whether a potential referee has criminal convictions (an assessment will have to be made in the individual circumstances taking account of the offences and when they took place), is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, has had a firearm or shot gun certificate revoked due to their misconduct, or might otherwise be considered unfit. 10.26 The most important duty imposed by the 1968 Act on the police is that of deciding whether or not a firearm certificate should be granted. The criteria which chief officers of police should apply in exercising their discretion are set out in section 27(1) of the 1968 Act. A chief officer must not grant a certificate to any person whom they have reason to believe to be: A) prohibited by the Act from possessing a firearm: for example a person to whom section 21 of the 1968 Act applies; or (b)of intemperate habits or unsound mind; or C) to be for any reason unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. As this issue is central to the role of the police, fuller guidance on fitness is set out in Chapter 12. Also reefered to in para 11.11, 12.2, 12.16 and... II. Intemperate habits 12.8 Factors for consideration include: a) Evidence of alcohol or drug abuse that may indicate that a person is unfit to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self-control. The relevant case law here is “Luke v Little” (1980) supported by “Chief Constable of Essex v Germain” (1991). An assessment will need to be made into the circumstances of each case. Usually, it will be a pattern of behaviour that causes concern but there may also be cases where one-off incidents will bring into question the fitness of somebody to possess firearms. In the case of “Lubbock v Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders” (2001) the Sheriff ruled that the revocation of a firearms and shot gun certificate following one isolated drink driving incident was justified given the individual’s general attitude towards the offence; ... 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.