SGC are to be moved over to FAC in the near future

[Breastman]

 

[wymberley]

At the moment you have no need to prove that you "need" a shotgun, think about it.

 

I'm not saying that that won't change, just asking why should it. You simply apply the appropriate rules to the guns in question but just annotate them on one certificate. My Waffenbesitzkarte did just that.

 

The real danger lies not in a piece of paper but the reasoning behind it. For example, if this was to be done to step in line with Europe, would the next stage then be aimed at us; ie, the Jagdschein.

 

Fortunately, it seems that as a group the consensus of opinion is that we have nothing what-so-ever to fear on this count.

[SneakyD]

If I follow his thinking correctly, you must show good reason to have an S1 firearm, but not really 'need'. Most of us are recreational shooters, we do not rely on firearms or thier use for work, livelyhood etc. If we had to demonstrate need, very few people would ever be granted FAC.

 

When you apply you say I would like a .22 for shooting rabbits on this land over which I have lawful authority to shoot.

 

You dont say I need a .22 to shoot rabbits on this land. Otherwise the Big Chief could, and probably would turn round and ask to see proof that you relied heavily on either the use of the land or the shooting of the rabbits.

 

It would seem that you follow his thinking correctly

You should guess his pin number and post it

[JonathanL]

So when your FEO asks why you need another .22 rifle when you already have two, then I'm sure he will accept this explanation.............before refusing

 

Demonstrating “Good reason” is tantamount to showing your FEO why you NEED to own a particular calibre/rifle other than simply WANTING to own it.

 

Simply telling your firearms dept that you already own a .243, a .308 and a 7mm-08 for stalking and now simply WANT to buy another .308 for the same reason won't suffice, as he will simply tell you that you don't actually NEED one.

You will have to demonstrate “Good reason”..............in other words why you NEED one.

 

If you own a shotgun for vermin control you can apply for a .22rf for the same thing, as you will be able to show a NEED/GOOD REASON for wanting one.

Simply telling your FEO that you want a rifle because you are entitled to, because you don't have to show that you NEED one won't go down very well, and I am sure that a decent FEO will ask WHY you want one, and then you in turn would give him your reason.

In other words you would be telling him why you NEEDED it.

G.M.

 

This is not correct. There is a distinct and very important difference between 'good reason" and 'need'. The word 'need' means that it cannot be done without and very, very few of us cannot do without a firearm.

 

You are correct to say that you may need another rifle to do a particular type of stalking but that argument falls down because no one other than a professional stalker actually needs to stalk and, hence, by definition does not 'need' any' a rifle of any sort.

 

Good reason is wider than strict need, as it should be. It is being able to show a sensible and reasonable use for the particular firearm, not that you must have it at all costs.

 

Needing a particular gun may indeed constitute good reason but you do not have to have a need for a particular firearm in order to have good reason. Similarly, just because you can show a genuine need it does not mean you have the required good reason. The Home Office guidance actually says that 'good reason' should not be restricted to need, nor equated with a simple desire to acquire a particular firearm.

 

J.

[wymberley]

Apart from meaning a mole, a want can be defined as a need. A need can be defined as a want of something which one cannot do well without. Therefore, you want said gun because you need it. On the other hand,of course, you could say that you need said gun because you have a want.

 

I hope that helps!

[SneakyD]

This is not correct. There is a distinct and very important difference between 'good reason" and 'need'. The word 'need' means that it cannot be done without and very, very few of us cannot do without a firearm.

 

You are correct to say that you may need another rifle to do a particular type of stalking but that argument falls down because no one other than a professional stalker actually needs to stalk and, hence, by definition does not 'need' any' a rifle of any sort.

 

Good reason is wider than strict need, as it should be. It is being able to show a sensible and reasonable use for the particular firearm, not that you must have it at all costs.

 

Needing a particular gun may indeed constitute good reason but you do not have to have a need for a particular firearm in order to have good reason. Similarly, just because you can show a genuine need it does not mean you have the required good reason. The Home Office guidance actually says that 'good reason' should not be restricted to need, nor equated with a simple desire to acquire a particular firearm.

 

J.

By your logic, the professional stalker could get a different job, or sign on the dole, so they don't 'need' any' a rifle of any sort either

[Graham M]

We could go around in circles all night over this, so I think it best to agree to disagree.

G.M.

[JonathanL]

By your logic, the professional stalker could get a different job, or sign on the dole, so they don't 'need' any' a rifle of any sort either

 

Actually, yes, that's something I was going to mention but tried to keep it simple as I'm writing this on my phone and the last post was made from table outside a bar in a sweltering hot Karlstad in Sweden and the friday evening, how shall I say, 'scenery' is just a little bit more interesting than arguing about b011ox on the internet.

 

You're right, 'need' could be defined as 'onlyt somone who is a liocensed pest controler employed by the state'. Clearly then, we don't have to show actual need. Good reason, hence, is not the same and is far wider a concept than need.

 

Now....back to the seven quid pints and appreciation of the local 'wildlife', I think.

 

J.

[Vince Green]

Trying to pull this back onto something more discussable. I believe a lot of new SGC applicants are quizzed pretty closely on why they want a shotgun even if there isn't a box to fill in on the form. So much so that the difference is not as wide as some people would imagine. I certainly know of people who have been asked for proof of clay club membership, lots of people in fact. Addresses of farms have been asked for and farmers contacted.

[bedwards1966]

Actually, yes, that's something I was going to mention but tried to keep it simple as I'm writing this on my phone and the last post was made from table outside a bar in a sweltering hot Karlstad in Sweden and the friday evening, how shall I say, 'scenery' is just a little bit more interesting than arguing about b011ox on the internet.

 

You're right, 'need' could be defined as 'onlyt somone who is a liocensed pest controler employed by the state'. Clearly then, we don't have to show actual need. Good reason, hence, is not the same and is far wider a concept than need.

 

Now....back to the seven quid pints and appreciation of the local 'wildlife', I think.

 

J.

 

Erm, what on earth are you doing on here then? I've been away in China (admittedly I had work to do as well as leisure), but arguing, pointing out facts and generally keeping up to date on a forum were a very long way down the list of things to bother with! Have fun, PW will still be here when you get back (admittedly with over 2000 unread posts when I returned...). It still works without you!

 

Back to the topic, I'm sure there is nothing currently in the pipeline to move S2 to S1, the last proposal that I know of (and I'm sure I've not missed anything new) was after the Cumbria shootings, and that particular request was thrown out.

Nevertheless it will happen, as we keep getting restricted further and further there can be no doubt that it will happen. It might be in a year or two, perhaps after following another shooting, it might take thirty years - but it will happen.

 

While it would make sense to have everything on one certificate, under the current S1 system it would be a nightmare.

Try to justify the reason for each shotgun to a non shooting firearms department, plus there is the hassle (and sometimes cost - which is set to increase) of a variation each time you buy a new one.

Then take the ammo restrictions - I buy my cartridges by the thousand - but what will the police consider acceptable? I expect we'd have very different ideas as to what's needed. Type of shot - that could perhaps be restricted too.

Many guns will no longer have a home as people won't be able to justify having them, many people won't be able to get or won't bother to get a FAC, guns will lose value and the number of shooters will decrease. Then there will be even less of us to fight for whatever rights we have left. It will also cause this country to gain less interest from gun makers, so I expect the cost of new guns and accessories will increase.

Edited July 9, 2012 by bedwards1966

[la bala]

 

 

:lol:

[Vince Green]

Just because shotguns were put on a FAC it in no way means they would be subject to the same restrictions as sec 1 firearms. It just means one piece of paper instead of two.

[Breastman]

Just because shotguns were put on a FAC it in no way means they would be subject to the same restrictions as sec 1 firearms. It just means one piece of paper instead of two.

 

Good one Vince Oh you're not joking . . . . Riiiiiiiight :wacko:

[bedwards1966]

Just because shotguns were put on a FAC it in no way means they would be subject to the same restrictions as sec 1 firearms. It just means one piece of paper instead of two.

 

In theory yes.

In reality do you really think that they give us all numerous slots for all the shotguns we'd like (and have no ammo limits, including storage of ammo) and allow us complete freedom to do as we wished? They might introduce a system where we could have the same 'freedom' with shotguns as we currently have, but it would not stay that way.

It would be tightened up. E.g, have as many shotguns as you want, provided it's under say 10. After that you have to provide 'good reason'. Nobody would argue about that - so they'd then slowly reduce that figure - want more than 4? Prove why. Want one - prove why.

It could take time, but they would not have all shotgun owners in the palm of their hand like that and leave it open for long. It would end up limited to the point where they were exactly the same as any other S1 firearm.

[cant hit rabbits 123]

In theory yes.

In reality do you really think that they give us all numerous slots for all the shotguns we'd like (and have no ammo limits, including storage of ammo) and allow us complete freedom to do as we wished? They might introduce a system where we could have the same 'freedom' with shotguns as we currently have, but it would not stay that way.

It would be tightened up. E.g, have as many shotguns as you want, provided it's under say 10. After that you have to provide 'good reason'. Nobody would argue about that - so they'd then slowly reduce that figure - want more than 4? Prove why. Want one - prove why.

It could take time, but they would not have all shotgun owners in the palm of their hand like that and leave it open for long. It would end up limited to the point where they were exactly the same as any other S1 firearm.

 

But by then an application would cost £500, certs would be annual, guns and ammunition will be subject to heavy taxed and shooters will be harrased and victimised untill there are non left. 'Its inevitable' (quote Team America) Just hope I am dead, or have left the country by then.

[Breastman]

In theory yes.

In reality do you really think that they give us all numerous slots for all the shotguns we'd like (and have no ammo limits, including storage of ammo) and allow us complete freedom to do as we wished? They might introduce a system where we could have the same 'freedom' with shotguns as we currently have, but it would not stay that way.

It would be tightened up. E.g, have as many shotguns as you want, provided it's under say 10. After that you have to provide 'good reason'. Nobody would argue about that - so they'd then slowly reduce that figure - want more than 4? Prove why. Want one - prove why.

It could take time, but they would not have all shotgun owners in the palm of their hand like that and leave it open for long. It would end up limited to the point where they were exactly the same as any other S1 firearm.

 

 

Just look at all the rubbish FEO's/FLD's currently make up as they go along with current FAC conditions that have no legislative back up whatsoever. The control is ALWAYS abused. No if's, no buts, ALWAYS.

[JonathanL]

Just because shotguns were put on a FAC it in no way means they would be subject to the same restrictions as sec 1 firearms. It just means one piece of paper instead of two.

 

Yes it would. The Act requires that you show 'good reason' to possess each firearm subject to section 1 controls.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

The answer to all of this is simple - more shooters. Shooters are voters and if there are enough to influence elections then it's all the better for us. We won't see further restrictions is politicians are worried that annoying shooters may cost them their seats!

 

J.

[Graham M]

The answer to all of this is simple - more shooters. Shooters are voters and if there are enough to influence elections then it's all the better for us. We won't see further restrictions is politicians are worried that annoying shooters may cost them their seats!

 

J.

Do you really believe that :blink:

We probably have half the numbers of FAC holders now than we did before Dunblane and it most certainly didn't stop them then.

The trouble is we are fractionalised all over the country with no more than a few hundred in every constituency. If you live in a rural area with more shooters you are likely to have a large majority of Tory voters, so your lost vote would be of no consequence. And likewise if you live in an urban area you are more likely to be in a mostly labour majority. So your lost vote wouldn't mean jack **** because you could put up a chimpanzee with a labour rosette in some of those areas and labour voters would still vote for it.

Nope, we would need to have a massive influx of shooters to the tune of @ 10 million before we would be listened to.

And no government will ever allow that to happen.

 

G.M

[bedwards1966]

The answer to all of this is simple - more shooters. Shooters are voters and if there are enough to influence elections then it's all the better for us. We won't see further restrictions is politicians are worried that annoying shooters may cost them their seats!

 

J.

Do you really believe that :blink:

We probably have half the numbers of FAC holders now than we did before Dunblane and it most certainly didn't stop them then.

The trouble is we are fractionalised all over the country with no more than a few hundred in every constituency. If you live in a rural area with more shooters you are likely to have a large majority of Tory voters, so your lost vote would be of no consequence. And likewise if you live in an urban area you are more likely to be in a mostly labour majority. So your lost vote wouldn't mean jack **** because you could put up a chimpanzee with a labour rosette in some of those areas and labour voters would still vote for it.

Nope, we would need to have a massive influx of shooters to the tune of @ 10 million before we would be listened to.

And no government will ever allow that to happen.

 

G.M

 

JonathanL is right, more shooters is the only way the sport has a chance. But Graham M is also correct that it would require vast numbers before it actually made the required difference (not forgetting just how useless shooters are at making noise about their sport), and the government makes it hard for new shooters to enter the sport (and I'm sure that is not accidental).

Basically we'll never get anywhere near the required number to ever have a voice on this, which is why the future of shooting is doomed - look at the changes and restrictions made in the last 40 years, and then ask yourself where it will be in another 40 years.

[JonathanL]

Do you really believe that :blink:

 

 

Yes, of course. It's the way politics works. Politicians do things, or don't do things depending on how it affects their jobs. It's always been that way.

 

Whether we'll get sufficient numbers is another matter.

 

We probably have half the numbers of FAC holders now than we did before Dunblane and it most certainly didn't stop them then.

The trouble is we are fractionalised all over the country with no more than a few hundred in every constituency. If you live in a rural area with more shooters you are likely to have a large majority of Tory voters, so your lost vote would be of no consequence. And likewise if you live in an urban area you are more likely to be in a mostly labour majority. So your lost vote wouldn't mean jack **** because you could put up a chimpanzee with a labour rosette in some of those areas and labour voters would still vote for it.

Nope, we would need to have a massive influx of shooters to the tune of @ 10 million before we would be listened to.

And no government will ever allow that to happen.

 

G.M

 

I don't think FAC numbers have halved since Dunblane - in fact I'm sure it's nothing like that. I have the official stats but not with me. Google it as there is an official HO publication which makes interesting reading. There were less that 60K pistol shooters and by no means all of those gave up after the legalised theft of their property. I'd say that the vast majority kept shooting in one form or another. Currently both FAC and SGC numbers are going up not the other way.

 

Even taking 150K guns from 60K people was a nightmare for the government. The costs rocketed (from the original laughable £25M) and logistically a major undertaking. It was not a straightforward exercise at all.

 

The problem with numbers of shooters in constituencies is not as troublesome as it was for, say, fox hunters. Essentially all fox hunters were in Tory areas anyway. Therefore the labour party had nowt to lose. However, had a Tory in a strong hunting dared to dissent he would have lost his seat.

 

Shooting is more widespread than that, lots of shooters live in Labour areas. Lots live in towns and the sunurbs. I'd like to have seen Bliar take a tough stance against rough shooting prior to the '97 election because I know that there are plenty of people in Sedgefield who would have taken issue with that!

 

Every new shooter makes the future a little more secure. It's not just sheer numbers that makes the difference. The costs associated with another gun prohibition would be massive and no party has the stomach for peeing away lots of money these days. Look at Cumbria; almost a carbon copy or Hungerford and similar to Dunblane. Both of those incidents resulted in the guns used being banned. Why then did double barrel shotguns not end up banned after Cumbria? The answer is easy - because there were too many people to annoy and it would have cost a fortune both in compensation and damage to the economy. If 7K people owned, the number who owned full-bore semi-auto rifles in 1987 they would have been banned overnight and I think we all know that.

 

There are 'only' about half a million people with SGC's yet they still have them without any change after Cumbria. No one even seriously suggested any change either, not anyone with the power to actually do it, anyway. This, I think, is pretty good evidence that you no not need a huge percentage of the population to be shooters in order that firearms ownership becomes a lot more secure than it is now.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

JonathanL is right, more shooters is the only way the sport has a chance. But Graham M is also correct that it would require vast numbers before it actually made the required difference (not forgetting just how useless shooters are at making noise about their sport), and the government makes it hard for new shooters to enter the sport (and I'm sure that is not accidental).

Basically we'll never get anywhere near the required number to ever have a voice on this, which is why the future of shooting is doomed - look at the changes and restrictions made in the last 40 years, and then ask yourself where it will be in another 40 years.

 

 

As I say above, I don't think you necessarily need vast numbers. You need enough that it costs huge amounts of money, time and hassle to ban or restrict things any further.

 

I think that we shooters think it's far harder to get in to than it really is. It isn't easy but that is primarily due to the fact that people simply don't know how to go about it. How many non-shooters actually know the whereabouts of their local clubs? When was the last time you saw your local club or clay ground advertising in the local press?

 

In reality if it's shotgunning you want to get in to you just go along and give it a try. Target shooting is bit more difficult in that you need to join first and lots of clubs make it difficult by putting lots of pointless and petty obstacles in the way but it isn't that hard when you actually look at it.

Things are actually easier these days as civilian ranges no longer need to have an MoD safety certificate they just need to be insured. There is very little to stop a private individual or club establishing their own range if they have a spare bit of land, warehouse, etc. The NRA even produces a range design manual but anything that is reasonably safe would suffice.

 

It really isn't anywhere near as difficult as people think it is to get into shooting. The main problem, especially in clubs, is the old farts brigade who think that shooting is some sort of privileged society that only the 'right'sort of people should be allowed in but they will have died off in the not too distant future and clubs which don't change their attitude will simply fold.

 

J.

Edited July 10, 2012 by JonathanL

[Graham M]

Yes, of course. It's the way politics works. Politicians do things, or don't do things depending on how it affects their jobs. It's always been that way.

 

Whether we'll get sufficient numbers is another matter.

 

 

 

I don't think FAC numbers have halved since Dunblane - in fact I'm sure it's nothing like that. I have the official stats but not with me. Google it as there is an official HO publication which makes interesting reading. There were less that 60K pistol shooters and by no means all of those gave up after the legalised theft of their property. I'd say that the vast majority kept shooting in one form or another. Currently both FAC and SGC numbers are going up not the other way.

 

Even taking 150K guns from 60K people was a nightmare for the government. The costs rocketed (from the original laughable £25M) and logistically a major undertaking. It was not a straightforward exercise at all.

 

The problem with numbers of shooters in constituencies is not as troublesome as it was for, say, fox hunters. Essentially all fox hunters were in Tory areas anyway. Therefore the labour party had nowt to lose. However, had a Tory in a strong hunting dared to dissent he would have lost his seat.

 

Shooting is more widespread than that, lots of shooters live in Labour areas. Lots live in towns and the sunurbs. I'd like to have seen Bliar take a tough stance against rough shooting prior to the '97 election because I know that there are plenty of people in Sedgefield who would have taken issue with that!

 

Every new shooter makes the future a little more secure. It's not just sheer numbers that makes the difference. The costs associated with another gun prohibition would be massive and no party has the stomach for peeing away lots of money these days. Look at Cumbria; almost a carbon copy or Hungerford and similar to Dunblane. Both of those incidents resulted in the guns used being banned. Why then did double barrel shotguns not end up banned after Cumbria? The answer is easy - because there were too many people to annoy and it would have cost a fortune both in compensation and damage to the economy. If 7K people owned, the number who owned full-bore semi-auto rifles in 1987 they would have been banned overnight and I think we all know that.

 

There are 'only' about half a million people with SGC's yet they still have them without any change after Cumbria. No one even seriously suggested any change either, not anyone with the power to actually do it, anyway. This, I think, is pretty good evidence that you no not need a huge percentage of the population to be shooters in order that firearms ownership becomes a lot more secure than it is now.

 

J.

Almost 191,000 in 1971 falling to just under 118,000 in 2002, a loss of well over a THIRD of FAC holders (OK not half), although thankfully this has risen over the last 10 years.

But even with almost 200,000 shooters we were still facing the wrath of the 1978 Green Paper, and had it not been for Leon Briton defending shooters against the more vociferous elements of that paper we would have seen the sort of laws that were brought in after Hungerford there and then.

 

I know full well the difficulty that the government had when imposing the handgun ban and how much it cost, but any future bans would be a lot simpler.......labour would simply confiscate without compensation.

 

That is what the Lib-Dems wanted to do after Dunblane !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

G.M.

[Livefast123]

The best way of ensuring that my daughter will be able to shoot in the UK when she is old enough is for shooters from every facet of the sport to come together and unite behind 1 unified national body.

 

Target shooter, deer stalker or clay birder...who cares, we all have a love of shooting and should come together to protect it from a very real threat.

 

Just look at the power the NRA has in the USA.

[Vipa]

Well to turn that one around the other way, if you have a FAC why do you need a SGC as well? Why can't a FAC be a default SGC automatically. Its like my car driving licence allows me to drive a moped. I don't have to apply for a second licence just because I want a moped.

 

 

That's a VERY valid shout actually... nothing wrong with the two tier system so keep it as is but a FAC holder should automatically be able to purchase & hold shotguns without the need for a separate SGC... would reduce the admin burden dramatically and notreduce security or control from the authorities perspective!