Would you lose your license if.....

[Hamster]

Urban myth.

 

Thank god for that, I've been having nightmares visualising the animals reaction while you're trying to prise it apart, don't suppose a Pit Bull would be deliriously licking you to deff.

[kyska]

My cert also has a condition for the 'protection of people or other animals'

[Robl]

Yes, I would get the gun out of the boot and shoot the dog.

 

I would expect/hope that the end result would be no loss of SGC.

However I would expect to have to chat to a few policemen and lawyers and maybe stand up in court before that conclusion was reached.

 

 

I am basing this on a genuine threat of injury from the dog.

Something like the clip of the dog attacking the police recently, or perhaps a number of people screaming for help and some blood already on the ground.

If I’m thinking ‘Holy **** that dogs going to maim someone’ then I’d get the shotty.

If I was thinking ‘That could turn very ugly very quickly’ then I might get the gun out, in the slip and be ready in case it got worse.

 

I would never attempt to go hand to hand (or jaw to boot) with a large dog if I had a gun easily to hand.

[CharlieT]

Well CharlieT, I take it from your post that both hillmouse and bicykillgaz are not mere mortals, and must both be zoo employees.

I'm correct, some people do have this condition. The fact you've never seen it changes nothing.

Very good!

 

I stand by what I said.

 

I strongly suspect that what both hillmouse and bicykillgaz are refering to is the wording on their fac's relating to their expanding ammo conditions.

 

These, as you will know are are the standard conditions for expanding ammo and not to be confused with the rifle conditions. It is the conditions attached to the firearms that determine what one may shoot, the expanding ammo conditions merely list what one may use expanding ammo for provided their firearms are so conditioned.

 

I'm correct, only in very exceptional circumstances are fac's so conditioned.

[bedwards1966]

You are talking about the police shooting someone in the quote above......not Joe Bloggs on the street...

 

Your post underlined below... :blink: ...chalk & cheese...

 

No, not chalk and cheese. It's been established that the risk that causes someone to act in self defense need not exist, purely that the person acting in self defense must reasonably believe it to exist. That has to apply to everyone, it cannot just apply to one group of people.

 

I stand by what I said.

 

I strongly suspect that what both hillmouse and bicykillgaz are refering to is the wording on their fac's relating to their expanding ammo conditions.

 

These, as you will know are are the standard conditions for expanding ammo and not to be confused with the rifle conditions. It is the conditions attached to the firearms that determine what one may shoot, the expanding ammo conditions merely list what one may use expanding ammo for provided their firearms are so conditioned.

 

I'm correct, only in very exceptional circumstances are fac's so conditioned.

 

Well perhaps hillmouse, bicykillgaz and kyska would be able to tell us what their certificate says, i.e whether that applies to the rifles or the ammunition.

From your logic, I could have a FAC with this condition on, but it would only cover the ammunition. So if I needed to dispatch an animal for the protection of other people or animals, I could use the ammunition I held for it, but not the gun? So if I held the bullet in my hand and knocked the primer and fired it from my hand that would be fine, but I'd not be allowed to use it in my rifle?

I can't see why you'd be given ammo for this purpose, but not a firearm to go with it.

[JonathanL]

After hearing about some of the recent dog attacks by so called dangerous dogs it made me wonder if on your way home from say pigeon shooting or clay shooting you witnessed a dog attacking someone and inflicting a serious injury to that person and then moving on towards other members of the public would you be penalised if you shot and killed the dog. Obviousely only if it were safe to shoot the dog ie no people around it

 

I doubt it, to be honest, especially if it were actually attacking someone.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

I'd make good use of my gutting knife first, but if that failed and I could take a safe shot Id like to think I'd be selfless enough to risk losing my guns to save a child.

 

I can't see any judge wanting to be the man who sent someone down for saving a child, I think you'd lose your guns at worse and think that would be harsh under the circumstances.

 

If you were acting out of a genuine belief that there was a threat of serious injury or death then it would never get anywhere near a court and you probably wouldn't evn be arrested.

 

Even if there were an offence of discharging a firearm in public (and if there were you woud commit it every time you took to the fields) then you would still be able to avail your self of the common law defence of necessity.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Really......!!!!!!!!

 

Do you think the Italics bit above would stand up in court..?

 

You can use the defence of defending your self or another even if it turns out that the danger didn't exist. You must have a reasonable belief that the danger exists, it does not matter if you are mistaken in that belief. It's why the police don't get convicted for shooting people carrying chair legs because they think he's an Irish terrorist.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

It is illegal to shoot a dog, period. By doing so you leave yourself open to a claim for damages from the owner in addition to whatever the police may say about discharging a firearm in the street.

 

Doing so with a section 1 would be illegal. You can only shoot what your firearm is conditioned for. Mere mortals are NOT conditioned for "protection" or "self defence". In 50 years of shooting I have yet to see a S1 conditioned for " some people do have a condition allowing them to shoot animals for the protection of people or animals", other than zoo employees and the like.

 

So the answer has to be only with a shotgun but when you appear before the judge, which you most certainly will, make sure you have instructed a rather good barrister to present your defence. Oh and don't expect to have your SGC renewed.

 

Utterly incorrect. If you have a genuine and reasonably held belief that someone is in danger of serious injury or death then you can act the prevent it. That even includes killing someone if it is necessary.

 

The issue of what your cert is 'conditioned' for is another matter entirely but I think there is a widely held misconceptipon relating to it.

 

J.

 

I think you'd probably loose more than your license if you shot a shotgun in a public place lol

 

You have one in a public place every time you shoot. Check the definition of 'public place' in the Firearms Act.

 

J.

[Robl]

Think back to the event where the police were fighting that Dog.

If you have pulled up, got out the shotgun and asked the police if they wanted you to shoot the dog what do you think they would have said?

 

Actually – forget that.

In any normal country they would have said ‘Yes, with both barrels’.

In the UK these days they would have probably been worried about how much trouble they would get into for letting a member of the public shoot a gun in a residential street.

 

Unless of course it’s the poor ******* with three of his fingers almost bitter off – he probably would have said yes.

[Breastman]

Utterly incorrect. If you have a genuine and reasonably held belief that someone is in danger of serious injury or death then you can act the prevent it. That even includes killing someone if it is necessary.

 

The issue of what your cert is 'conditioned' for is another matter entirely but I think there is a widely held misconceptipon relating to it.

 

J.

 

 

 

You have one in a public place every time you shoot. Check the definition of 'public place' in the Firearms Act.

 

J.

 

 

I can't believe people are talking about FAC conditions in relation to a life/death scenario (however unlikely), it would be funny if it was so serious

 

I was seriously attacked by a dog (alsatian) when i was 14 which took the skin/flesh off my calf and the only reason it stopped was because the friend i was with gave it a steel ball bearing to the head with a Black Widow catapult. AMAZINGLY enough he didn't get done for animal cruelty, quizzed as to why he had a catapult in a 'public place' etc etc and the police praised him for potentially saving my life/leg :huh:Then again, that was before 13 years of Labour nanny-state indoctrination . . . .

[CharlieT]

From your logic, I could have a FAC with this condition on, but it would only cover the ammunition. So if I needed to dispatch an animal for the protection of other people or animals, I could use the ammunition I held for it, but not the gun? So if I held the bullet in my hand and knocked the primer and fired it from my hand that would be fine, but I'd not be allowed to use it in my rifle?

I can't see why you'd be given ammo for this purpose, but not a firearm to go with it.

 

Mock me and be flippant all you like. However, had you taken the trouble to look into what I posted you would have seen that I was correct.

Had you been a certificate holder prior to the 1997 act, you would have been aware of the reclassification of non pistol expanding ammunition to S5 and the (staggered) requirement to have ones fac amended to include the authority to buy and hold such ammunition by the addition of the prescribed condition to ones fac.

That condition was :-

8. Expanding Ammunition

• The certificate holder may possess,

 

purchase or acquire expanding ammunition,

 

or the missiles of such ammunition, in the

 

calibres authorised by this certificate and

 

use only in connection with:

 

a. the lawful shooting of deer;

 

b. the shooting of vermin or, in

 

connection with the management of

 

any estate, other wildlife;

 

c. the humane killing of animals;

 

d. the shooting of animals for the

 

protection of other animals or humans.

 

Many licensing managers still use that exact wording, however some have recently started to omit some of the superfluous parts. Perhaps when you have had time to further research my observations you would be kind enough to apologise.

Edited September 3, 2012 by CharlieT

[kyska]

 

 

Mock me and be flippant all you like. However, had you taken the trouble to look into what I posted you would have seen that I was correct.

Had you been a certificate holder prior to the 1997 act, you would have been aware of the reclassification of non pistol expanding ammunition to S5 and the (staggered) requirement to have ones fac amended to include the authority to buy and hold such ammunition by the addition of the prescribed condition to ones fac.

That condition was :-

8. Expanding Ammunition

• The certificate holder may possess,

 

purchase or acquire expanding ammunition,

 

or the missiles of such ammunition, in the

 

calibres authorised by this certificate and

 

use only in connection with:

 

a. the lawful shooting of deer;

 

b. the shooting of vermin or, in

 

connection with the management of

 

any estate, other wildlife;

 

c. the humane killing of animals;

 

d. the shooting of animals for the

 

protection of other animals or humans.

 

Many licensing managers still use that exact wording, however some have recently started to omit some of the superfluous parts. Perhaps when you have had time to further research my observations you would be kind enough to apologise.

 

That's what's on my cert, it is written in the context that it's connected to the ammunition section, just had a look

[arjimlad]

Lawks - this sort of thread reminds me of thinking in 1988 when I was 15 or so, whether my BSA Supersport would have stopped Michael Ryan if he had happened to pass by my house on his way to Hungerford. It was a .22 after all...

 

I dashed barefoot out of my house last night with my wife shouting that a dog was chasing our neighbour's child. We have some idiot dog walkers round here whose mutts are often out of control and have knocked other kids down including my son. The local kids are terrified.

 

I picked up a metal bar on the way past my vegetable plot in case it was the sort of dog who might need persuasion. It was not that sort of dog, & turned out to be a dog we know from two doors up, whose owner just lets it out on the street. The owner eventually caught up but the kid made it home before the dog. What if I'd been "cleaning my gun" - I'd probably have had SGC revoked by now if I had gone out with a gun. These fantasies are mostly pointless.

[bedwards1966]

 

I can't believe people are talking about FAC conditions in relation to a life/death scenario (however unlikely), it would be funny if it was so serious

 

I was seriously attacked by a dog (alsatian) when i was 14 which took the skin/flesh off my calf and the only reason it stopped was because the friend i was with gave it a steel ball bearing to the head with a Black Widow catapult. AMAZINGLY enough he didn't get done for animal cruelty, quizzed as to why he had a catapult in a 'public place' etc etc and the police praised him for potentially saving my life/leg :huh:Then again, that was before 13 years of Labour nanny-state indoctrination . . . .

 

I think that it was I who brought that up - and at no point did I say it would or would not influence any decision I'd take, simply that it might be that you'd be legally able to shoot the dog, but not with a S1 firearm not conditioned for that purpose.

 

Mock me and be flippant all you like. However, had you taken the trouble to look into what I posted you would have seen that I was correct.

Had you been a certificate holder prior to the 1997 act, you would have been aware of the reclassification of non pistol expanding ammunition to S5 and the (staggered) requirement to have ones fac amended to include the authority to buy and hold such ammunition by the addition of the prescribed condition to ones fac.

That condition was :-

8. Expanding Ammunition

• The certificate holder may possess,

 

purchase or acquire expanding ammunition,

 

or the missiles of such ammunition, in the

 

calibres authorised by this certificate and

 

use only in connection with:

 

a. the lawful shooting of deer;

 

b. the shooting of vermin or, in

 

connection with the management of

 

any estate, other wildlife;

 

c. the humane killing of animals;

 

d. the shooting of animals for the

 

protection of other animals or humans.

 

Many licensing managers still use that exact wording, however some have recently started to omit some of the superfluous parts. Perhaps when you have had time to further research my observations you would be kind enough to apologise.

 

I am aware of the changes, and can understand that ammunition may be conditioned for that purpose. That does not mean that a rifle can't/won't also be conditioned for that.

[Cranfield]

These fantasies are mostly pointless.

 

 

That sentence just about sums the situation up nicely.

This "fantasy" has had a good run and the topic is now closed.