legal or not

[quadimodo]

Hi Guys, A friend has had his FAC, and SC revoked after accepting a caution from the police,he has disposed of his guns,Can he shoot with a SC owner with a gun loaned to him by a SC holder? Or as I think not allowed to shoot having been banned from owning guns.

[bedwards1966]

A caution does not make him a prohibited person under the firearms act, so yes he can shoot under supervision as anybody else without a certificate can. He has not been 'banned' in any way, he simply no longer holds a certificate.

Can/will you say what the caution was for?

Edited September 7, 2012 by bedwards1966

[clayman]

Unless there are conditions attached to the revocation, he is now simply a person without a license. As such he can shoot with a loan gun as long as section 11.5 or section 11.6 of the firearms act is complied with. Simply being with a SGC holder is not enough in itself, but on land occupied ( ie owner or controller of the shooting rights) he can borrow that gun and shoot in their presence under 11.5, or under section 11.6 at a clay ground he can borrow a gun provided permission has been given by the 11.6 permit holder, who may appoint the SGC holder to supervise or delegate another person, coach, club member, accompanying scorer etc.

[quadimodo]

Thanks guys for the info, to bed wards 1966, he came home after rat shooting with a 410,on land adjoining the house,a distant neighbor came to see him about a previous matter,nothing to do with shooting,put the gun in kitchen ,escorted him of the property , police called ,gun still in kitchen,need I say more? oh well when your 70 one can do stupid things!

[JonathanL]

Hi Guys, A friend has had his FAC, and SC revoked after accepting a caution from the police,he has disposed of his guns,Can he shoot with a SC owner with a gun loaned to him by a SC holder? Or as I think not allowed to shoot having been banned from owning guns.

 

He is not a prohibited person. There is no 'ban' relating to him as regards firearms.

 

J.

 

Unless there are conditions attached to the revocation, he is now simply a person without a license. As such he can shoot with a loan gun as long as section 11.5 or section 11.6 of the firearms act is complied with. Simply being with a SGC holder is not enough in itself, but on land occupied ( ie owner or controller of the shooting rights) he can borrow that gun and shoot in their presence under 11.5, or under section 11.6 at a clay ground he can borrow a gun provided permission has been given by the 11.6 permit holder, who may appoint the SGC holder to supervise or delegate another person, coach, club member, accompanying scorer etc.

 

? How do you attach 'conditions' to a revocation?

 

J.

 

Thanks guys for the info, to bed wards 1966, he came home after rat shooting with a 410,on land adjoining the house,a distant neighbor came to see him about a previous matter,nothing to do with shooting,put the gun in kitchen ,escorted him of the property , police called ,gun still in kitchen,need I say more? oh well when your 70 one can do stupid things!

 

I fail to see why that would warrant a revocation. I would guess that that isn't the full story.

 

J.

[Sprackles]

Failing to secure shotgun.......I can believe that would attract a revocation with some forces.

[JonathanL]

Your cert requires you to take 'reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised persons having access to it' or thereabouts. From the description given he hasn't breached that condition.

 

J.

[bedwards1966]

Your cert requires you to take 'reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised persons having access to it' or thereabouts. From the description given he hasn't breached that condition.

 

J.

 

I think that it's very easy for the police to say that leaving it in a kitchen while off the premises, even for a fairly short period of time, is not taking 'reasonable precautions' to secure the firearm - especially when the SGC holder no doubt has a cabinet for the purpose of keeping the gun it. Hence they can easily say that he breached the conditions on his SGC.

 

Was he alone in the house, or was there anyone in there at the time who didn't hold a SGC? Did he leave the house door unlocked when he left to escort the person from his property?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, I think it would be almost impossible to argue that he had not breached the certificate conditions.

 

Whether that should result in a revocation is another matter, but I think that it's an easy one for them.

 

It's obviously quite possible that there is more to this (e.g neighbor issues), meaning that the police may have used this as an easy opportunity to take his guns, but that's not the point.

[JonathanL]

I think that it's very easy for the police to say that leaving it in a kitchen while off the premises, even for a fairly short period of time, is not taking 'reasonable precautions' to secure the firearm - especially when the SGC holder no doubt has a cabinet for the purpose of keeping the gun it. Hence they can easily say that he breached the conditions on his SGC.

 

Was he alone in the house, or was there anyone in there at the time who didn't hold a SGC? Did he leave the house door unlocked when he left to escort the person from his property?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, I think it would be almost impossible to argue that he had not breached the certificate conditions.

 

Whether that should result in a revocation is another matter, but I think that it's an easy one for them.

 

It's obviously quite possible that there is more to this (e.g neighbor issues), meaning that the police may have used this as an easy opportunity to take his guns, but that's not the point.

 

I agree in that I think there is certainly more to this than we are being told.

 

The key word is 'reasonable'. You do not have to employ measures to keep your guns from falling into unauthoised hands 'at all costs'.

 

If the facts are as reported then I fail to see how putting a shotgun on a table in order to eject an unwelcome, and potentially violent 'guest' fron the premises could equate to breaching the condition on your SGC.

 

J.

[Sprackles]

I suppose the time factor could play a part here.

If he finished shooting at 7 and Mr Plod visits at 10 and gun is still out then that could be deemed inadequate security.

[JonathanL]

I suppose the time factor could play a part here.

If he finished shooting at 7 and Mr Plod visits at 10 and gun is still out then that could be deemed inadequate security.

 

It could but that isn't what was said in the post. The basis of the story was that someone had their cert pulled because he'd put a shotgun on a table whilst seeing a trespasser off the premises.

 

As I say, there's probably a lot more to it than just that but if the story is accurately reported then I fail to see how that could lead to a revocation.

 

J.

[Robl]

To answer a question above.

I believe that some people can have their licence removed.

Other can have their licence removed and also be told they can’t legally touch a gun anymore.

 

I think these tend to be convicted violent criminals, or people with certain [mental] illnesses.

I’m not sure how that’s actually enforced in the real world though.

or if I'm not quite right in how I'm remembering of the law.

 

As for the story from the friend.

I don’t have all the facts.

 

Did the chap not have time to put the gun into a cabinet? Why not?

Was the ‘escorting off property’ one step away from assault?

Did he say ‘get off my land or I’ll get the shotgun from the kitchen and shoot you’?

Once the man had left the property why didn’t he return to the kitchen and put the shotgun away? Or were the police really that quick?

Is the ‘unrelated matter’ an ongoing violent feud?

Was the gun in the kitchen just a convenient excuse to take away the SGC from someone who perhaps shouldn’t have one any more – and it can be rather kindly noted as an old-mans mistake rather than a crazy old nutter having his guns taken away.

 

That’s all conjecture – without the facts I’d guess there’s a combination of a few of my suggestion and perhaps a few other things.

[bedwards1966]

To answer a question above.

I believe that some people can have their licence removed.

Other can have their licence removed and also be told they can’t legally touch a gun anymore.

 

I think these tend to be convicted violent criminals, or people with certain [mental] illnesses.

I’m not sure how that’s actually enforced in the real world though.

or if I'm not quite right in how I'm remembering of the law.

 

There has to be a reason for a certificate to be revoked, it can't just be that they want to. It's not usually hard for them, they basically have to be able to show that the person isn't fit to be entrusted with firearms - i.e that they could be a danger to someone (including themselves). I don't think many revocations are taken to court, and sometimes the police will take a certificate even when they have nothing that would stand up in court, but they manage to do this as most people simply don't challenge it. In many cases the police can find something if they really want to.

From the story we have I think the police could win this one in court, I think they would be successful in arguing that the certificate conditions were breached. I'm very sure that there is more to this story though.

 

I'm quite sure that the only way a person can not be allowed access to firearms is if they've had a prison sentence for enough time to make them a prohibited person. I'm sure there is no other way that a person can not be allowed access to firearms, including people with mental health issues. It is possible for a bail condition to not allow access to firearms, but that is not an ongoing prohibition.

[JonathanL]

To answer a question above.

I believe that some people can have their licence removed.

Other can have their licence removed and also be told they can’t legally touch a gun anymore.

 

I think these tend to be convicted violent criminals, or people with certain [mental] illnesses.

I’m not sure how that’s actually enforced in the real world though.

or if I'm not quite right in how I'm remembering of the law.

 

You can not be ordered never to touch a firearm again just because you have had a cert revoked. You only become prohibited from possessing firearms if you have been sentenced to a term of improsonment of more than 3 months - sectipn 21 of the Firearms Act 1968. Other than that I suppose that a court could impose it as a bail condition but the police have no power to impose such a criteria after a revocation.

 

J.

[quadimodo]

Hi Guys, thanks for your replies, a bit more info on the subject, there was some pushing and shoving on the road with the neighbour ,who had some previous form,his wife came out and said she had phoned for the police,they then walked away from each other,the friend returned home picked up his car keys and went out ,left the weapon propped up in the kitchen,it could be seen from 2 windows.Plod arrived about an hour later no one at home ,sees gun in kitchen calls in the armed response brigade,an hour later friend arrives home and was arrested for alleged assault and the offence of leaving a shotgun unsecured,all his guns removed.4 hours later released after excepting a caution but no charges given.He did not realise the consequences of excepting a caution,which if I remember is a guilty plea. He excepts the foolishness of his actions and believes he can reapply in the future for a SC.Most likely the law was correct,just goes to show how a minor/major thing can turn out.

[JonathanL]

Hi Guys, thanks for your replies, a bit more info on the subject, there was some pushing and shoving on the road with the neighbour ,who had some previous form,his wife came out and said she had phoned for the police,they then walked away from each other,the friend returned home picked up his car keys and went out ,left the weapon propped up in the kitchen,it could be seen from 2 windows.Plod arrived about an hour later no one at home ,sees gun in kitchen calls in the armed response brigade,an hour later friend arrives home and was arrested for alleged assault and the offence of leaving a shotgun unsecured,all his guns removed.4 hours later released after excepting a caution but no charges given.He did not realise the consequences of excepting a caution,which if I remember is a guilty plea. He excepts the foolishness of his actions and believes he can reapply in the future for a SC.Most likely the law was correct,just goes to show how a minor/major thing can turn out.

 

As i said previously - not the same as the original story. Hardly a 'flimsy' reason to revoke.

 

J.