JonathanL Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 After agreeing that what you said seems to make sense on the thread you mention, I ended up speaking to a former lawyer over this. I was told this means that, as it's quite clear what the police intend regarding conditions such as the one you post above, and also 'open/closed' certificate conditions, you would not win if you ended up in court over a breech of conditions. I don't agree. The De minimus rule doesn't have any application here. The rule is concerned with very minor, trifling breaches of law or contractual agreements which, to all intrents and purposes, result in no harm and which would result in an unfairly harsh outcome if they were taken to their ultimate conclusion. You cannot use that rule to make something say something which it clearly doesn't and a person can never be expected to read some secret and unclear meaning into on official document. De minimus is a rule which is used as a legal shield, not a sword. In other words, it's a defensive doctrine, not on oppresive one. You cannot prosecute someone on 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you know what I mean guv'nor?' sort of basis. Legal documents are interpreted upon their literal meaning as long as the words used are not given any special meaning by statute. The condition which I posted makes the requirement that I use the firearms for target shooting on suitable ranges. It does not say that I must only use them for target shooting. As far as the De minimus rule goes it would only ever have application were an FAC holder to do something that he was specifcally not allowed to do because of a condition on his cert. To reiterate something I said on the other thread. An FAC issued to a club does actually use the word 'only' in relation to target shooting. That is because the certificate is issued free of charge and target shooting under the auspices of an approved club is the only reason it can be issued free so they word it like that to stop you using the guns for other things. If the club pays for the cert then the word 'only' would be removed. Therefore, it must logically follow that any certificate without that wording does indeed allow the firearms to be used for other things without having to ask permission, surely? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 The condition ANY OTHER LAWFUL QUARRY was discussed, agreed and introduced by ACPO a few years back now, they all agreed it, but loads of regions then decided NOT to use it. Anyway, ACPO does not make the law, they are just a Gentlemans club (EDIT, sorry, there are a couple of Female Chief Constables), anything they do has no legal force, we have a Government and Monarch for that. Yes. It should be always be made very clear that ACPO is a private organisation (even though they are partly publicly funded yet refuse to publish their accounts) which has no power to do anything at all. Parliament makes the law in this country, not a group of unelected, over-paid civil servants. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I don't agree. The De minimus rule doesn't have any application here. The rule is concerned with very minor, trifling breaches of law or contractual agreements which, to all intrents and purposes, result in no harm and which would result in an unfairly harsh outcome if they were taken to their ultimate conclusion. You cannot use that rule to make something say something which it clearly doesn't and a person can never be expected to read some secret and unclear meaning into on official document. De minimus is a rule which is used as a legal shield, not a sword. In other words, it's a defensive doctrine, not on oppresive one. You cannot prosecute someone on 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you know what I mean guv'nor?' sort of basis. Legal documents are interpreted upon their literal meaning as long as the words used are not given any special meaning by statute. The condition which I posted makes the requirement that I use the firearms for target shooting on suitable ranges. It does not say that I must only use them for target shooting. As far as the De minimus rule goes it would only ever have application were an FAC holder to do something that he was specifcally not allowed to do because of a condition on his cert. To reiterate something I said on the other thread. An FAC issued to a club does actually use the word 'only' in relation to target shooting. That is because the certificate is issued free of charge and target shooting under the auspices of an approved club is the only reason it can be issued free so they word it like that to stop you using the guns for other things. If the club pays for the cert then the word 'only' would be removed. Therefore, it must logically follow that any certificate without that wording does indeed allow the firearms to be used for other things without having to ask permission, surely? J. Common sense tells me your right, however I'm not a lawyer and I really don't know. I simply asked someone with far more knowledge on these matters and posted his answer - I obviously know this doesn't mean he can't be wrong. Out of curiosity, do you have a legal background? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 so some of us should loose our current ability to control certain species by your reckoning Kes? No Al4X. I am trying to suggest the common condition of all legal quarry on any gun would allow the shooter to decide - obviously not Deer for a .22 but in accordance with the deer Acts for.223 and so forth- if you like the 'rules' we all shoot by. ACPO is an influential body not just for Chief Cons but with the HO. From ACPO via the HO to Chief Cons in the form of Guidance is the route to make national rules. We also now have Police Commissioners who can dec ide priorities but not policing but the maaner of policing affects policy as it affects finance so, under the guise of efficiency could a Commissioner not ask awkward questions of a chief con if HO guidance was unequivocal ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 No Al4X. I am trying to suggest the common condition of all legal quarry on any gun would allow the shooter to decide - obviously not Deer for a .22 but in accordance with the deer Acts for.223 and so forth- if you like the 'rules' we all shoot by. ACPO is an influential body not just for Chief Cons but with the HO. From ACPO via the HO to Chief Cons in the form of Guidance is the route to make national rules. We also now have Police Commissioners who can dec ide priorities but not policing but the maaner of policing affects policy as it affects finance so, under the guise of efficiency could a Commissioner not ask awkward questions of a chief con if HO guidance was unequivocal ? How can you have "Unequivocal" "Guidance", that is a contradiction and guarantees nothing, and ACPO and the Commissioners have NO power over other regions, so it's just a chat and then do what you like from Region to Region, just as they do now, how/why will anything change. ACPO DID agree NATIONALLY to implement ANY OTHER LAWFUL QUARRY and look what a regional lottery that turned out to be! The only way to solve this is Legislation, guidence doesn't work! :hmm: Anyway, what are we debating, I've completely lost this thread, how did we get here from 243 variation? 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.