guest1957 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 How about police cars on blue lights running speed cameras? There is statutory provision for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Regarding shooting insurance, why would you not be covered in this instance? You do not need a sgc to take out shooting insurance. You can go shooting (accompanied with a certificate holder ) and not have a sgc at all. Would my insurance not cover me then? On a different note, when your driving licence goes in for renewal every 10 year's, does that mean I can't drive and my insurance is void? My sgc is in for renewal, it has not been revoked. If the police stop me and check me on the pnc, I still come up as a sgc holder. The police will only need to see some id to verify who I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Regarding shooting insurance, why would you not be covered in this instance? You do not need a sgc to take out shooting insurance. You can go shooting (accompanied with a certificate holder ) and not have a sgc at all. Would my insurance not cover me then? On a different note, when your driving licence goes in for renewal every 10 year's, does that mean I can't drive and my insurance is void? My sgc is in for renewal, it has not been revoked. If the police stop me and check me on the pnc, I still come up as a sgc holder. The police will only need to see some id to verify who I am. Interesting point, I suspect you would come up as an EXPIRED SGC holder in this situation! Just my opinion, that could be interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Interesting point, I suspect you would come up as an EXPIRED SGC holder in this situation! Just my opinion, that could be interesting! A pnc check actually only says "firearms" that is all, no dates or any other information about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 A pnc check actually only says "firearms" that is all, no dates or any other information about it. True, but would it not mention them at all then if the SGC had expired, I don't know? ....and following any PNC check they only need to fire up the another pc and log onto the National Firearms Database to check in more detail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) An insurance company would resist very strongly paying out if there was an incident where the sgc/fac was expired and the shooter couldn't produce one in date. Edited November 16, 2012 by guest1957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 and we have this information as fact from where? bearing in mind you can shoot without one in various situations it would seem an interesting viewpoint, or are you saying if you shoot without a license then your BASC insurance wouldn't cover you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oops Missed Again Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 We must be very lucky down here in hillbilly land, we get very few delays with Avon and Somerset firearms dpt and they are very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) and we have this information as fact from where? bearing in mind you can shoot without one in various situations it would seem an interesting viewpoint, or are you saying if you shoot without a license then your BASC insurance wouldn't cover you? If there is any possibility of illegality insurance companies do not want to know. I'm sure in the basc insurance wording there is a clause to that effect. Shooting without one under the various exemptions is lawful, however there is a question as to whether any possession in the renewal gap created by firearm departments is. Edit to say: If Bill Harriman is of the opinion that possession in this case is illegal, do you think they will be rushing to honour claims where firearms have been involved in accidents when they believe them to be unlawfully held? Edited November 16, 2012 by guest1957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 If there is any possibility of illegality insurance companies do not want to know. I'm sure in the basc insurance wording there is a clause to that effect. Shooting without one under the various exemptions is lawful, however there is a question as to whether any possession in the renewal gap created by firearm departments is. Edit to say: If Bill Harriman is of the opinion that possession in this case is illegal, do you think they will be rushing to honour claims where firearms have been involved in accidents when they believe them to be unlawfully held? you must have a different copy of the key facts to me as it isn't mentioned on mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 210 Posts so far, a lot of legs left in this one yet............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 you must have a different copy of the key facts to me as it isn't mentioned on mine You are right, it isn't on the key facts document. I still don't believe they'd cough without a battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitchrat Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 hang on that story has changed a bit from the FEO checking security taking your guns to customs holding you. Herts if you had an application in in proper time and it was their fault do not seize guns especially the civilian FEO who checks security and goes over your application doesn't. Unless there was another reason that got highlighted during the check Turning up for a flight with a gun not on your ticket is an obvious issue and i wouldn't expect anyone to get through customs like that But how could I get it on my new ticket?? Sure it's a different scenario but just another way they can catch you out through no fault of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitchrat Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Were you written to, saying to keep or store your guns with a qualified person? No they just turned up "to check my security". To be fair this was a long time ago and since then, nothing but good service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 I know all this. You are missing the point though. The media don't run stories unless it sells papers. The story on its own probably isn't significant enough. The point I was making was what happens when it comes to light as part of something much bigger - such as someone like Atherton or Bird? It will be horrendously bad for us which is something we can all very much do without. J. Well that's a good point and fair comment,but I don't think I'm missing the point.I agree,it wouldn't do us(shooters)any favours at all,but the reason for shooters being faced with such a predicament is surely down to licensing authorities,and in the scenario you envisage above....in the investigation following a shooting spree,surely it would be the licensing authorities in the media glare.After all,all we are guilty of is abiding by licensing authority policy;which this practise is. I have no doubt the ensuing overhaul of licensing practises would do us great damage;so what to do? Do we pressurise our shooting organisations to get this sorted? A consistent refusal to hand in valid tickets at renewal would be a start,but would we be within our rights to submit an invoice to issuing authorities for expenses incurred for forceful storage at RFD's if left without a valid ticket due to a refusal to issue a section 7 and failure to renew in time?Has anyone tried this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Well that's a good point and fair comment,but I don't think I'm missing the point.I agree,it wouldn't do us(shooters)any favours at all,but the reason for shooters being faced with such a predicament is surely down to licensing authorities,and in the scenario you envisage above....in the investigation following a shooting spree,surely it would be the licensing authorities in the media glare.After all,all we are guilty of is abiding by licensing authority policy;which this practise is. I have no doubt the ensuing overhaul of licensing practises would do us great damage;so what to do? Do we pressurise our shooting organisations to get this sorted? A consistent refusal to hand in valid tickets at renewal would be a start,but would we be within our rights to submit an invoice to issuing authorities for expenses incurred for forceful storage at RFD's if left without a valid ticket due to a refusal to issue a section 7 and failure to renew in time?Has anyone tried this? We need to stand and fight this. Your right in that the licencing departments would get into trouble over this, but so would the shooters who are breaking the law. Reading and arguing with people on this thread, I find it incredible just how many shooters are quite happy to break the law. Considering how we're generally the most law abiding people around, it's surprising how many think it's OK to possess firearms illegally. This (and not being insured at the same time) is not going to help the future of shooting if/when it gets out. Shooting struggles enough as it is. I don't see any reason why we should hand in our certificates at renewal time, but that's not really the issue as we are still a certificate holder until the old one expires (though it's inconvenient for buying ammo, and for proving we are a certificate holder). We should all demand a temp cert when it looks like there is a danger of not getting our new certificate in time, and if we don't get one then we should lodge a complaint each time. I don't think temp certs are a good answer as you still can't buy ammo, and if it doesn't cover S5 ammo then I think you'd end up having to store expanding ammo at a RFD, leaving you with useless rifles. Perhaps a complaint could/should still be made even when they issue a temp cert, as it's not a proper solution. We should also claim the costs of the gun storage from the police as well, if you apply for a renewal in time and they fail to issue a new certificate on time, forcing you to store your guns elsewhere, I'm sure they would have to pay. The number of complaints and the amount of money they'd be paying out for RFD charges would probably be a good way of changing things so that renewals were dealt with in time. Edited November 16, 2012 by bedwards1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 We need to stand and fight this. Your right in that the licencing departments would get into trouble over this, but so would the shooters who are breaking the law. Reading and arguing with people on this thread, I find it incredible just how many shooters are quite happy to break the law. Considering how we're generally the most law abiding people around, it's surprising how many think it's OK to possess firearms illegally. This (and not being insured at the same time) is not going to help the future of shooting if/when it gets out. Shooting struggles enough as it is. I don't see any reason why we should hand in our certificates at renewal time, but that's not really the issue as we are still a certificate holder until the old one expires (though it's inconvenient for buying ammo, and for proving we are a certificate holder). We should all demand a temp cert when it looks like there is a danger of not getting our new certificate in time, and if we don't get one then we should lodge a complaint each time. I don't think temp certs are a good answer as you still can't buy ammo, and if it doesn't cover S5 ammo then I think you'd end up having to store expanding ammo at a RFD, leaving you with useless rifles. Perhaps a complaint could/should still be made even when they issue a temp cert, as it's not a proper solution. We should also claim the costs of the gun storage from the police as well, if you apply for a renewal in time and they fail to issue a new certificate on time, forcing you to store your guns elsewhere, I'm sure they would have to pay. The number of complaints and the amount of money they'd be paying out for RFD charges would probably be a good way of changing things so that renewals were dealt with in time. Just out of Interest, how would you deal with Hampshire's back log, currently 6 months behind?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Regarding shooting insurance, why would you not be covered in this instance? You do not need a sgc to take out shooting insurance. You can go shooting (accompanied with a certificate holder ) and not have a sgc at all. Would my insurance not cover me then? On a different note, when your driving licence goes in for renewal every 10 year's, does that mean I can't drive and my insurance is void? My sgc is in for renewal, it has not been revoked. If the police stop me and check me on the pnc, I still come up as a sgc holder. The police will only need to see some id to verify who I am. The point is that you cannot take out insurance cover on an illegal activity or on illegally possessed property. Your driving licence does not 'go in for renewal' but the photo on it expires. Your point about being checked on the PNC entirely misses the point of the thread. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 A pnc check actually only says "firearms" that is all, no dates or any other information about it. Really? You have proof of that, of course? What does 'fireams' actually mean on the PNC? Realistically, it could mean anyone from a person being connected to a 1ft/lb airgun up to a drug dealer murdering people with an illegal machinegun. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 and we have this information as fact from where? bearing in mind you can shoot without one in various situations it would seem an interesting viewpoint, or are you saying if you shoot without a license then your BASC insurance wouldn't cover you? You have to be shooting LEGALLY. If you aren't (like you are shooting with your mate with his guns who's cert has expired) then you are probably not insured. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 you must have a different copy of the key facts to me as it isn't mentioned on mine It goes to more fundamental levels than the publshed 'key facts'. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SakoQuad Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 regarding insurance - as said previously, I have recently had discussion with BASC Firearms Section and their insurers on a different matter but was told categorically that the insurance would be void if the shooter was involved in an incident where there was any illegality involved. I suggest that using a gun for which one isn't in possession of a valid, current certificate could / would be an example of one situation where you could find yourself without insurance cover in the event of an incident. You don't have to have insurance for SG's but most people I know think it's pretty important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 You are right, it isn't on the key facts document. I still don't believe they'd cough without a battle. You are quite correct. Indeed, it is unlawful for an insurer to provide insurance for an illegal activity. This is why if you cause a crash whilst over the drink-drive limit your insurer does not have to pay out your losses. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 You are quite correct. Indeed, it is unlawful for an insurer to provide insurance for an illegal activity. This is why if you cause a crash whilst over the drink-drive limit your insurer does not have to pay out your losses. J. Don't worry, I'm pretty confident how pretty much everything discussed in this thread could play out in a worse case scenario but the discussion is so far advanced I'm just not going to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 No they just turned up "to check my security". To be fair this was a long time ago and since then, nothing but good service. They never just 'turn up'. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts