JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Perfectly correct, policy is not Law and in some instances should be challenged before it becomes accepted as the norm, however for the grant of a SGC, if advice from the licensing dept was to put it down then why make waves when all you want is to go shooting. Once granted then you can think about splitting hairs. I see what you are saying and I am not suggesting that you can't put it down if you want to. It may or may not be advantageous to do so and different people will have different views on that. The original question though was whether you were required to put it down. You are not required to and those people saying that you must do so are wrong. I think that it's very important to get things correct when it comes to firearms licensing as people should know precisely where they stand on matters. Also, it can save a great deal of worry. What would someone think if they had just posted their form off and had answered all the questions honestly, including the one about declaring convictions, and had then read that people here were saying that it was a requirement to declare cautions? That person may now be stressing about being potentially prosecuted for making a false statement to obtain a certificate. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) Fitness to be Entrusted with Firearms This section offers guidance on the issues of a person's 'fitness' to be entrusted with a firearm. It follows Lord Cullen's recommendation in his report into the shootings at Dunblane. It is issued without prejudice to what a court may decide constitutes "fitness" and contains a list of factors which are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. Legislative provisions Section 27(1)(a) of the 1968 Act (as amended) states that: "A firearm certificate shall be granted where the Chief Officer of Police is satisfied that: a) the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which Section 1 of this Act applies, and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm." Section 30A(2)(a) of the 1968 Act (as amended) states that: " The firearm certificate may be revoked if the Chief Officer of Police has reason to believe: that the holder is of intemperate habits or unsound mind or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm." Determining "fitness" The Chief Officer of Police must, when assessing an application for, or revocation of, a firearm certificate, consider the following factors: Prohibited persons and others known, or suspected, of criminal involvement The matter of prohibited persons is explained elsewhere. Consideration must also be given to any previous convictions or cautions held by applicants and, in particular, any convictions which involve the use of a firearm and offences involving violence, or offences involving dishonesty or a disregard for public safety, or cautions held by such persons for offences such as failure to comply with conditions on a Firearm Certificate. Information contained in criminal intelligence will be assessed paying particular regard to alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use of violence or threat of violence, or firearms, or evidence of associations with known criminals. Where an applicant is a foreign national or has lived several years overseas, enquiries will be made with authorities of the country concerned that the applicant has no criminal record overseas that would have a bearing on their 'fitness'. Intemperate habits Evidence of alcohol or drug abuse may indicate that a person is unfitted to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self control. Evidence of aggressive or anti-social behaviour which may include domestic disputes or evidence of hostility likely to lead to violent acts against particular groups categorised by, for example, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or class. Evidence of disturbing and unusual behaviour of a kind which gives rise to well-founded fears about the future misuse of firearms. A pattern of abuse will generally be regarded more seriously than a single incident, although isolated incidents will not be disregarded in building up an overall picture of the person concerned and their fitness to possess firearms. Unsound mind This is a particularly difficult and sensitive area and it is not possible to provide a definition which covers every eventuality. It is simply not practical for a psychiatric assessment to be carried out on each applicant, to check on a state of mind with particular attention to that person's suitability to possess firearms. However, a Chief Officer of Police must be alert to any situation where an applicant or existing certificate holder has exhibited, or is exhibiting signs of depression, suicidal tendencies, long-standing or intermittent periods of either emotional instability or unpredictable behaviour. This would include persons who had been detained under the civil powers of the Mental Health Act 1983 on the basis of their behaviour posing a risk to the public. Particular attention will be paid to anyone who has previously been subject to a hospital order, guardianship order or restriction order, under the provisions of the same Act, following the commission of offences. Although there is no correlation between periods of imprisonment and periods of detention under the Mental Health Act, it is important for the nature of such offences and the length of such orders to be examined in depth, in these situations. It should be borne in mind that simply because a person has received treatment in the past for certain illnesses such as depression, it does not automatically follow that they are unfit to possess a firearm now. It is simply one of the many factors to be considered in the light of all other evidence relating to the applicant's character and history. Edited November 19, 2012 by Graham M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagiKelly Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 You need to include it. https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q562.htm You all seem to be clinging to this bit. Cautions (including reprimands and warnings) are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). This means that if you are asked on an application form if you have a caution you can reply 'no'. For conditional cautions it would be after 3 months since the caution was issued, up until that time you would have to reply 'yes'. and forgetting about this bit. If the application form says that the post is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 then the caution must be disclosed, no matter how long ago it was given. Your application is exempt from the act and so your caution must be listed even though it is a spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Fitness to be Entrusted with Firearms This section offers guidance on the issues of a person's 'fitness' to be entrusted with a firearm. It follows Lord Cullen's recommendation in his report into the shootings at Dunblane. It is issued without prejudice to what a court may decide constitutes "fitness" and contains a list of factors which are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. Legislative provisions Section 27(1)(a) of the 1968 Act (as amended) states that: "A firearm certificate shall be granted where the Chief Officer of Police is satisfied that: a) the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which Section 1 of this Act applies, and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm." Section 30A(2)(a) of the 1968 Act (as amended) states that: " The firearm certificate may be revoked if the Chief Officer of Police has reason to believe: that the holder is of intemperate habits or unsound mind or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm." Determining "fitness" The Chief Officer of Police must, when assessing an application for, or revocation of, a firearm certificate, consider the following factors: Prohibited persons and others known, or suspected, of criminal involvement The matter of prohibited persons is explained elsewhere. Consideration must also be given to any previous convictions or cautions held by applicants and, in particular, any convictions which involve the use of a firearm and offences involving violence, or offences involving dishonesty or a disregard for public safety, or cautions held by such persons for offences such as failure to comply with conditions on a Firearm Certificate. Information contained in criminal intelligence will be assessed paying particular regard to alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use of violence or threat of violence, or firearms, or evidence of associations with known criminals. Where an applicant is a foreign national or has lived several years overseas, enquiries will be made with authorities of the country concerned that the applicant has no criminal record overseas that would have a bearing on their 'fitness'. Intemperate habits Evidence of alcohol or drug abuse may indicate that a person is unfitted to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self control. Evidence of aggressive or anti-social behaviour which may include domestic disputes or evidence of hostility likely to lead to violent acts against particular groups categorised by, for example, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or class. Evidence of disturbing and unusual behaviour of a kind which gives rise to well-founded fears about the future misuse of firearms. A pattern of abuse will generally be regarded more seriously than a single incident, although isolated incidents will not be disregarded in building up an overall picture of the person concerned and their fitness to possess firearms. Unsound mind This is a particularly difficult and sensitive area and it is not possible to provide a definition which covers every eventuality. It is simply not practical for a psychiatric assessment to be carried out on each applicant, to check on a state of mind with particular attention to that person's suitability to possess firearms. However, a Chief Officer of Police must be alert to any situation where an applicant or existing certificate holder has exhibited, or is exhibiting signs of depression, suicidal tendencies, long-standing or intermittent periods of either emotional instability or unpredictable behaviour. This would include persons who had been detained under the civil powers of the Mental Health Act 1983 on the basis of their behaviour posing a risk to the public. Particular attention will be paid to anyone who has previously been subject to a hospital order, guardianship order or restriction order, under the provisions of the same Act, following the commission of offences. Although there is no correlation between periods of imprisonment and periods of detention under the Mental Health Act, it is important for the nature of such offences and the length of such orders to be examined in depth, in these situations. It should be borne in mind that simply because a person has received treatment in the past for certain illnesses such as depression, it does not automatically follow that they are unfit to possess a firearm now. It is simply one of the many factors to be considered in the light of all other evidence relating to the applicant's character and history. And the point to posting that was what, precisely? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 To add a touch of reality to a rather bizarre debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 You need to include it. https://www.askthe.p...ontent/Q562.htm You all seem to be clinging to this bit. and forgetting about this bit. Your application is exempt from the act and so your caution must be listed even though it is a spent. So, what on earth does a page giving advice on applying for jobs in the police have to do with firearm certificate applications? To repeat - you do not have to declare a caution because you have not been asked to do so. Not declaring a caution cannot be held against you nor would it ever be. The reason for getting the caution might be reason to refuse but not the fact that you did not declare it. J. To add a touch of reality to a rather bizarre debate. What reality? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagiKelly Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 So, what on earth does a page giving advice on applying for jobs in the police have to do with firearm certificate applications? Nothing, which is why I have not linked to one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Nothing, which is why I have not linked to one. You didn't, I read it too quickly. It's still irrelavant to the discussion though because the FAC/SGC application form doesn't ask you to declare cautions. If it did you would have a point but, then again, if that were the case then we wouldn't be having the discussion to begin with. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 The fact of the matter is that by putting it down, there will be no delays, further questions, confusions or appeals that may arise if it is not put down. This is therefore the most expedient solution. Law isn't about trying to constantly get one over on people of the back of the minutiae of wording, it is about effective and expedient solutions. What I have offered is my opinion on how to achieve that. You want an argument for argument sake, and I've got better things to be doing. The problem with the position you take is you are potentially causing difficulties for others who follow what you say. Unlike asking for further land checks etc. etc. this is a non-issue because it isn't going to restrict anyone further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 The fact of the matter is that by putting it down, there will be no delays, further questions, confusions or appeals that may arise if it is not put down. This is therefore the most expedient solution. Law isn't about trying to constantly get one over on people of the back of the minutiae of wording, it is about effective and expedient solutions. What I have offered is my opinion on how to achieve that. You want an argument for argument sake, and I've got better things to be doing. The problem with the position you take is you are potentially causing difficulties for others who follow what you say. Unlike asking for further land checks etc. etc. this is a non-issue because it isn't going to restrict anyone further. I'm not trying to get anything over on anyone. I'm saying that a question deserves a correct answer. You can add whatever further advice you like but the initial question should be addressed with a correct response. I'm not here for an argument for arguments' sake. The fact of the matter is that you are not required to declare cautions so it is untrue to say otherwise, let alone to put it in capitals to get the point across, which is what someone did earler. As I said, that could cause a great deal of worry to someone who quite properly hasn't declared a caution on their form and has already posted off the application. On the subject of 'getting one over' on people. The fact that people are aware of the actual point of law enables them to not let the licensing department 'get one over' on them. There have been a couple of people who have said that the licensing department had suggested to them that they were lucky to get their cert due to not declaring a caution and who had believed them. I was talking to someone a few weeks back who had the same thing happen to him - not a caution but something or other. The guy who was interviewing him asked if there was anything else that should have been on the form and on about the third time of asking he recalled some contact with the police of a few years back. I forget the specific details but it wasn't a caution and may not have even involved him getting into trouble. He was told by the guy that had he not revealed the details then he wouldn't have been granted the cert due to his dishonesty. It's complete cobblers, of course. There is not the slightest chance that not noting a caution, repremand, fixed penalty or that fact that you said hello to a copper on the beat one day five years ago is going to delay your application. None at all. If they want to discuss the particular caution with you then they will do so whether you disclosed it on the form or not. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del T Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 On my application I just put down the odd fine for not wearing a seatbelt,parking fines etc. I have been to the cop shop on other trivial matters and have been questioned about stuff but never been arrested, given a caution and never charged. Surely I didn't have to mention those things as I haven't been charged,arrested or cautioned?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 On my application I just put down the odd fine for not wearing a seatbelt,parking fines etc. I have been to the cop shop on other trivial matters and have been questioned about stuff but never been arrested, given a caution and never charged. Surely I didn't have to mention those things as I haven't been charged,arrested or cautioned?? You are correct that you do not have to mention them. Being charged, arrested or cautioned is not relevant. You only have to declare convictions, ie; that fact that you have been adjudged guilty of something by a court. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del T Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Thanks Jonathan Reading this thread got my mind wondering! it seems some people tell them about things when they don't legally have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 it seems some people tell them about things when they don't legally have to. Yep. It makes things so much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washerboy Posted November 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 brilliant lads and lasses another thing i dont own a cheque book, can i pay cash at my local police station to a fire arms officer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 brilliant lads and lasses another thing i dont own a cheque book, can i pay cash at my local police station to a fire arms officer? Not sure if they take cash, to be honest. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 brilliant lads and lasses another thing i dont own a cheque book, can i pay cash at my local police station to a fire arms officer? Suffolk Police claim only to accept cheque or postal order. Problem with a postal order for £50 is the 12.5% premium you have to pay to the post office. Can you order a free cheque book from your bank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 brilliant lads and lasses another thing i dont own a cheque book, can i pay cash at my local police station to a fire arms officer? Yes you can pay cash (in Essex at least). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 And the point to posting that was what, precisely? J. Just to get a stupid reply I suppose... Jeeze I was just trying to put forward the way the police think when it comes to applying for a FAC. Stuff it...... Can't seem to get into this forum anyway. G.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SniperCWF Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 The form asks for convictions and convictions alone. End of story. Failure to disclose anything else is utterly irrelevant to your application. This is supported by the BASC Guide to applying for a shotgun licence (found in the members info section) I didn't declare my caution, however, and it was brought up during FEO visit, but I showed him the print off of this from BASC to show I'd sought advice before applying, and he was satisfied with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rimfire4969 Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Shove it on then nothing can go wrong. You are being open and honest. JonathanL will be along soon to tell you otherwise, but just pop it down. Right on all counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washerboy Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) forms filled in, photos signed , postal order done(£6.25 extra )...sat in post box...the waiting game begains Edited November 20, 2012 by washerboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Just to get a stupid reply I suppose... Jeeze I was just trying to put forward the way the police think when it comes to applying for a FAC. Stuff it...... Can't seem to get into this forum anyway. G.M. The point is though that it doesn't relate to the discussion. The fact that the police consider this stuff isn't the point, you only have to declare what they ask you on the form. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 errrmmm! one of my countersignatorys was an unsavoury character, he has some history with the police, all behind him now though i'm pleased to say. i also have a couple of cautions from my youth, i didn't declare these but still got my sgc/fac with no question about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 errrmmm! one of my countersignatorys was an unsavoury character, he has some history with the police, all behind him now though i'm pleased to say. i also have a couple of cautions from my youth, i didn't declare these but still got my sgc/fac with no question about them. Precisely my point. The people who are saying that you MUST declare them are wrong. J. 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.