Would I get a SGC?

[aris]

why on earth would anybody feel the need to fill a 6 cell maglite with lead? i would imagine they would easily crack a skull open with just the batteries in them , very worrying regardless of age or immaturity

I think he said he just filled the tail cap - where the spare bulb is stored.

[Oli]

I think he said he just filled the tail cap - where the spare bulb is stored.

 

pretty unlucky getting caught/prosecuted, especially if the torch still worked. Presume there must have been some kind of melee for it to be found?

[English archer]

 

pretty unlucky getting caught/prosecuted, especially if the torch still worked

The woman I dumped at the time reported me.

 

So what happened to the other party? Was he too found guilty of assault?After all, he attacked you with a weapon.

Yes he was, adding further shock to my not guilty by way of self defence being rejected.

[Daks]

To all those that have criticised me, the modded torch, fair enough, i was an idiot, but as a security guard working alone, i felt safer with it.

 

I often work in some bad parts of London, think I'll start carrying a knife, just to feel safer you know ?

 

As for the pensioner you assulted, guess he's lucky you wasn't armed with a modified weapon, when your car failed to start!

[Blunderbust]

Having read this post and the varied replies I can see the logic on both sides for and against. I am pleased for you that you have had a positive conversation with your FAD and even without this post I would have said to you that it would do no harm to put the forms in. At least you would know what is required and could have worked on it. Good luck with your application and please keep us informed on how you get on and more importantly which gun you get. Enjoy your shooting.

[Steppenwolf]

I often work in some bad parts of London, think I'll start carrying a knife, just to feel safer you know ?

No that wouldn't work unless you were proficient at knife fighting, still better than bare fists eh?

[straightshooter1]

just thought I would add my 5 pence worth in even though it's a little late

You are not a prohibited person under the firearms so act so apply and let the people who's job it is to decide, decide......

+1 you have a right as a citizen of the UK to own a shotgun that is why the onus is on the firearms department to show why you shouldn't own a Shotgun rather than the other way round which is the case when you apply for a firearms licence

 

A clearer definition of a prohibited person below

 

i) Prohibited People

 

Certain people are prohibited from acquiring a Firearm Certificate.

 

Section 21 of the 1968 Act sets out restrictions on the possession of firearms by certain categories of persons convicted of crimes. In short, persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more are never allowed to possess firearms and persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than three years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release. Having served a custodial sentence, upon release, a person is informed of the provisions of section 21 of the Act.

 

Persons prohibited under section 21 of the 1968 Act may not possess any firearms or ammunition, not just those for which a certificate is required. Thus the prohibition extends to all air weapons, airgun pellets and shotgun ammunition[2].

 

Provisions within the Act enable a person who is prohibited by the provisions of the section to apply to the Crown Court (or the Sheriff in Scotland) in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act for the removal of the prohibition. This is usually done where the offence has not involved violence or firearms.[3] This can be opposed by the police.

 

A court in England and Wales that imposes a suspended sentence may order the forfeiture of a firearm or cancel a firearm or shotgun certificate. Even if a court does not make such an order, chief officers of police have the power to revoke a firearm or shotgun certificate in certain circumstances.

 

as you can see from the above the police need to make an application to ban an individual which my understanding of this chaps offences never happened

 

Nobody can second guess this but for the ownership of firearms -no conviction is ever 'spent' and the police can, quite rightly, consider your convictions in the light of an application. You'd be better shooting clays and borrowing one. I would think twice about anyone who had 2 convictions for anything as serious as yours. Sadly it wasn't just the one instance when you were young and could possibly be excused. My guess would be - no chance.

 

this is not true if a firearms department decided to refuse a SGC solely on the grounds of a spent conviction and that party decided to apeal in a court of law the firearms departments decision would be overturned under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

 

Thanks for all the replies, positive and negative.

 

I call the firearms licencing depertment today, and had a chat with a very nice lady there.

 

She listened to my circumstances, she told me the convictions shouldnt be a problem, and she is sending me the forms to apply.

 

 

To all those that have criticised me, the modded torch, fair enough, i was an idiot, but as a security guard working alone, i felt safer with it.

 

As for the assult, who can honestly say, that when been attacked with a shovel, and faced with a non starting car, wouldnt push the other guy to the floor, to allow your escape from the situation? And yes i know you only have my side of the story, but as you have seen from my op, i am open and honest, and dont lie. My soliciter was shocked that my self defence claim was dismissed, but the fit agile 61 year old that attacked me, was a very different personality to the frail old man with a stick that shuffled into court.

 

Best of luck to you with your application and you should have no problem getting your SGC as long as you can demonstrate that you are a level headed and law abiding individual now. and if you do have a problem speak to BASC legal department as this sort of thing comes up a lot in fact i would get my membership now

Edited April 16, 2013 by straightshooter1

[Field and Clay]

Give it a go!

But to stand any chance make sure you have some very good answers if you get as far as an interview!!

[Mikaveli]

To the OP:

• Have you been arrested any other times in your life (and what for)?
• Have you ever had any serious driving offences (bans, DUI, no insurance etc.)?

If either of the answers to the above is "Yes..." I'd be very surprised if they granted you an SGC (or FAC).

 

Apply for one - you'll lose nothing but will know for definite.

[leetodd]

To the OP:

• Have you been arrested any other times in your life (and what for)?
• Have you ever had any serious driving offences (bans, DUI, no insurance etc.)?

If either of the answers to the above is "Yes..." I'd be very surprised if they granted you an SGC (or FAC).

 

Apply for one - you'll lose nothing but will know for definite.

the insurance doesnt count i have just been granted one and i have a conviction for no insurance best asking the police before applying thats what i did

[English archer]

I have no other convictions.

 

I hold an S.I.A security badge, that should go in my favour.

 

I am already a BASC member.

[Mikaveli]

the insurance doesnt count i have just been granted one and i have a conviction for no insurance best asking the police before applying thats what i did

 

It does count - probably not enough to get your SGC refused on it's own, but most FEO's will use anything like that to build a picture of how law abiding and responsible you are overall and how recently you've been 'naughty'.

[leetodd]

It does count - probably not enough to get your SGC refused on it's own, but most FEO's will use anything like that to build a picture of how law abiding and responsible you are overall and how recently you've been 'naughty'.

i have loads of speeding offences when i was driving wagons i declared the lot but before i filled anything in i went to the police and i was told driving offences didnt count thats all i can go off

[hedd-wyn]

I was caught without insurance years ago, didn't affect my application for a SGC

[HDAV]

IIRC no convictions are spent (have to be disclosed) in regards to firearms (FAC and SGC) applications, penalty points are a conviction thus must be declared....

 

Doesn't mean they will prevent a cert being granted, but must be disclosed. Firearms law is immensely complex and I wouldn't expect all police staff to be au fair with the rules/laws. Hence why there is a specialist dept. who aren't always right either....

[Big Mat]

I have no other convictions.

 

I hold an S.I.A security badge, that should go in my favour.

 

I am already a BASC member.

why should holding a security badge go in your favour?

[Kes]

this is not true if a firearms department decided to refuse a SGC solely on the grounds of a spent conviction and that party decided to apeal in a court of law the firearms departments decision would be overturned under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

 

This was straighshooters response to my post.

I disagree with your comments simply because it says so in the Home Office guidance and I believe this is right. Also, a conviction for violence, should, in my opinion, preclude anyone from owning a shotgun or FAC.

In the present times I would hope discretion remains 'the better part of valour' in deciding who does and who does not get firearms. Possessing firearms may be a 'right' but it is a 'right' qualified by an assessment of the danger the possession of firearms might pose to the public at large. In the end it is always the Chief Cons decision. I trust he will make the 'right' one if you forgive the pun.

[markyboy]

Just to say there is a guy who shoots on the same farm as me for pigeon who has done time , serious assault, threatening behaviour , violence etc etc etc ! You name it hes done it all in past! Now a very changed man ! Has a shot gun licence and a firearm licence.

I know guys who have gotten into fights and had there tickets off them they eventually get them back !

I know a man who got into a fight many years ago punched a man knocked him out fell back and killed him! Got a hefty man slaughter sentence and now has shotguns but not allowed rifles!

I think if u previously had a certificate your deemed to be of sound mind but people can get into silly situations and have a "blip" in their life's and the police will have this noted it may be easier to get it back.

If your not a known person to them and your only history with them is violence then it may be a struggle but you can apply as many times as you want, write a letter to chief constable explain yourself ask to speak to field officer etc etc.

[JonathanL]

the insurance doesnt count i have just been granted one and i have a conviction for no insurance best asking the police before applying thats what i did

 

This is the point here. Just because you have a cvonviction for X does not automatically mean that you won't be granted a certificate. The only thing which would automatically result in a refusal would be if you were a prohibited person.

 

In order to refuse you the police need to show that you present a danger to public safety or the peace at the time that you made the application. You may have been a grossly unsuitable and dangerous person ten years ago but if you aren't when you make the application then they would have a hard time refusing you as they would have no grounds.

 

J.

[Sx3 clay breaker]

Asking as you stay out of trouble for a year or two should be ok I think mate if you was a looney tune you wouldent come on a hunting forum asking weather you'll get it

 

Atb scott

[ordnance]

Apply and see i know people with firearms that have done worse.

 

 

Quote. Anyone can take up shooting, and with it the opportunity to own their own firearms, unless they are a prohibited person, this, in short, is a person who has been

 

imprisoned for a sentence of 3 or more years. Persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than 3 years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release.

[markyboy]

Sensible last 3 posts there fellas ! Jonathan with the one that makes most sense !

[Mochastorm]

I don't believe that anyone as given in the examples that markyboy mentioned should ever be allowed an SGC. A propensity to violence is often inherent. They may be the nicest of people but there can often be a trigger which changes all of that. It could be alcohol, domestic situations or even a belligerent attitude that causes them to strike out with whatever may be to hand in that moment. I know it smacks of 'give a dog a bad name' but incidents in the U.K. involving lawfully held firearms are thankfully rare due to strict firearms legislation.

[JonathanL]

I don't believe that anyone as given in the examples that markyboy mentioned should ever be allowed an SGC. A propensity to violence is often inherent. They may be the nicest of people but there can often be a trigger which changes all of that. It could be alcohol, domestic situations or even a belligerent attitude that causes them to strike out with whatever may be to hand in that moment. I know it smacks of 'give a dog a bad name' but incidents in the U.K. involving lawfully held firearms are thankfully rare due to strict firearms legislation.

 

Your reasoning is disjointed. Nothing that the OP has said points towards a 'propensity' for unlawful violence so why should he not get a certificate?

 

You cannot have a system whereby people are permanently prohibited from doing things because they have a conviction for a relatively minor offence, simply 'to be on the safe side'. You would be amazed at how many people have certificates with convictions like this, or similar, to their name. If your criteria were applied then there would be an awful lot fewer cert holders about.

 

Even when it comes to people who are prohibited persons, Parliament provided a procedure to have the prohibition lifted upon application to a court. They did this because the arbitrary banning of people from doing things is a very serious matter in a free country. Especially when no account of the circumstances of the particular case are taken when the prohibition comes into force. A person may be sentenced to 5 years for fraud, for instance, but that says very little, if anything, about whether they may be dangerous with a firearm.

 

J.

[markyboy]

Well said J