robbiep Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/09/22/clay-shoot-owners-gun-licence-plea-fails/ I'm sure any number of us have held our heads in hands in the past, when various police forces have allowed people to retain SGC/FAC after incidents, even though no prosecutions have occurred, with tragic consequences. I'm thinking of Newport, south Wales, for example, where various DV callouts had happened, and yet he still had a SGC. There are others. In this case though, they revoked, and the courts have backed that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srspower Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I think that's okay provided he is given the opportunity to redeem his character ie: alcohol/anger management course and a period of good behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 With the small info gleaned from the article I agree it was the right thing to do - two alcohol related bad behaviors in three years and following a warning for the second so it wasn't exactly unexpected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Edwards Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) A few people I know have had their SGCs revoked. One of them was due to that he hit his girlfriend after a night out, and she pressed charges. Someone else I know gave his neighbour a seeing to, because he was stalking and spying upon his wife, narrowly escaping prison. The latter, I presume most people would do, but he lost his guns. A lad I used to work with held a SGC and FAC. He went off the rails with drugs big time, but luckily sold all of his guns to feed the habit. He was the only person that I would have considered mentally unfit to possess firearms. I think it's more based on what people "might" do. If someone gives someone a kick-in, it shows non-obediance to the law, and that they are willing to resort to violence. The last thing you want is someone posessing a firearm, who is willing to break the law and resort to violence, it's common sense. Edited September 22, 2014 by J_Edwards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 About 10 years ago a work colleague was having a heated argument with his wife. She smashed a flower vase over his head and he ended up covered in blood in casualty. Because it was person to person violence the hospital notified the police who looked into it and told him they were suspending his SGC and he would not get it back whilst his wife lived with him. He got his guns back a few months later and the following year he got a new wife. Good decisions all round I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Given fair warning 3 years ago what the consequences could be if he didn't behave, and then complains he will lose his business. Akin to a drink driver claiming he will lose his job if he loses his license. Tough tits. 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.