restrictions being quietly slipped in?

[Scully]

On the other hand I know people who have a clean record but shouldn't be allowed a firearm. I'm not sure what you're implying by this. If it were up to the police, no one would be allowed a firearm, clean records or otherwise. Measures need to be in place that these people will be responsible. So what do you propose?

I was made to have three lessons and a letter written by the coach to advise that I was safe and competent. For SGC? How were you 'made' to have three lessons, and who 'made' you? Did you not contact your shooting organisation as a result?

[Guest Mick.j]

Absolutely correct, you do not need to show any reason. This dates back to I think it was 1968 when shotguns were first licenced.

So FLO comes around -

Why do you need an SGC then sir/madam

I don't need to give you a reason, i want my licence.

 

Do you really think you would get one? I for one would not issue one for a start.

 

Times have changed and quoting 1968 is a bit outdated (wether true or not) due to what has gone on since then and now.

I for one, would like everyone to have a VALID reason to own an SGC wether its for sporting (clays) or genuine game/vermin control, not just to walk around a field for the hell of it.

There are people who take there sport seriously, there are those who do it for fun and then there are the people who think they are 'it' by turning up with a gun (look what i've got) with no idea on how to behave or shoot with it. The latter i can do without.

Its just a pity that there are no across the board directives which are the same wherever you live in the country

[srspower]

I think it differs from force to force........i have seen that in action 20 years ago when at a clay club...a young lad applied for an SGC...and was told to continue his membership for a period of 6 months ...and at the end a letter from the clay club secertary should accompany the application.....

 

i think this is acceptable in certain cases....it prevents young people ...or even older ones for that matter...blagging their way thro to a SGC....and having no interest in the sport side...but emphasis put on the "possesion" aspect of it.............used to have the same people in pistol shooting...there were 3 basic types......

 

• Purists...target shooting
• Historical (collectors)
• sexual thrill seekers

 

I think that "good reason" to posess a weapon must be proved....and how that is done is up to the individual FEO's.....

Piffle! You do not need 'good reason' for a sgc, they should phone basc and get them torn to shreds by their lawyers. Personally I would collect evidence then report it to the ipcc and get the idiot feo sacked.

[Scully]

So FLO comes around -

Why do you need an SGC then sir/madam

I don't need to give you a reason, i want my licence.

 

SO FEO comes round-

'Why do you need an SGC then sir/madam?'

'I don't need a SGC, but I would like to take up clay pigeon shooting/ someone I know has introduced me to shooting and I would like to have a gun of my own.'

Sounds reasonable to me.

[chrisjh]

just a guess but i could suggest a reason, an interesting fact before 9-11 the terrorists took flying lessons, they were only interested in flying not taking off or landing IF a group of terrorists wanted to obtain legally held weapons to carry out an atrocity then all they need do is apply, this will as a minimum make them commit to shooting at a club, you could argue that after 3 months lessons and practice all they will have achieved is a terrorist who is now competent and accurate.

 

just a thought

Edited February 1, 2015 by chrisjh

[glb8686]

 

 

On the other hand I know people who have a clean record but shouldn't be allowed a firearm. I'm not sure what you're implying by this. If it were up to the police, no one would be allowed a firearm, clean records or otherwise. Measures need to be in place that these people will be responsible. So what do you propose?

I was made to have three lessons and a letter written by the coach to advise that I was safe and competent. For SGC? How were you 'made' to have three lessons, and who 'made' you? Did you not contact your shooting organisation as a result?

I'm not sure what should be proposed to make sure someone is responsible if I'm honest.

 

My feo asked this of me. I was naive so just complied. I dont think it was a bad thing though as it taught me basic gun safety

[Guest Mick.j]

SO FEO comes round-

'Why do you need an SGC then sir/madam?'

'I don't need a SGC, but I would like to take up clay pigeon shooting/ someone I know has introduced me to shooting and I would like to have a gun of my own.'

Sounds reasonable to me.

Just a shame you quoted this out of context and just altered the last sentence.

[Scully]

Just a shame you quoted this out of context and just altered the last sentence.

Are you seriously suggesting anyone who wants a SGC should quote your post to a FEO? While I wont roll over to unreasonable or unlawful demands, there is no reason to be confrontational until given one.

[Guest Mick.j]

Are you seriously suggesting anyone who wants a SGC should quote your post to a FEO? While I wont roll over to unreasonable or unlawful demands, there is no reason to be confrontational until given one.

You really should read the whole of my original post and understand it. I for one, never said or suggested to quote what i wrote. It was an answer to a previous quote which you have taken out of context and turned it into something else.

Its called a scenario

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mick.j

[CharlieT]

Piffle! You do not need 'good reason' for a sgc, they should phone basc and get them torn to shreds by their lawyers. Personally I would collect evidence then report it to the ipcc and get the idiot feo sacked.

 

You may wish to read the following extract from the HO guidelines....................

 

11.17 The 1988 Act revised the criteria set out in section 28 of the 1968 Act for the grant or renewal of a shotgun certificate so as to allow chief officers of police more discretion to make enquiries into applications.

 

11.18 It is important to note how the criteria differ from those in respect of applications under section 1 of the 1968 Act. No certificate shall be granted or renewed if the chief officer of police:

has reason to believe that the applicant is prohibited by the Act from possessing a shotgun; or

is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one.

 

11.19 Section 28(1B) of the 1968 Act, as substituted by section 3(1) of the 1988 Act, provides for sporting or competition purposes and shooting vermin to be regarded as good reasons for possessing a shotgun. Collecting, study and research may also be considered good reason as in the case of section 1 firearms. That sub-section also states that an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use. This is likely to be the case when the shotgun is of special significance to the applicant, such as an heirloom or is of some other sentimental value and may also be considered good reason to possess a shotgun. A chief officer should make further enquiries where it comes to their notice that there may be genuine doubts about the applicant’s reason for wishing to possess a shotgun

Edited February 1, 2015 by CharlieT

[welshwizard]

Discussed the reason to own a shotgun with police officer when renewing licence a few years back (when it was a serving officer who had the job of doing the gun licences etc.) he said that you can just want a s/gun to have and polish and put away its down to you the police have no grounds to ask why you want or object on reasons to own a shotgun. Don't think any change to this in law since.[/quote

Depends how each force interprets the rules , force area I am in they always ask reasons why and where I shoot on my renewal interview and always will , I have informed BASC about it in the past but Gwent still does it , new question this time added to it was "how much alcohol do you drink " .

Edited February 1, 2015 by welshwizard

[Scully]

You really should read the whole of my original post and understand it. I for one, never said or suggested to quote what i wrote. It was an answer to a previous quote which you have taken out of context and turned it into something else.

Its called a scenario

I have read the whole of your original post and understood it perfectly. I was merely giving an alternative but more reasonably realistic version of your 'scenario.'

Times may have changed since 1968 but until the law changes to reflect this then despite what you or a FEO thinks, an applicant does have a valid reason to own a SGC; it's called choice.

[Kes]

I have read the whole of your original post and understood it perfectly. I was merely giving an alternative but more reasonably realistic version of your 'scenario.'

Times may have changed since 1968 but until the law changes to reflect this then despite what you or a FEO thinks, an applicant does have a valid reason to own a SGC; it's called choice.

This is my view too. i do however recognise that with many Chief Constables and Heads of Firearms Units believing the public should not own guns, there will be a creeping convergence on the aim of 'no guns'. It is the responsibility of our shooting organisations to monitor and check this advance. It doesnt take much wit to know that with ACPO in place, places like Durham will move the anti-gun agenda forward and the resistence to their practice will decide how far other members of ACPO can push this agenda. If we sit quietly by, the right to own and use a shotgun will go the way of section 1 firearms. When I was a lad, the old farmer who's land we shot on had a pump .22 rifle, no cabinet, no FAC. he lent it to me to shoot rabbits on his land. Despite my experience and that he used the gun on his land for 20 years, when I applied for my FAC for a .22 they decided that using a .22 on this land was too dangerous. I wrote them a very strongly worded letter about it being the man who is being approved not the land as anyone could go to the edge of the land and shoot over the boundary.

The police do not do firearms well and it suits them not to, inconsistency is their friend in moving the agenda forward. It suits them to have the freedom offered by the law as no-one can financially afford to stand against them. It suits them that each Chief Con can fiddle in his area and the intelligence gathered is used elsewhere. We all need to defend our rights in all things, all the time.

[Carman06]

I myself am quite keen on law as a subject and knowing my rights. We need to remember that the HO guidance is just that and has no more legal standing than advice on this forum. The chief of police cannot further restrict or imply law that is not established in the act.

One ax ample of this would be the section 11(4) exemption from needing an FAC to own or posses a miniature rifle for use on a miniature rifle range (further details/requirements involved). The act States upto .23 calibre yet HO guidance States this is considered .22 rimfire. From a legal point the HO guidance is not in itself lawfully defining what is permitted but implying a further restriction which it cannot do.

[Dave-G]

I'm all for protecting our rights but to be fair times are a-changing and as much as we would like to bury our head in the sand - it means also shoving our butts in the air.

 

Lets open a certain can of worms - not for sensationalism I add but a genuine concern about our rights being taken to the extreme word of the law.

 

How does the membership feel about someone returning from say a Jihad training camp who has never come to the attention of UK police being perfectly entitled to obtain a SGC regardless of the police or more in depth security services feeling it is not in the public interest.

[chrisjh]

I'm all for protecting our rights but to be fair times are a-changing and as much as we would like to bury our head in the sand - it means also shoving our butts in the air.

 

Lets open a certain can of worms - not for sensationalism I add but a genuine concern about our rights being taken to the extreme word of the law.

 

How does the membership feel about someone returning from say a Jihad training camp who has never come to the attention of UK police being perfectly entitled to obtain a SGC regardless of the police or more in depth security services feeling it is not in the public interest.

 

exactly could you imagine the outcome of a terrorist act of mass murder using legally obtained weapons, we would all be looking for a new pastime

Edited February 1, 2015 by chrisjh

[Scully]

I'm all for protecting our rights but to be fair times are a-changing and as much as we would like to bury our head in the sand - it means also shoving our butts in the air.

 

Lets open a certain can of worms - not for sensationalism I add but a genuine concern about our rights being taken to the extreme word of the law.

 

How does the membership feel about someone returning from say a Jihad training camp who has never come to the attention of UK police being perfectly entitled to obtain a SGC regardless of the police or more in depth security services feeling it is not in the public interest.

Wouldn't the knowledge that an applicant has just returned from a Jihad training camp cast doubts as to their suitability and entitlement to obtaining a SGC?

[Scully]

 

exactly could you imagine the outcome of a terrorist act of mass murder using legally obtained weapons, we would all be looking for a new pastime

Do you mean like the IRA did? Please; aren't we straying into the realms of fantasy now?

[longspoon]

The time will come when members of the public will not be allowed to own firearms and/or shotguns. It is my belief that it is to this end all the little hurdles and hoops we need to negotiate are increasing with monotonous regularity. We must enjoy our sport whilst we may.......

[Guest Mick.j]

I have read the whole of your original post and understood it perfectly. I was merely giving an alternative but more reasonably realistic version of your 'scenario.'

Times may have changed since 1968 but until the law changes to reflect this then despite what you or a FEO thinks, an applicant does have a valid reason to own a SGC; it's called choice.

We will agree to disagree on this one - Because as far as i am concerned you seem to choose what you want to understand and not the whole picture. Merely changing what i wrote to something else implies i was wrong - I was making a point. Not a statement.

I have been shooting since before the licence came into force so i think i have some valid opinion (NOTE OPINION) on the matter. IF you understood my post, you would note i was not having a go at anyone, but making a point about - You do not need to show any reason to hold an SGC. I think we do. Because the post i replied to implied that that was basically all you needed to say about having one and not any other reason.

You wrote - I don't need a (an) SGC- etc etc etc- but i would like to have a gun of my own one day. Well first off you would need an SGC before you own/buy a gun.

An SGC is Granted not given

If your reason for having an SGC is choice - God help us.

[wildrover77]

We will agree to disagree on this one - Because as far as i am concerned you seem to choose what you want to understand and not the whole picture. Merely changing what i wrote to something else implies i was wrong - I was making a point. Not a statement.

I have been shooting since before the licence came into force so i think i have some valid opinion (NOTE OPINION) on the matter. IF you understood my post, you would note i was not having a go at anyone, but making a point about - You do not need to show any reason to hold an SGC. I think we do. Because the post i replied to implied that that was basically all you needed to say about having one and not any other reason.

You wrote - I don't need a (an) SGC- etc etc etc- but i would like to have a gun of my own one day. Well first off you would need an SGC before you own/buy a gun.

An SGC is Granted not given

If your reason for having an SGC is choice - God help us.

I own an arsenal of shotguns because I want to. I only ever use two of them. I do so with the full support of my local firearms department. I do not have to justify good reason for 1 never mind all,of them

[drut]

AFAIK a SGC is a "right" under UK law not a privilege unless there are reasons not to grant(normally public safety etc) and "good reason" as in FAC does not apply so "An SGC is Granted not given" may not cover where you intend to shoot.There are plenty of places to shoot clays without being a club member.

[aMooseLoose]

Just put in my application for my SGC with Merseyside. I'd like to think that they wouldn't do this, considering my age, 23.

However, I think they would measure up an application through age, occupation, location etc - Much like car insurance.

 

I know that occupation has nothing to do with it, but it may be one of the things they look at.

[Guest Mick.j]

I own an arsenal of shotguns because I want to. I only ever use two of them. I do so with the full support of my local firearms department. I do not have to justify good reason for 1 never mind all,of them

I have one or two myself. My main point is - That everyone who owns or applies for an SGC (or FAC for that matter) should have a valid reason to own one.

This is my opinion and view on the matter.

You have to pass a test to drive a car on your own and i think an SGC should be held in higher regard. Try getting one in France -we have it so soft here in that respect.

Everyone seems really naffed off about having a reason to own one - WHY??

Spouting- its are right etc is all well and good but its not an opinion or view

[TwoJackRussells]

The Fire arms laws in our country are quite simply ancient and out of touch i think most would agree, also home office guidelines are just that a guide so are therefore subject to different interpratations depending on your viewpoint. I think its time to overhaul the whole( excuse the pun) Shooting Match but i can only see us the shooting community coming off worse than we are if its left to politicians and the like to organise. The answer i believe lies within the shooting community only can We as a united body actually implement changes that will really work because only we know whats right and wrong! BASC etc are really our only hope so the more that join the louder the voice!