sgc holder cleared over shooting man on his property

[Gordon R]

The press widely reported him being woken up by a vehicle passing the farm.

 

Had the farmer said that he heard a noise outside, thought it was a fox and had taken his gun outside to deal with it, this thread would have not made it past the first page.

 

The farmer was almost too honest for his own good. I applaud his honesty and contrast that with the two scrotes who were "lamping" when they stumbled across his farm.

[ph5172]

 

 

Agreed.

What is the source of your statement about what the court was told, transcript? press?

 

It's all about how you tell the story under interview and in court, the people who caused this, probably, from experience had more of an insight of the process?

 

There is no doubt in my mind that his prime concern might be the fine?

 

do we have to go through the same dance..... the source was BBC, along with a majority of the other press outlets.

 

I would suggest thats why you have a brief to prep you for what is going to happen especially on leading questions - maybe his frank honesty worked in his favor with the 12 normal people sat there listening to him

Edited March 12, 2017 by ph5172

[Gordon R]

maybe his frank honesty worked in his favor with the 12 normal people sat there listening to him

 

 

An astute observation.

[achosenman]

I've posted my opinion so will not belabour the point. However the "privilege/right" angle intriuged me. I was always under the asupmtion that shotgun ownership was a right, firearm ownership a privilege.

 

Google search yields some interesting results. the HO guidance to Police 2016 says "will" be issued ​ (subject to criteria being met) not "may" be issued" Shooting UK have an article written by David Frost back in 2013 clearly stating it is a right not a privilege.

 

The British Shooting Sports Council submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Firearms Control included this:

 

Gill Marshall-Andrews is not correct when she states that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Whilst it is reasonable to assert that the right to have arms which existed prior to 1920 has been circumscribed, elements of that right remain in current legislation, viz. Section 27(1) "A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied…" and Section 28(1), "…a shot gun certificate shall be granted…" Whilst the conditions that follow are stringent, the term "shall" is used rather than "may". This is not accidental and arises from recommendations of the Blackwell Committee of 1919.

 

 

BASC's included this:

5.3) BASC does not agree with the proposition that the ownership of firearms
for legitimate purposes by suitable persons is a privilege. We assert that it is a
right, albeit one which is conditional upon certain legally defined criteria
being satisfied. The language at Section 27(1) of the 1968 Act sustains this; “A
firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is
satisfied...” and Section 28(1), “...a shot gun certificate shall be granted...” The
term ‘shall’ is used rather than ‘may’, as is the case in Northern Ireland where
the Chief Officer has absolute discretion. The use of the mandatory word
“shall” is no historical accident and comes from recommendations of the
Blackwell Committee of 1919.

 

 

I also believe that you can appeal to the Courts for the refusal of a SG cert. If it was a privilege, I believe this would not be possible.

 

Has anyone got definitive written evidence either way?

Edited March 12, 2017 by achosenman

[Muddy Funker]

I'm amazed that some people think that a 84yr old man has the agility of a 20yr old to just jump out of the way of a moving car.

 

In his mind set at the time, he probably thought that the only way to defend himself was to discharge his gun.

 

Well done to the jury for the outcome, as for retaining his S/G Cert I really don't know.

 

This would have had a bearing on the case, his age and perceived ability to defend himself.

 

I'm still glad the jury found him not guilty.

 

Only the people there really know what happened. Court is often a game, what the jury saw was a frail old 80 something on crutches. He could be a very capable man that on the night in question thought, **** these two I'm going out to teach them a lesson, who knows?

Edited March 12, 2017 by Muddy Funker

[yorkierm]

Right then…

We know the definition of an offensive weapon…

The definition of an offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him, or by some other person. (N.B. this definition includes a disguised knife).

An offensive weapon is a tool made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting either mental or physical injury upon another person. Under the United Kingdom's Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is an offence to carry an offensive weapon on or about the person whilst in a public place.

We know the UK laws on self defence…

Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Section 3(2) states:

"Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose."

This abolished common law rules on what was "reasonable," such as the duty to retreat. Thus, reasonable force can be used in the prevention of any crime or in making an arrest to:

1. allow the defendant to defend himself from any form of attack so long as the attack is criminal.
2. prevent an attack on another person, e.g. in R v Rose,[14] a young son shot dead his father to protect his mother from a serious assault, believing that this was the only practical way of defending her given his small physical size.
3. defend his property against criminal attack in the widest sense, i.e. it can be physical possessions like a watch or credit cards demanded by a mugger (where there would also be physical danger to the owner) or, at the other extreme, possession of land.

The common law decision under R v Griffiths 1988 affirms the common law use of force as "an honestly held belief that you or another, are in imminent danger, then you may use such force as is reasonable and necessary to avert that danger"[15]

 

 

Self Defence is governed by The Criminal law act 1967(specifically section 3), and the

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (specifically section 76)

Linky to CPS guidelines on self defence and the use of force…

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#The_Law_and

Linky to criminal law act 1967 section 3…

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/3

Linky to criminal justice and immigration act 2008, sec 76…

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76

None of the above acts specifically mention the use of any form of weapon for self defence…But as we know the definition of an offensive weapon, and that you cannot carry one in public, as by doing so you are committing an offence under the prevention of crime act 1953….But Self defence states that you can use reasonable force. Under the criminal and justice act you can defend your home and belongings, again with reasonable force…lay mans terms…you are allowed to confront a burglar in your home/grounds, if that man then becomes aggressive you can use force, which then falls into the laws on self defence…You cannot however chase that man down the road and hit him over the head with a bat…once he has left your property/is no longer a threat you must leave it there…

To pick up anything that could be used as a weapon, you are potentially committing an offence under the prevention of crime act. But If you can demonstrate that you were in fear of your life, or anothers, then you have the laws of reasonable fore and self defence to your side. It makes no difference what type of item is used as a possible offensive weapon. Sadly in law there is also no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons.

You can also use force to effect the arrest (citizens arrest) of someone committing, or about to commit an indictable offence (ie murder, rape, GBH, robbery). This is goverened by the police and criminal evidence act 1984…specifically part 3, section 24a

Linky…

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents

Section 11, part 117 governs the police use of force, which is effectively exactly the same. Reasonable force only in the circumstances.

Likewise the Serious Organised crime and Police act 2005, part 3, section110, also governs the police use of force in an arrest, which is the same as before. The same buzz words keep appearing…Reasonable

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110

Consequently it can be seen that the police have no additional rights as to the use of force for either self defence, the defence of another person, or the apprehension of a suspect. If a suspect comes willingly they cannot in law put them in a headlock and drag them off.

Yes they have additional rights, as to the use of handcuffs, stop and search, powers of seizure etc which a civilian does not have. They have these rights in order to gain evidence about a known or suspected offence in order to present it to gain a lawful conviction against a suspect. They have these as they hunt for baddies, where as a civilian does not. As far as I can see (and be lead to believe from a legal friend)no exception has ever been made in law for a Police officer to be allowed to carry even such as a BATON for self defence, as it is, by definition, an offensive weapon, which we as UK citizens (and a cop is still a citizen).

With regard to firearms…

I cannot find any legislation acts specific to the police use of firearms, save this…the home office guidelines on the use of force relating to firearms police…but I am assuming there must be one…perhaps someone could help here…

http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/useoffirearms2835.pdf?view=Binary

Chapter 2 (2.1) relates to the use of force:

2.1 Law relating to the use of force

2.1.1 This code applies within the framework of law governing the use of force by the

police, which forms part of the general law of England and Wales the relevant parts

of which are summarised within ACPO Manuals of Guidance.

2.1.2 Use of force by police officers must take place within the bounds of the law, which

is to be found in

●a International law, and especially the provisions of the European Convention on

Human Rights (ECHR) now incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights

Act 1998;

●b The common law; and

●c Statute law, including section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and section 117

of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;

2.1.3 Under the Police Reform Act 2002 (s2), Chief Officers have a duty to have regard

to this Code of Practice.

The college of policing website linky to the use of firearms…

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/use-of-force-firearms-and-less-lethal-weapons/

So it can be seen that an armed policeman, again, has no further rights to the use of force, simply because he is carrying a firearm, which is simply a tool capable of inflicting lethal force from a given distance. They must, infact, demonstrate even more clearly that they had no other option. While self defence is still the law on which they are judged, as a trained professional they should have a very much better view of their options, and make very possible effort to not pull the trigger. As it is the absolute last resort.

Indeed, knowing the rules on when one can open fire, the very first thing you get told is that the use of a firearm does not affect your inherent right to self defence, and that the use of lethal force must only be used as a last resort. In the event of an enquiry, you would need to satisfy the laws on self defence, which as are clearly demonstrated here, exactly the same for every single person in the land. No exceptions. No matter what you do to inflict the force.

As far as civilian life goes…

From what I can see there is no distinction, in law, to the type of weapon that one may use when under duress in the event of self defence, as you are not legally allowed to use any weapon. But self defence allows the use, sometimes, of things and situations that would otherwise be illegal. That’s why its called self defence, reasonable force, honestly held belief. Exactly the same as a serving firearms officer would have to justify if he/she pulled the trigger.

Save that firearms are governed by there own set of laws…

The firearms act prohibits certain people, convicted of certain offences, from being allowed firearms/shotguns…

To be allowed one you must satisfy the Police (not the courts or any other governing body) that you have good reason to own one, are not a risk to society, and can provide the relevant proof.

The Firearms act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents

Various sections of interest, but in a nutshell…

Section 21…

1Possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of crime

From <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/21>

Very long but says that if convicted there are certain time limits that must pass before you can be considered for grant of a licence. Even if the farmer in question had received a custodial sentence, which he did not as he was found not guilty…then as long as that sentence did not exceed 3 years, he would need to wait for 5 years (from date of release) before being allowed a licence again.

He was taken to court on a charge of GBH and found not guilty. No offence was committed. And no other charges were bought. No firearms offences were even charged.

Revocation of shot gun certificates.

(1)A shot gun certificate may be revoked by the chief officer of police for the area in which the holder resides if he is satisfied that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a shot gun or cannot be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

(2)A person aggrieved by the revocation of a shot gun certificate may in accordance with section 44 of this Act appeal against the revocation.

From <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/30C>

The police would have to demonstrate that he is a danger to the public. I cannot see how they can. He has not threatened anyone else, made any attempt to conceal his actions from, or lie in about his ordeal, which he could easily have done…" I was also returning from a rabbit shooting night out your honour…" There is no evidence, from what is available, which demonstrate that the farmer would a danger to the public or the peace. Hence no reason not to give him his guns back.

As in all cases the ownership of sgc/fac is a right to which everyone is entightled, and it is for the police to prove/demonstrate that you do not fit the bill, in order to refuse, and yes there are some people who should not have these certificates. But this farmer is not on that list.

It is not for a court to reinstate his certificate. Just as it is not for the court to re instate a driving licence following its revocation.

As the police are the governing body for firearms it is up to them. But as the police are actively pursuing legal firearms ownership through a bullying mentality I suspect he may struggle, even though there is no legal grounds on which to refuse him.

One only need look at the fact a top Met police officer blamed lawful shooters for the tragic death of MP Jo Cox to show the police mentality towards lawful shooting sports…

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/top-met-police-anti-terror-cop-blames-licensed-shooters-for-jo-cox-mp-murder/

Like we all keep saying this is a very grey area of law, but the fact he was found not guilty in just 24 minutes is testament to the fact he was lawfully in the right to conduct the actions which he did.

If anyone can educate me further by way of genuine response with evidence to back up, as I have attempted to list here, than what I have read, been taught and been lead to understand then I fully welcome and embrace your knowledge. Just to refute my claims by calling me naïve and to condescendingly put up a series of laughter emoticons is most unhelpful, and does not demonstrate any form of education. I am a firm believer the day I cease to learn is the day I become worm food.

[inthedark]

That must be the longest post I've seen on here. Is there a point to it?

[inthedark]

Ah, just seen it buried in the cut and paste. He shot at someone, I don't think he's got any chance of seeing his ticket again

[yorkierm]

Ah, just seen it buried in the cut and paste. He shot at someone, I don't think he's got any chance of seeing his ticket again

ha ha ha

 

yeah many appoligies for the plethora of copy/paste. I am no tech guru so didn't really know how to neaten it all up.

 

The over riding points to it are that we all have exactly the same inherent rights to self defence no matter what our position or job role is in society. And that as far as this farmer goes, he has broken no laws, proved himself to be an upstanding man and not presented himself as a threat or danger to the general public. The man he did present a danger to was acting dangerously towards him, which is why he had the legal rights of self defence in the first place, and been found not guilty of any offence.

 

Therefore, in my eyes, unless someone can educate and provide proof/evidence of another reason that he should not be allowed his guns back...then the only possible reason is a bullying mentality from the police, who are the issuers of the relevant licences.

Edited March 12, 2017 by yorkierm

[JDog]

yorkierm

 

You have put some very detailed posts on this thread. Have you made your point yet or will there be more?

[ph5172]

 

 

Therefore, in my eyes, unless someone can educate and provide proof/evidence of another reason that he should not be allowed his guns back...then the only possible reason is a bullying mentality from the police, who are the issuers of the relevant licences.

 

 

I wouldnt like to sit on the meeting.

 

I should imagine there will be some scratching of heads

 

 

Is he a fit and suitable person to hold a certificate will be the whole basis - Some may say yes, some may say as soon as he decided to 'scare' someone with it he isnt.

[yorkierm]

 

 

I wouldnt like to sit on the meeting.

 

I should imagine there will be some scratching of heads

 

 

Is he a fit and suitable person to hold a certificate will be the whole basis - Some may say yes, some may say as soon as he decided to 'scare' someone with it he isnt.

Thats just it ph5172

 

It is all at the discretion of a police force, who we all ultimately know would absolutely prefer if no one owned guns. And will no doubt use as any little excuse to achieve that aim.

 

The question to if the farmer is suitable...well had the assailant not done what he did then the farmer would have had no cause for fear, and then not acted accordingly...he acted purely out of self defence, which is his right. Would the farmer do it again...most likely not, as I very much doubt he will ever be in the same situation, so how can he be judged as a risk?

 

And the police, not only with desire to remove firearms, do not have the backbone (at leadership level not grass roots policing) to support people in any situation where they demonstrate any sort of ability to defend them self, for fear of being accused of supporting vigilantism, or it'd do the police out of a job.

 

The rights of victims in this country are over shadowed, sadly, by the rights of criminals.

[inthedark]

Have a look at it this way --- risk = probability X consequence

 

Would he do it again? Probably

The consequences could cause a death

 

The risk level of him having his guns back is so high it's off the scale, and regardless of him having broken any laws, it's not happening

[johnphilip]

Have a look at it this way --- risk = probability X consequence

 

Would he do it again? Probably

The consequences could cause a death

 

The risk level of him having his guns back is so high it's off the scale, and regardless of him having broken any laws, it's not happening

So he does not get it back, and the scrotts came back, how is he ment to protect himself his wife and all he owns, he calls the police and wait 15 hours for the police to come out again. i would hope he gets his Sgc ticket back and he never has to use it again the way he had to use it.

[inthedark]

So he does not get it back, and the scrotts came back, how is he ment to protect himself his wife and all he owns, he calls the police and wait 15 hours for the police to come out again.

 

Yep, that's about it. The alternative is a step back into the dark ages.

 

I'll concede that the service he's had falls way short of what he (or anyone else) should expect, but that's another matter entirely. Added to that is the previous ineffective punishment of the offenders which has failed to deter them from criminal activity

[timps]

ha ha ha

 

yeah many appoligies for the plethora of copy/paste. I am no tech guru so didn't really know how to neaten it all up.

 

The over riding points to it are that we all have exactly the same inherent rights to self defence no matter what our position or job role is in society. And that as far as this farmer goes, he has broken no laws, proved himself to be an upstanding man and not presented himself as a threat or danger to the general public. The man he did present a danger to was acting dangerously towards him, which is why he had the legal rights of self defence in the first place, and been found not guilty of any offence.

 

Therefore, in my eyes, unless someone can educate and provide proof/evidence of another reason that he should not be allowed his guns back...then the only possible reason is a bullying mentality from the police, who are the issuers of the relevant licences.

 

All you need to know is in the firearms act, anyone deemed to be in the service of Her Majesty (police armed forces etc) is not bound by the act whilst on duty.

 

54 Application of Parts I and II to Crown servants.

For the purposes of this section and of any rule of law whereby any provision of this Act does not bind the Crown, a person shall be deemed to be in the service of Her Majesty if he is—

(a)a member of a police force,

 

For the purposes of this section and any rule of law whereby any provision of this Act does not bind the Crown, the persons specified in subsection (5) of this section shall be deemed to be in the naval, military or air service of Her Majesty,

 

 

The act clearly states

 

16 Possession of firearm with intent to injure.

It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life [F41or cause serious injury to property], or to enable another person by means thereof to endanger life [F41or cause serious injury to property], whether any injury [F41to person or property] has been caused or not.

 

 

So you cannot use a shotgun to defend yourself under the act, as that would be intent to injure or endanger life if it was intentionally carried in a defensive roll, however, as stated the crown is not bound by the act so they can.

 

The act as written doesn’t differentiate between good guys and bad guys or give rights for self-defence. He is in breach of the act if he admitted taking the gun out solely for protection (the news reports indicate he did) hence the grounds for revocation if they so feel inclined. Civilians are not allowed to have a firearm for defensive purposes due to the act but crown servants can as they are not bound by the act.

 

I don’t know if they will revoke or not but they do have grounds.

[Gordon R]

Timps - thanks for that. I cannot disagree with a word. I believe they have grounds to revoke and also that they will. If he got his shotgun back and then shot someone, it would bring the system into ridicule.

 

 

yorkierm seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Police -

 

...then the only possible reason is a bullying mentality from the police, who are the issuers of the relevant licences.

 

 

 

Still had no answer about the Police considering the risk of giving them back. Whilst he is a dab hand at cut and paste - and there is a lot - he doesn't seem to understand what he is cutting and pasting.

[yorkierm]

Hi Timps, cheers for your thought out reply.

I had considered, and read, the crown immunity aspect of the firearms act. Crown immunity covers a wide variety of things, but it does not cover the use of force on UK soil. So while an armed copper, or other servant of the crown may be exempt to the firearms act, allowing him to have a firearm without relevant licences while on duty, it does not completely exempt them from how they use it. Any decision into any use of force is still judged in the same way. IE that no more force than is reasonable may be used. And that the use of lethal force is the absolute last resort. And I maintain that as we all have, and are judged by, the same inherent rights and laws, as UK citizens, that just because a servant of the crown is armed with a firearm and using it as an offensive weapon, they have no greater right than anyone else to the use of additional nor excessive force. Just because they have a gun does not give them the right to use it. That would be legalising murder for the authorities. One only need reminding to the case of private clegg, the former soldier who went too far and shot at a fleeing vehicle killing its occupant, well outside the bounds of self defence and subsequently charged accordingly....or the case just a few years ago where armed police shot mark duggan...were investigated in accordance with the RoE (which is the extension of the right to self defence to those with a firearm on duty) as they thought he had a gun about to fire at them, in immediate threat to life which they are allowed to counter with equal force....and are back on active firearms duties. Now I also respect there are more to both cases...but thats just a very quick mention of them, no need to get into the intricacies of any possible cover ups etc...

With regard to section 16 of the firearms act (possession of a firearm with intent to injure)…

I fully appreciate this, no it is not a just reason to own a firearm simply for defence in this country. And yes, his admission that he took it for self defence on the night in question raises eyebrows…but as, in this case, self defence has been proven…to me that negates the intent to injure fact, as the law on self defence makes allowances for things that under any other circumstance to be illegal, to be taken into justification. Had he continued to follow the fleeing pair down his road firing at them then yes i would support a ban, and indeed would agree that it was not self defence. But that was not the case. In this case, to me at least, his shotgun is no different to any other possible weapon, a knife or bat. He probably grabbed the first thing he thought he could use to defend himself. Had that been a pitch fork, which is just as capable of inflicting severe trauma and possibly death, which again on any other occasion being turned into an offensive weapon would be illegal, he would have been equally justified, as now is proven, he acted in self defence, meaning he was entightled to use the force he felt at the time he required. And from that, despite the two being just as deadly, he would not likely be facing loosing his guns. I do accept though what it is to me, and the police are very different. But I still see no full legal reason for him to be refused it. Considering that there are people out there with actual convictions on there record who hold SGC, then a man who has none should not be barred…So with consideration to the polices view on if he is a risk or not…if he is refused it back I would suggest he looked into how many other people have an actual conviction yet still have there SGC…

Though sadly as you also clearly state there is no distinction between good guy and bad, there is also no distinction between offensive and defensive. Any act that causes harm to another is offensive, no matter what the reason. And as they say, sometimes the best defence, is a good offense.

But yes this is very likely the stance the police will take on it. Despite how strongly I may feel about it.

And again timps, thank you for your helpful input.

And Gordon, oh Gordon…

Dear oh dear…

Sir I do not have a bee in my bonnet about the Police. I fully respect them, the job they do in what can only be described as challenging and sometimes dangerous conditions. They, on the whole, get my full support.

I do however have severe misgivings about UK firearms laws, which are governed by the police. As stated before I feel they are outdated, not in keeping with modern society, and formed from knee jerk reactions. I object to my guns being called and referred to as weapons in law. I don’t know about yours, but my guns are pieces of sporting equipment, as they were not made to cause harm to anyone (as is the definition of an offensive weapon). I do however respect the fact that they could be used offensively, as a weapon…but no more than any other item available to us, ie kitchen knife, axe, car…or even the pillow on my bed if someone were to break into my house and suffocate me with it. While we do not have to agree on things, you would be the first I have ever spoken with who actually thinks our gun laws are where they need to be. We abide by them because we are law abiding people. Criminals by there very nature don’t give a rats *** about laws…so we as shooters are paying the price for it…And while I also respect that our laws are very unlikely to change for the better…there is even less chance of us achieving a good workable standard while the in fighting and "I'm alright Jack" mentality that you are displaying still dogs the shooting sport world. The lack of morale back bone being displayed in support of a man who has clearly been dragged through it to me is utterly disgraceful.

As far as not understanding what I copy /paste…thus far you are the only person here who has been unable to offer any form of reasoned debate without simply jumping on the back of anothers posts and ending yours with a snidey comment about how the other has no idea about what he is writing…

I will however make the apology to you about misreading one of your earlier posts, where I exclaimed you didn’t think he should have his guns back, and accept that you stated you didn’t think he would get them back.

So with that in mind, and in the words of my dearly beloved and sadly departed grand mother…

If you can think of nothing nice, helpful nor constructive to say…then despite the assumed strength of your typing hand…I respectfully request you refrain from risking any form of RSI, and not waste your energy replying.

Cheers.

Edited March 12, 2017 by yorkierm

[Gordon R]

yorkierm - apology accepted.

 

My views are posted (with the reasons) - forgive me if you are unable to read.

 

Throughout your posts there have been comments designed to put the Police in a bad light. If you can't remember them - re-read your ramblings. You may find it as hard as others do.

 

You said earlier that Police had no regard to risk when deciding the grant of a licence. I pointed out that FEOs and GPs were supposed to be doing that very thing. I don't see any proof from you to support your bizarre statement. You seem to have merely ignored your faux pas. Any chance of an answer?

 

As my grandmother said - "if someone appears to be stupid, they probably are".

[yorkierm]

Oh my days Gordon...

 

I have read your views, and accepted your take on things...you feel that he was in the wrong to go out with his gun, though you are happy he got off...but you do not think he will get his gun back, but say you would accept if he did...yet you offer no level of real support in if you actually think he should get them back or not. Despite him being found innocent it seems to me you still feel that he is a danger to society and would prefer him not to have them...But do not have the courage to say that his act of self defence possibly saved his and his wifes life.

 

I have countered that with the argument that i do not see that he is a risk to anyone else, not that the police do not have to assess the risk, I have stated that I find it hard pressed for the police to argue he is a risk. I have not said the police have no regard to risk...I have said that in this instance i do not feel there is one.

 

You mention that if he got his gun back and then shot someone else the whole system would be in ridicule...but seem unable yourself to differentiate the possible use of any other item to be used as a weapon. I am simply saying you do not need a gun to have a weapon...

 

I also have not attempted to portray the police in a bad light. I have said nothing derogatory about them...but it is true that the police and government are actively trying to reduce legal gun ownership, and that the laws are not run in a shooters favour. And some forces are very much more anti than others. So my sentiments that gun laws are unfair and not 100% workable are at least about right...

Edited March 12, 2017 by yorkierm

[Gordon R]

I also have not attempted to portray the police in a bad light.

I have said nothing derogatory about them...

I knew you would bite.

 

 

I am sure the Police are appreciative of your supportive comments - none of which could be described as derogatory.

Sir I do not have a bee in my bonnet about the Police. I fully respect them, the job

they do in what can only be described as challenging and sometimes dangerous

conditions. They, on the whole, get my full support.

Another example of the police acting heavy handed, trying to instill a fear

of all firearms into lower polce ranks and the general public. An utter disgrace.

 

There is nothing in law that can stop him, other than the police unlawfully stopping

him through the use of powers they have given themselves.

 

And the police, who would see us all unarmed, are using their home made

powers to attempt to achieve that fact.

 

it is simply because the powers that be are trying there very utmost to remove all privately

owned firearms. Not because there are (yet) specific laws to do so.

 

But the police will not support it for fear of supporting vigilantism...not because you are wrong.

These people are no threat to society, they have not run amok in a town with a firearm, there is no

reason they should not be allowed one., other than the police acting out of relative spite.

 

I cant answer that mate, but bearing in mind that its the police who issue our licences...

if they don't want you to have one, you wont get it.

 

The only possible answer is the police attempting to remove firearms from private ownership.

Not because there is a genuine risk to others.

 

The refusal to re grant any form of licence is not because there is a risk, its because the police

are too scared to admit and support these men.

 

But we all know that we as a community are persecuted because of the actions of a few men in

the past, which was ultimately the fault of poorly enforced licencing by the police

 

It is only the police trying to to disarm everyone that will lead to it, not the fact he is a danger to anyone else.

 

To be allowed one you must satisfy the Police (not the courts or any other governing body) that you have

good reason to own one, are not a risk to society, and can provide the relevant proof.

 

But as the police are actively pursuing legal firearms ownership through a bullying mentality I suspect he

may struggle, even though there is no legal grounds on which to refuse him.

 

One only need look at the fact a top Met police officer blamed lawful shooters for the tragic death of MP

Jo Cox to show the police mentality towards lawful shooting sports…

 

then the only possible reason is a bullying mentality from the police, who are the issuers of the relevant licences.

 

And the police, not only with desire to remove firearms, do not have the backbone (at leadership level not

grass roots policing) to support people in any situation where they demonstrate any sort of ability to defend

them self, for fear of being accused of supporting vigilantism, or it'd do the police out of a job.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Gordon R

[yorkierm]

Gordon...

 

Grass roots, bobby on the beat policing is a very hard job and has my utmost support. It is a hard and dangerous job which they do, mostly, to the very best standard. And yes there are always examples of bad practice,but on the whole they do a fine job...

 

that said...

 

Which of my statements about the police do you find to be untrue. While Many cops may support shooting sports...it is true that the many higher echelons have an undue negative attitude towards it...

 

All we ever hear on the news is police negativity towards guns and shooting. Firearms amnestys which supposedly remove deadly weapons from criminals, with pictures of a few old air rifles that probably dont work, coupled with some crime commissioner telling the presenter just how very very dangerous they are...misleading the general public spectacularly...

 

And yes they can be heavy handed...To rock up at the old mans house fully equipped claiming to be looking for hostages? where did they get that intelligence from? I do think that was over the top, you may not.

 

It is the higher police ranks that have say in how firearms law is written and implemented...and to date I have seen very little that is supportive of our sport.

 

Some forces are enforcing mentoring systems for FACs where you have to have additional proof from the land owner or other FAC holder that you are fit, having been out shooting with them on a number of occasions, to have an FAC...this is not official Home Office guidelines, so yes making up the rules to suit themselves...

 

And yes bullying...I know of a gentleman who wanted one of them lever release rifles...but his police force told him not to bother as they would be banned soon...turns out was just because they dont like them... isnt that bullying? seems to me you should know a bit about that.

 

Yes the police grant certificates, so if they decide you aren't fit to have it...you wont get it...even if there is no reason not to. They have to provide 2 written reasons why you cannot be granted a licence. There are reports of people just being refused yet given no reason...

 

The head of the MET did blame licensed holders...apparently we are more likely to be the target of criminals who want to steal our guns in order to kill people...

 

Pistol shooters some years ago got shafted totally by police ineptitude. Because of it we are all tarred with the same brush, and to me the police, who should be there to support the innocent, have made very little real effort to convince the non shooting public that on the whole legal firearms owners are not a risk to society.

 

Yes it does see to me that the rights of victims are massively overshadowed by criminals....or perhaps you are happy that someone can get sent to prison and be allowed all the luxuries that the rest of us work hard to have to pay for.

 

To any serving police officer on this site/forum, you have my blessing and respect. I wish you safety and health. and hope that as you proceed up the ranks you can start to possibly swing the balance of common sense back to where it needs to sit.

Edited March 12, 2017 by yorkierm

[Gordon R]

yorkierm - you said you had said nothing derogatory about the Police. I could highlight the nasty and inaccurate comments, if you have difficulty in picking them out. It isn't hard - there are so many. More than once you refer to "bullying mentality".

 

Before posting another ramble, which doesn't actually say much - any chance of an answer about the Police and "risk".

[yorkierm]

Gordon switch off and let someone who has something worth listening to have a say, even if they disagree with my feelings or thoughts at least they might, as in timps example, be able to do it without being condescending and attempting to belittle someone else.

 

 

I answered about risk in a previous post...yes the police have to assess it, but as there are cases of people with actual convictions from their past with SGCs, due to the rehabilitation of offenders act, and the bit of the firearms act that says less than three years must wait 5 years before being allowed... then a man who has no convictions should surely not be barred from owning a SGC...

 

The whole idea of forums such as this is to be able to have a reasoned debate, in order to learn from others and discuss, without the need to be rude, subjects of interest to us. You dont seem capable.

Edited March 12, 2017 by yorkierm

[timps]

 

With regard to section 16 of the firearms act (possession of a firearm with intent to injure)…

I fully appreciate this, no it is not a just reason to own a firearm simply for defence in this country. And yes, his admission that he took it for self defence on the night in question raises eyebrows…but as, in this case, self defence has been proven…to me that negates the intent to injure fact, as the law on self defence makes allowances for things that under any other circumstance to be illegal, to be taken into justification. Had he continued to follow the fleeing pair down his road firing at them then yes i would support a ban, and indeed would agree that it was not self defence. But that was not the case. In this case, to me at least, his shotgun is no different to any other possible weapon, a knife or bat. He probably grabbed the first thing he thought he could use to defend himself. Had that been a pitch fork, which is just as capable of inflicting severe trauma and possibly death, which again on any other occasion being turned into an offensive weapon would be illegal, he would have been equally justified, as now is proven, he acted in self defence, meaning he was entightled to use the force he felt at the time he required. And from that, despite the two being just as deadly, he would not likely be facing loosing his guns. I do accept though what it is to me, and the police are very different. But I still see no full legal reason for him to be refused it. Considering that there are people out there with actual convictions on there record who hold SGC, then a man who has none should not be barred…So with consideration to the polices view on if he is a risk or not…if he is refused it back I would suggest he looked into how many other people have an actual conviction yet still have there SGC…

Self defence is not the issue, the court found he acted within self defence however the argument that because he was acquitted this absolves him from all other crimes is misguided.

 

The minute he picked up the gun to use with the intent to injure he broke the firearms act, now if he barricaded himself in a room he could use the he genuinely feared for his safety, even if that fear was an irrational fear in hindsight to protect him defence. Cowering in a room with a gun to protect you shows real fear.

 

However, walking out of the door towards the perceived threat is not someone who is in fear, far from it, he is ready to confront the threat with a gun and he is not legally allowed to do that, that’s when he broke the firearms act and has not much in the way of legal defence. As soon as the landrover came at him he can then use the genuinely feared for his safety, even if that fear was an irrational fear in hindsight to protect him defence hence why he was acquitted.

 

He acted in self-defence that has been proven but it was still illegal to take the gun with him to confront the threat. Breaking the firearms act is a genuine reason for revocation.

 

As an example you could stab someone with a knife while out on the street and conceivably prove self-defence however that doesn’t stop you from getting done for carrying the knife in the first place. They are two separate charges, with the view you take as long as you stab someone in self-defence you cannot be charged with carrying a knife in public. The law states you shouldn't be carrying a knife, It also states you shouldn't carry a firearm with intent to injure.

 

Self defence only protects you so far and there has to be genuine fear which is difficult to establish if you are walking towards the threat to confront it.

 

I have no idea what the outcome will be regarding his certificate however I can see the legal reason why it could be revoked.