FAC Magic answers?

[neutron619]

One last time then.

 

 

It is a right with CONDITIONS, and if you don't satisfy those conditions you don't get either a SGC or a FAC, that's why I said.......

 

That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white!

 

Yes, but that's a misunderstanding of the law, which is precisely the point I'm trying to correct.

 

It is not a "right with conditions" as you put it, because there are no conditions for you to fulfill. You cannot, legally, go to the Chief of Police, with a dossier of evidence that you have collected showing that you meet a checklist of "things" and ask for a certificate to be granted because you "tick all the boxes", so to speak, because there is no checklist to work against. It just doesn't work like that.

 

The only checklist that exists is the one in the minds of the Chief of Police and anyone to whom he delegates responsibility for firearms licensing that goes something like:

 

1. Past convictions / prohibited person.

2. Medical grounds for refusal.

3. Rumours of domestic violence.

4. Prohibited persons in the house where they'll be kept.

5. Credible evidence of disreputable behaviour (i.e. drugs, alcohol, etc.).

6. Unlikely to store firearm safely.

7. Unlikely to use firearm for the intended purpose.

8. Etc.

 

They (and not you) are responsible for addressing each of those points. You cannot prove that you are not disreputable, for example; rather, they have to prove that you are.

 

Yes, okay, this is a subtlety and in practice it works the way we all know and love, but the very fact of it being a right means that everyone starts from the position of "we are permitted to keep and use firearms (responsibly)" and not "we have to prove that we can be allowed to keep and use firearms (responsibly)" which actually gives the man in the street a huge advantage over the latter approach, if, for example, he decides, he fancies trying deer stalking for a couple of years.

 

Sorry to labour the point, but there's so much **** talked about FAC and not being allowed this or that for this or that and it's 99% *******. The law, in this instance, is our friend and not the friend of the police, if only we take the time to understand it properly.

Edited October 8, 2017 by neutron619

[Dekers]

I haven't misunderstood anything, and Charlie T has actually quoted the Firearms Act section.

 

The Act lays down the references and the police interpret them.

 

As you yourself point out in #41, IT ISN'T a right, it is a QUALIFIED right.

It is however, because of the various Firearms Acts (1937 and 1968 most significantly) a qualified right.

 

Hence why I said

That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white!

Edited October 8, 2017 by Dekers

[neutron619]

The Act lays down the references and the police interpret them.

 

Precisely. You've just made my point for me.

 

There is nothing you can do, in a strictly legal sense, to show that you should have a firearm. It is for the police to show that you shouldn't.

 

A "right with conditions" is not a right. What it is, is a contradiction in the terms (or possibly, a privilege).

 

And in case you're thinking it, I agree by the way - the law is an ***, but this is how it works (and almost certainly how anyone paid to represent your interests in matters of firearms will argue it).

 

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that - either you see and appreciate the subtlety I'm trying to illustrate, or you don't.

 

Not worth losing any sleep over it though.

Edited October 8, 2017 by neutron619

[Jaymo]

Four pages of wonderful replies and the OP hasnt commented since his initial post!

[Dekers]

 

Precisely. You've just made my point for me.

 

There is nothing you can do, in a strictly legal sense, to show that you should have a firearm. It is for the police to show that you shouldn't.

 

A "right with conditions" is not a right. What it is, is a contradiction in the terms (or possibly, a privilege).

 

And in case you're thinking it, I agree by the way - the law is an ***, but this is how it works (and almost certainly how anyone paid to represent your interests in matters of firearms will argue it).

 

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that - either you see and appreciate the subtlety I'm trying to illustrate, or you don't.

 

Not worth losing any sleep over it though.

 

Crumbs, whatever Right you may or may not have had has been restricted by the LAW, so you no longer have a right, you have a qualified right or a right with conditions, and that was what I said many posts back.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Dekers

[Me matt]

Four pages of wonderful replies and the OP hasnt commented since his initial post!

Strange that......

[neutron619]

 

Crumbs, whatever Right you may or may not have had has been restricted by the LAW, so you no longer have a right, you have a qualified right or a right with conditions, and that was what I said many posts back.

 

Crumbs indeed. Can we please get to the point where it is understood that

 

a) the bit highlighted in green above is correct and has a proper legal meaning, which I have been trying to explain for about five posts now, and

b) that the bit highlighted in red above has no legal meaning and is a fundamental nonsense because it is a contradiction in the terms.

 

Yes, it's subtle - I get that - but we're talking law, and beyond any interpretation required in individual cases for which a judge is responsible, the law is clear and unambiguous, as we have both agreed, CharlieT having quoted the relevant passage.

 

You cannot meet any conditions for the grant of an FAC, because there are no conditions.

 

The only way you can be refused an FAC is if the Chief Officer of Police can deploy one of the reasons recognized in law for the refusal of a certificate to a Crown Court standard of proof.

 

Enough. If you don't see the difference, it's not worth the bother.

Edited October 8, 2017 by neutron619

[Scotty1980]

Thank you for all the good advice gentlemen.

 

I have found most of the replies very helpful.

 

Who would of thought that such a post could create such healthy debate?

 

I am visiting 2 local ranges tomorrow with the intention of joining one to gain some experience.

 

While in my probation period I am going to try and get a few days stalking in and try and get my DSC1 taken.

 

Apologies for not replying to the topic, most of the conversation has been about fire arms laws in which I am unfamiliar, also until I have visited said clubs, I have very little to add to the conversation.

 

Thanks chaps.

[spandit]

So .222 or .223?

[Dekers]

 

Crumbs indeed. Can we please get to the point where it is understood that

 

a) the bit highlighted in green above is correct and has a proper legal meaning, which I have been trying to explain for about five posts now, and

b) that the bit highlighted in red above has no legal meaning and is a fundamental nonsense because it is a contradiction in the terms.

 

Yes, it's subtle - I get that - but we're talking law, and beyond any interpretation required in individual cases for which a judge is responsible, the law is clear and unambiguous, as we have both agreed, CharlieT having quoted the relevant passage.

 

You cannot meet any conditions for the grant of an FAC, because there are no conditions.

 

The only way you can be refused an FAC is if the Chief Officer of Police can deploy one of the reasons recognized in law for the refusal of a certificate to a Crown Court standard of proof.

 

Enough. If you don't see the difference, it's not worth the bother.

 

You took issue with my original response, which said, That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white.

 

You even said yourself since, gun ownership is a QUALIFIED RIGHT, so it ISN'T a Right, so why are you taking issue with my original comment?

 

Gun ownership is NOT a right, the more you argue about Qualified Right, the more you promote the fact it isn't a right!?

 

A Qualified Right is not a Right, the difference isn't subtle, it is major!

 

The LAW has qualified your right, and whether you want to call the police interpretation conditions, or whatever word you are happy with you no longer have a RIGHT!

Edited October 8, 2017 by Dekers

[Scotty1980]

.222 or .223

 

No Idea to be honest, I will take any advice given by forum or club.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Scotty1980

[walshie]

.222 or .223

 

No Idea to be honest, I will take any advice given by forum or club.

 

Don't take the advice of gun clubs as gospel without double checking what they say is correct. A mate of mine was given some horrendous advice from a club.

[Me matt]

.222 or .223

 

No Idea to be honest, I will take any advice given by forum or club.

Where do you shoot your shotgun?

[Dekers]

So .222 or .223?

 

:lol:

[neutron619]

 

You took issue with my original response, which said, That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white.

 

You even said yourself since, gun ownership is a QUALIFIED RIGHT, so it ISN'T a Right, so why are you taking issue with my original comment?

 

Gun ownership is NOT a right, the more you argue about Qualified Right, the more you promote the fact it isn't a right!?

 

A Qualified Right is not a Right, the difference isn't subtle, it is major!

 

The LAW has qualified your right, and whether you want to call the police interpretation conditions, or whatever word you are happy with you no longer have a RIGHT!

 

Since you say a qualified right is not a right, and I say it is, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, or at least to willfully misunderstand each other.

 

I'm trying to argue a point about the difference between a right (state has to demonstrate why you can't be permitted to exercise it) and a privilege (you have to show why you should be allowed to take some action).

 

If I've understood correctly, I think you are trying to argue a point about the different kinds of rights, all of which fall under the broader classification of "rights" that I'm talking about in the first part of the previous paragraph.

 

I believe we aren't going to be able to conclude this satisfactorily, since we appear to be talking apples and oranges at this point, which means that all that's left to say is

 

All the best.

[Scotty1980]

Where do you shoot your shotgun?

I'm currently shooting at clay grounds while a gain experience.

[Me matt]

I'm currently shooting at clay grounds while a gain experience.

I would give it a while and become compotent with a shotgun before persuing the FAC if I were you.

[Scotty1980]

I would give it a while and become compotent with a shotgun before persuing the FAC if I were you.

Thanks for the advice.