shortlegs
Well-known member
the second clip is worrying says all about legitimate firearms owners being banned but doesn't mention dealing with all the illegal firearms in this country that account for most of the shootingsFlamin Eck
Brace yourself
- Thread starter Jan Powell
- Start date
Help Support Clay, Trap, Skeet Shooting Forum:
That's his opinion, no doubt he knows more news agences will come a knocking due to his opinion now. He knows his time in the limelight is coming.
Would have liked the presenter to have asked him how many occasions he was asked to attend a legally held firearm incident compaired to all of the criminal ones he attended during his time as has he puts it a 'firearms officer who carried a gun occasionally'
Would have liked the presenter to have asked him how many occasions he was asked to attend a legally held firearm incident compaired to all of the criminal ones he attended during his time as has he puts it a 'firearms officer who carried a gun occasionally'
balltrap
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,030
I was listening to LBC again last night to DARREN ADAM there was a lot of callers on the subject of a total ban on all guns, there was a lady clay shooter from Essex trying to justify gun ownership and trying to explain about the sport, but she looked a bit of a fool when she was asked the difference between a firearms and a shot gun licence ( SHE DID NOT KNOW ? ) all this is giving the anti gunners some ammo ! but I doubt anything will change other than some quick checks on media accounts which will slow new and re-news down because they will not employ more officers or staff to do in-depth checks, if they do the fees will go up for sure.
I wonder if they will check my 4 FB accounts under different names !!!
I wonder if they will check my 4 FB accounts under different names !!!
Hey up Shortlegs you need to start worrying when they start doing DNA checks on the lambs
Last edited by a moderator:
No, they will ask if you have a FB account, and tell you they will be checking it as per Home office guidlines. If you then fail to divulge the ones not in your name to them, and they find out you have 4 FB accounts under different names, which they would probably think is strange anyway
, bang go's the SG/FAC licence
shortlegs
Well-known member
Hey up Shortlegs you need to start worrying when they start doing DNA checks on the lambs
Hey up Balltrap They'll have to be quick to test them then we love em then we send them across the border and you eat them :laugh:
Hey up Balltrap They'll have to be quick to test them then we love em then we send them across the border and you eat them :laugh:
UK rules do not affect me thank god but I don't think that social media monitoring would work at all. Just taking my own case in setting up a facebook account as an example. I went through the set up process and fully expected it to be just like setting up an email account or some such and I would be wasting my time on FB... oh contraire I immediately got a message from FB saying I could not use my account because they did not like what I was posting ... I have never had a FB account have never posted anything on FB yet they say I have??? So my question is who has been using FB using my name? Secondly there is no point what so ever in trying to contact them to make that point because the do not communicate with individuals it is an automated system computer driven . I have to say though that in many ways I am glad I never got that FB account because as far as I can see it is nothing more than a way of collecting personal information.
balltrap
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,030
Then they will find its for intel for the EA.....you never know who is watching.No, they will ask if you have a FB account, and tell you they will be checking it as per Home office guidlines. If you then fail to divulge the ones not in your name to them, and they find out you have 4 FB accounts under different names, which they would probably think is strange anyway
I think you are right and it's going to be another layer of expense. When doctors realise that they have the power to influence and we have no alternative, up goes their fee .
It cost me £50 for my doctor to respond to the police. But the stupid part is this, I’ve never met my doctor. He took over from my old GP about five years ago. So other than my records he knows nothing about me. I know he can see on his records that I’ve held a SGC and FAC for decades, because the previous GP told me. We have to expect more hoops to jump through and more costs, it’s inevitable!
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
- Messages
- 702
I suppose we can kiss the idea of a 10 year licence goodbye then 
I think we all know that the current licensing system is not as it should be. Each police force seems to be able to interpret the criteria in their own way.
Personally I don’t understand why we don’t have just one type of license that covers all firearms including shotguns. Also the hoops you have to jump through differ according to what sort of license you are applying for. The same goes for rules on the storage of ammo and how much you can hold, there is also the issue over where you intend to shoot the weapon. I had to be a full member of a Home Office approved club to get my FAC.
The whole thing needs to be looked at properly, because currently it’s a mess. Every police force should apply the rules in the same way.
Personally I don’t understand why we don’t have just one type of license that covers all firearms including shotguns. Also the hoops you have to jump through differ according to what sort of license you are applying for. The same goes for rules on the storage of ammo and how much you can hold, there is also the issue over where you intend to shoot the weapon. I had to be a full member of a Home Office approved club to get my FAC.
The whole thing needs to be looked at properly, because currently it’s a mess. Every police force should apply the rules in the same way.
bostonmick
Well-known member
The main problem is there are no hard rules.the home office issue guidance which is open to all sorts of interpretation.the issue of certificates is down to personal preference by not only the chief constable but now gp's. If they are anti in their own beliefs then we will suffer.there should be clear concise rules that not only the applicant must follow but also the police and now the gp's. Regardless of who is blamed for this latest incident it will only be the law abiding holders that will pay the price.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty sure you have to be a member of a shooting club to get a firearms licence anyway be it HO Approved or not ,for vermin shooting you will be asked where you will intend to shoot it, and prove you have permission from the land owner, and that land will be inspected by the FAO and yourself to see if it is suitable
Unlike a SGC were you just apply and no mention of why or where you intend to use it,or what training you've had with the shotgun beforehand it seems, those will be the changes when applying in the future I would think
Unlike a SGC were you just apply and no mention of why or where you intend to use it,or what training you've had with the shotgun beforehand it seems, those will be the changes when applying in the future I would think
In some ways I do feel that training is somewhat overlooked when it comes to SGC applications. I know there has always been some resistance to training prior to getting a SGC , but I really cannot see the problem. Yes there is a cost implication, but it could at least put money into the sport as far as clubs and coaches are concerned.
Speaking personally, I had lessons for three of four months prior to even thinking about applying for a SGC. In fact I think I’d been shooting almost a year before I bought my first shotgun.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 614
Could I ask how many of those posting have read the detailed reports already published by Parliament following previous incidents. An example is the 2000 report below which discusses alot of the issues, must of which are still current today.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9502.htm
Since then there have been regular consultations and further reports which are easy to find on the government sites. The outcomes are often the same whichever party is in power and the reports (as with the above) are often from cross-party Select Comittees.
I am not saying that those posting are not entitled to an opinion but that in many cases (mine included) that is all it is. Personally, I would happily accept further checks and I would happily pay extra for them (as I would for policing as a discrete item of taxation). I do believe there is a difference between S.1 (firearms) and S.2 (shotguns) and this has been discussed in detail in many of the reports etc but I also accept that a single system may possibly be more straightforward. To me the s.1/s.2 split is due to the risk posed by the weapon type. I also believe that some legislation such as GDPR protects our rights but hinders the Police and thus they are reluctant to investigate avenues such as social media without good cause.
Finally, the government will be fully aware that changing the law does nothing but create confusion if the underlying issue is not having applied the current one correctly, particularily when that is due to the inadequate funding of those who are required to enforce it.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9502.htm
Since then there have been regular consultations and further reports which are easy to find on the government sites. The outcomes are often the same whichever party is in power and the reports (as with the above) are often from cross-party Select Comittees.
I am not saying that those posting are not entitled to an opinion but that in many cases (mine included) that is all it is. Personally, I would happily accept further checks and I would happily pay extra for them (as I would for policing as a discrete item of taxation). I do believe there is a difference between S.1 (firearms) and S.2 (shotguns) and this has been discussed in detail in many of the reports etc but I also accept that a single system may possibly be more straightforward. To me the s.1/s.2 split is due to the risk posed by the weapon type. I also believe that some legislation such as GDPR protects our rights but hinders the Police and thus they are reluctant to investigate avenues such as social media without good cause.
Finally, the government will be fully aware that changing the law does nothing but create confusion if the underlying issue is not having applied the current one correctly, particularily when that is due to the inadequate funding of those who are required to enforce it.
Similar threads
