Licensing depts abiding by the law & guidance

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
Dose the membership think that it's about time that licensing depts were made to comply with the letter of the law & even the guidelines, indeed a judge recently stated after an appeals case, "let us look at the law as it is written NOT as the police would like it to have been written" surely if more & more people appealed decisions their budget would force them eventually to comply. After all their quick enough jumping on us if we don't abide by the letter of the law, many depts don't even abide by the guidance do you think that more challanges should be made, maybe someone from BASC would like to comment as well
 
Most people cant afford to appeal a decision, its a situation where even if you win you lose financial, the police are not liable for any court costs, win or lose!!

Ian.
 
Not true the judge can award cost as one recently awarded over £12,000 in costs to a successful appeal against a firearms dept, & don't we pay BASC membership for legal expenses cover for licensing appeals although their interest is limited depending on case.
Most people cant afford to appeal a decision, its a situation where even if you win you lose financial, the police are not liable for any court costs, win or lose!!

Ian.
 
I believe the judge will only award costs against the police if the judge is of the opinion that their actions were completely unjustified, otherwise win or lose, they lie with the pursuer.
 
The answer is to get your case together BEFORE you apply, once it's been rejected you may as well try to get a woman to change her mind!!

never had a rejection due to presenting irrefutable cases for good reason
 
Then your lucky I'd say because I keep hearing man that have, there's a case going on I know of where 243 has been refused for fox, & the application was made within the guidelines & with all the nessasary requirements.
I think often depts hedge their bets that you won't be able to afford to challange the decision, however you can still make formal complaints to heir professional standards dept, & if un satisfied escalate it further through that route, which costs you nothing.
The answer is to get your case together BEFORE you apply, once it's been rejected you may as well try to get a woman to change her mind!!

never had a rejection due to presenting irrefutable cases for good reason
 
Then your lucky I'd say because I keep hearing man that have, there's a case going on I know of where 243 has been refused for fox, & the application was made within the guidelines & with all the necessary requirements.
I think often depts hedge their bets that you won't be able to afford to challenge the decision, however you can still make formal complaints to heir professional standards dept, & if un satisfied escalate it further through that route, which costs you nothing.


Well I can see if the FEO is a ***** or just doesn't like you but i still maintain if you cover all the angles and answer all the questions BEFORE they are asked they have no reason to say no

.243 for fox is a relatively straightforward one
put the onus of the humane kill on the Police IN THE APPLICATION.

"I need a .243 as the distances, terrain and wind in the areas I shoot require a faster, flatter, heavier bullet for a humane kill and I am concerned about losing wounded foxes as a result of only having a .223"
"The .243 is a popular varmint round in both the UK and US and is catered for with a wide variety of highly frangible bullets that fracture on impact making them extremely safe and presenting limited ricochet and onward travel scenarios"
"The .243 presents no more or less of a safety challenge than a ,223 and all the usual backstop and shot qualification decisions still need to be made"

when that bit in bold comes up at trial for causing unnecessary wounding I would like to see a Chief Constable squirm!!
 
You have one police service in Scotland in England & Wales there are about a dozen or more & none of them sing from the same hyme sheet lol, I'm lucky although I know of many with nonsense going on that should not be allowed yet we as shooters continually put up with it I'm many cases, it wouldn't happen in any other occupation/hobby
 
The trouble with that is as the other thread on percentancy showed, 87% wont/cant be bothered because they have not or never encountered any trouble with his/her departments, mine as finally been resolved because i threatened a formal complaint and also mentioned the person by name,thank god,,,,,,but im afraid we as shooters dont use the same sheet either,
 
Another one of those threads that makes me thank my stars for North Wales Police!
My FAC always seems to come back with more than I asked for, not less!
 
+1on that
The trouble with that is as the other thread on percentancy showed, 87% wont/cant be bothered because they have not or never encountered any trouble with his/her departments, mine as finally been resolved because i threatened a formal complaint and also mentioned the person by name,thank god,,,,,,but im afraid we as shooters dont use the same sheet either,
 
Dose the membership think that it's about time that licensing depts were made to comply with the letter of the law & even the guidelines, indeed a judge recently stated after an appeals case, "let us look at the law as it is written NOT as the police would like it to have been written" surely if more & more people appealed decisions their budget would force them eventually to comply. After all their quick enough jumping on us if we don't abide by the letter of the law, many depts don't even abide by the guidance do you think that more challanges should be made, maybe someone from BASC would like to comment as well

do the police have to abide by the guidance? after it is only guidance. we don't have to comply with guidance, only that which is mandatory i.e. you shall rather than you should. This is something that would make a lot of challenges quite difficult as there would often be a grey area based on somebody's opinion (be it right or wrong).

I remember not too long ago there was a thread about somebody who had a weapon stolen from their vehicle and when stolen it had the bolt in it. I remember most folks on here were quick to say the person could kiss goodbye to their FAC. There was a post in the thread which quite rightly pointed out that the guidance states that you should remove the bolt from a rifle being left in a vehicle, it does not say shall meaning no law has been broken. I feel that on both sides of the fence there is often confusion about what is law and what is not.
 
Gmorrice, I love your statement " we don,t have to comply with the guidance " in the words of a senior police officer, " if you fail to comply with the guidance, we will use it to prosecute in the event of a incident, that the guidance would have prevented" this also applies to the H&S executive.
But if you think it will stand up in court, give it a try.
 
Gmorrice, I love your statement " we don,t have to comply with the guidance " in the words of a senior police officer, " if you fail to comply with the guidance, we will use it to prosecute in the event of a incident, that the guidance would have prevented" this also applies to the H&S executive.
But if you think it will stand up in court, give it a try.

So if there's another horrific firearms incident that could have been prevented if the police had followed the guidance (checking references, timely renewals not s7 permits etc) will the chief plod be prosecuted? It would certainly sharpen up their responses.
 
The trouble with that is as the other thread on percentancy showed, 87% wont/cant be bothered because they have not or never encountered any trouble QUOTE]

but that's simply the nature of the beast. My firearms team have never given me cause to complain in fact I recently wrote them a email of thanks. Should I complain about the standards of parking in Croydon when I live somewhere else. Do I know the full facts of somebody else's complaint or are there "skeletons in the closet" that I don't know about? If gun crime higher in the areas where licencing teams are taking a harder line?
 
Well I can see if the FEO is a ***** or just doesn't like you but i still maintain if you cover all the angles and answer all the questions BEFORE they are asked they have no reason to say no

.243 for fox is a relatively straightforward one
put the onus of the humane kill on the Police IN THE APPLICATION.

"I need a .243 as the distances, terrain and wind in the areas I shoot require a faster, flatter, heavier bullet for a humane kill and I am concerned about losing wounded foxes as a result of only having a .223"
"The .243 is a popular varmint round in both the UK and US and is catered for with a wide variety of highly frangible bullets that fracture on impact making them extremely safe and presenting limited ricochet and onward travel scenarios"
"The .243 presents no more or less of a safety challenge than a ,223 and all the usual backstop and shot qualification decisions still need to be made"

when that bit in bold comes up at trial for causing unnecessary wounding I would like to see a Chief Constable squirm!!


Although I agree in principle with what you say I believe that it is far better to say " My good reason for possessing a .243 rifle is........" rather than "need".

In some circumstances a FEO might argue that you don't "need" ..... rifle as you :- already have a rifle in a different calibre that would perform the same task / could borrow an estate rifle etc. etc.

To give an example if you had access to both fox shooting & deer stalking you would have "good reason " to possess a .223, .243 & 308, but if you had to demonstrate "need" you might be restricted to just the .243.

atb Tim
 
do the police have to abide by the guidance? after it is only guidance. we don't have to comply with guidance, only that which is mandatory i.e. you shall rather than you should. This is something that would make a lot of challenges quite difficult as there would often be a grey area based on somebody's opinion (be it right or wrong.

Have a read of the recent HMIC report into Firearms Licensing and see what those who police the police have to say on the subject.
 
Gmorrice, I love your statement " we don,t have to comply with the guidance " in the words of a senior police officer, " if you fail to comply with the guidance, we will use it to prosecute in the event of a incident, that the guidance would have prevented" this also applies to the H&S executive.
But if you think it will stand up in court, give it a try.

Taff I agree with what you say and many forces would tell us the same but that is a threat, nothing more nothing less. If something did happen, how could you be prosecuted for not breaking any laws? Granted you may need good legal representation and your actions must not be seen as reckless. But you would be prosecuted for something the police do not and can not enforce.

That being said I am not one type to argue with the FEO / Police and point out parts in the HO guidance as that probably wont go down well either.
 
Have a read of the recent HMIC report into Firearms Licensing and see what those who police the police have to say on the subject.

I googled the report you mentioned and think its the same one and came to this (not sure if your post agrees or disagrees with what I said earlier)

"Recommendation 2. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary recommends that force policy and procedure in respect of firearms licensing should mirror Lord Cullens Recommendations and ACPO Policy, Home Office Guidance and ACPO, ‘Procedural Good Practice Guide’. "

the use of the words recommendation / recommends & should, to me means that the policies / guidance that follows are not mandatory.
 
The trouble with that is as the other thread on percentancy showed, 87% wont/cant be bothered because they have not or never encountered any trouble with his/her departments, mine as finally been resolved because i threatened a formal complaint and also mentioned the person by name,thank god,,,,,,but im afraid we as shooters dont use the same sheet either,

That just goes to show that most people don't have any issues with their departments. There may be many reasons for this ie most people ask for "normal" calibre choices and numbers so there aren't issues. If you cross the T's and dot the I's on any request then I think only a very tiny percentage would have problems with a particularly difficult FEO (of which I think are very few and far between). Some people just can't face being told no and kick up at it when most the time it's simply a lack of explains why and what they want. You only have to search through here for threads like "what to I need to say to get a HD pistol/extra .22lr/a .338"

Personally I'd say if you don't know what to say or have asked and been turned down before doing your research then more fool you. I may just be lucky that Sussex are good and I've had all I asked for and it was all done very quickly but I did make sure I had watertight reasons and arguments before sending and letters off.
 
Back
Top