A new one?

Si

Well-Known Member
I was speaking to a mate today who told me that a lad he's been helping to apply for FAC has been refused.

The reason given is that he was in a car with some other lads who are known to the police. The car was pulled over and all their names taken, nothing came of it and they were allowed to go on their way.

But now it seems because of his "association" with these lads, he can not be trusted with firearms.

Other than this he has no criminal record and never been in any trouble of any kind,

Can this be right?
 
Doesn't sound right to me...........if he's no criminal record that would affect the application, & he's fulfilled all the criteria there should be no reason for his application to be refused. Just because he was in the car with these lads is no reason for the police to automatically assume guilt. Pretty shoddy if you ask me. In fact to be perfectly frank, it's high time these people realised they're civil servants & exist to provide us with a service, rather than spend their time dictating the terms of how that service is to be provided :evil:
 
These sorts of things are bound to be taken into consideration. If you associate with known criminals then its not a positive thing.

There are a lot of crimes that you may be acquitted of and hold no criminal record, but would show up and prevent you getting a FAC. Police call outs for domestic disturbances but no charges brought as a prime example.

I think quite reasonable.
 
The test remains:
A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of
police is satisfied-
(a) that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to
which section 1 of this Act applies and is not person
prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;
(b) that he has good reason for having in his possession, or for
purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect
of which the application is made; and
(c) that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to
have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without
danger to the public safety or to the peace.


Presumably the Police are not satisfied on some or all of the above.

As Apache says, it is far from unreasonable for them to take an applicant's associates into account when making this important decision.
 
Last edited:
The applicant has the right to appeal against the refusal, it may however be more practical to get a new set of friends and avoid those with criminal inclinations.

atb Tim
 
The guy might've been getting a lift & had no association with any criminality whatsoever...........when are we going to stop seeing an FAC as the right of the elite & start ensuring that people actually get treated fairly & decently as per both the law, and their rights? In any case, regarding criminality, unless you've served over 3 years in prison you're not automatically barred from an FAC as far as I know. As a matter of fact, a member of this very forum (who's account is now suspended for whatever reason) admitted to me that he once shot a policeman in the face with an air rifle, as well as numerous other offences that he was apparently reminded not to repeat when his FAC was granted. Now, either he was full of ****, or Manchester Firearms Licensing didn't see that as a serious enough offence to bar him from rifle ownership. And incidentally, I knew this guy on a (thankfully brief) personal basis & found him to be a complete psychopath who shouldn't have been placed in charge of a water pistol, let alone the multiple calibres he possessed.............
 
Last edited:
The guy might've been getting a lift & had no association with any criminality whatsoever...........when are we going to stop seeing an FAC as the right of the elite & start ensuring that people actually get treated fairly & decently as per both the law, and their rights? In any case, regarding criminality, unless you've served over 3 years in prison you're not automatically barred from an FAC as far as I know

The question here is not a history of criminality, but rather of association with criminals: an association which seems to have caused the police to think that his right to a FAC is forfeit.

We don't know what the police know in this case, so why not let the applicant and the police sort it out between them?

It is true that FAC-holding is a right of those who fit the criteria (not an elite, unless respectable, responsible non-criminal folk count as an elite) and therefore if applicant and police can't sort it out between themselves, there is the option to apeal to court against the refusal.
 
The guy might've been getting a lift & had no association with any criminality whatsoever...........when are we going to stop seeing an FAC as the right of the elite & start ensuring that people actually get treated fairly & decently as per both the law, and their rights? In any case, regarding criminality, unless you've served over 3 years in prison you're not automatically barred from an FAC as far as I know. As a matter of fact, a member of this very forum (who's account is now suspended for whatever reason) admitted to me that he once shot a policeman in the face with an air rifle, as well as numerous other offences that he was apparently reminded not to repeat when his FAC was granted. Now, either he was full of ****, or Manchester Firearms Licensing didn't see that as a serious enough offence to bar him from rifle ownership. And incidentally, I knew this guy on a (thankfully brief) personal basis & found him to be a complete psychopath who shouldn't have been placed in charge of a water pistol, let alone the multiple calibres he possessed.............

Most likely he has not been truthful. Shooting a policeman in the face and then allowed firearms? Really?
 
Old saying , my old man said to me,when I was hanging around with a bad bunch as a teenager .....

You fly with the crows, you'll get done with the crows.

I thought that an FAC was now looked at as a privilege & not a "right"

Paul
 
He may be unlucky and just got a lift once with the lads who were of vague acquaintance or he may be more friendly with them and there is a genuine concern. I doubt it'd have been refused if they were all 'just a bit naughty' but understandable if they have a history of more serious offending. Without all the facts we can only guess.
 
He may be unlucky and just got a lift once with the lads who were of vague acquaintance or he may be more friendly with them and there is a genuine concern. I doubt it'd have been refused if they were all 'just a bit naughty' but understandable if they have a history of more serious offending. Without all the facts we can only guess.

Simple.....follow these guide lines and it wont be that long he could be a Heathrow with a firearm hanging off him....

Convicted criminals will be allowed to join the police under plans to relax strict entry rules that critics fear will undermine standards.
For the first time, candidates will be considered if they have convictions, cautions or fines for offences likely to include possession of cannabis or shoplifting.
The Mail on Sunday has established that Britain’s biggest force is already recruiting those who have been on the wrong side of the law in a controversial attempt to increase race diversity.
It can also be revealed that all forces across England and Wales will be encouraged to adopt softer rules on who should be ruled out from becoming a police officer.
The College of Policing, which sets standards for the profession, is to publish a code of practice in the New Year on the vetting of would-be police officers.
It will set out a relaxation of the current rules – which ban anyone with previous convictions, cautions or fines in all but the most exceptional circumstances – on the grounds that it is keeping potentially valuable people from becoming police officers.
Instead, the college will tell police chiefs they can take on applicants with criminal pasts, as long as they are open about what they did.
Those guilty of relatively minor offences, particularly those committed several years ago and which resulted in light sentences, are likely to be let in to forces.
Applicants who try to hide what they did, or who committed serious crimes involving violence, sex offences or fraud, will continue to be barred from a career in uniform.
And it will still be down to chief constables or personnel directors to make the final decision on a candidate. A spokesman for the College of Policing confirmed last night: ‘We are looking at reviewing the national standards around vetting. The current vetting standards are creating barriers to people who might be interested in policing. We need to look at this and apply discretion for minor convictions.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hieves-allowed-join-police.html#ixzz3JJMDw5cb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Tim.243
 
These sorts of things are bound to be taken into consideration. If you associate with known criminals then its not a positive thing.

There are a lot of crimes that you may be acquitted of and hold no criminal record, but would show up and prevent you getting a FAC. Police call outs for domestic disturbances but no charges brought as a prime example.

I think quite reasonable.

Thats exactly how I would see it also
regards pete
 
I thought that an FAC was now looked at as a privilege & not a "right"

That's exactly the mentality that allows more & more legislation & unfair discrimination to be heaped upon us. It's not a 'privilege', it's our right to own firearms should we so desire, and can show ourselves to be no risk to others. The idea that we're somehow being granted a massive boon by being allowed to exercise our rights is exactly why so many injustices regarding unfair treatment of FAC/SGC holders occur in the first place. This is also why incidents like this seem to result in a 'closed-ranks' attitude when we hear of instances such as the guy the OP. Why's he not being granted the benefit of the doubt by members here? Seems to me that everyone's automatically assuming guilt, rather than presuming innocence ............
 
Woodsmoke,

It's 3 months custodial sentence, not 3 years that triggers an automatic exclusion from owning (& I think 'or using') firearms.
 
The police must know, or think they know, something about this lad or the people he associates with that lead them to believe he's unsuitable to own firearms. Without knowing the full story it's not for us to say if thats right or wrong. The police can only act on the information they have, and if there's any doubt surely it's best for them to err with caution? There could also be other things about the guy which have contributed to the overall decision.
 
That's exactly the mentality that allows more & more legislation & unfair discrimination to be heaped upon us. It's not a 'privilege', it's our right to own firearms should we so desire, and can show ourselves to be no risk to others. The idea that we're somehow being granted a massive boon by being allowed to exercise our rights is exactly why so many injustices regarding unfair treatment of FAC/SGC holders occur in the first place. This is also why incidents like this seem to result in a 'closed-ranks' attitude when we hear of instances such as the guy the OP. Why's he not being granted the benefit of the doubt by members here? Seems to me that everyone's automatically assuming guilt, rather than presuming innocence ............

The problem is the grant of an FAC and all the checks are soley for public safety, not for the benefit of us hence why the full cost isn't paid by us (yet) so the police will always err on the side of caution with public safety in mind.
 
The problem is the grant of an FAC and all the checks are soley for public safety, not for the benefit of us hence why the full cost isn't paid by us (yet) so the police will always err on the side of caution with public safety in mind.

I guess so........
 
I don't know what these lads have been involved with or the seriousness of their criminal activity, and I don't personally know the FAC applicant so it's no hardship to me whether he get's FAC or not.

However, the point of posting this was to gauge reaction as it seems to me that this is just another reason to revoke or refuse FAC.
My concern is "where will the line be drawn?" and does this mean that if any of us have any association with someone known to Police, then our FAC could be in jeopardy. I'm sure most of us know at least one person who's been on the wrong side of the law, possibly even a family member.
 
Last edited:
This is very much a situation where I don't think the whole story is being told. Si, I'm not saying you're withholding, I'm assuming that you're not being given the full story.

If you are known to associate with criminals, then unfortunately you are more than likely to be tarred with the same brush.

If he has no criminal history, no suspicion of crime etc. then, unless they are serious criminals, I would say it shouldn't make a difference. The fact that the contact was recorded in enough detail to allow the police to work from it suggests that there was something "intelligence worthy" about the stop. Maybe the car was stolen?

In any case, if he feels that the decision not to grant is unfair for some reason, then he has the right to appeal.
 
Back
Top