I did say it might just be internet chatter!
Changes really are coming in firearms licensing….
- Thread starter Foxyboy43
- Start date
A bit like the Ukraine in the months before they were invaded.
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
No nothing like that at all
What are you talking about? Literally nothing like that!
Totally like that. On the months before the invasion people were saying ‘It’s nothing. He wouldn’t dare invade’.
We haven’t seen the legislation yet - passing it off as nothing to be concerned about is foolish.
sikamalc
Administrator
I think some people are panicking over nothing. These reviews come along every now and again. I sincerely hope everyone posting on here filled in the on-line request form?
I cannot really see anything that overall impacts on honest deer stalkers and the shooting fraternity. Anyone who has over a certain amount, of firearms in the house will naturally have an alarm, and they are not requesting bars at the windows or doors.
As far as keeping ammo, it seems to me its worded to cover criminal activity.
I cannot really see anything that overall impacts on honest deer stalkers and the shooting fraternity. Anyone who has over a certain amount, of firearms in the house will naturally have an alarm, and they are not requesting bars at the windows or doors.
As far as keeping ammo, it seems to me its worded to cover criminal activity.
Not a panic - but a concern. It very much depends on how the legislation is worded and how it can then be interpreted. The wording of the final or draft legislation hasn't been seen yet - so we just don't know.
As i've said in another thread - i'd be more concerned about the lead ban with regards to shooting sports. If what is proposed comes to light, shooting will be decimated in the UK.
intent is what the CPS will accept to be intent before it even enters a court , the court then have to agree the person had intent. That means very clear provable evidence before it even gets to a court.This is the worse part...
No more stock piling reloading supplies
It remains a fact that for a gun to be any use it needs ammo, so i cannot see circumstance where a legitimate home loader would fall fowl of this because the CPS aint big on spending lots of taxpayers money on scant / none existent or flakey evidence . In court ? should never even occur, worst case scenario has to be a mad FEO going off on one , a senior officer with an agenda or screw loose passing it on for the CPS another in their office going hell yeah let's spend time and money on this case with zero hard evidence
What this allows is for an FEO to ask you why the heck you need to hold many thousands of component parts when you only shot ten deer in the last 5 years . powder limits and assembled round limits etc will still apply. But there is even no suggestion of having to book bullets onto our FAC
I think you have a rosy eyed view of the CPS. There have been numerous instances where they have gone to court with very very poor evidence. Their only stated criteria is if they have a 50% or better chance of winning and if it is "in the public interest". Both of these are tenuous at best and not something one can challenge or see how they came up with. There is no comeback either - no sanction for on the CPS for weak prosecutions.
actually my wife did a lot of forensic accounting for the CPS at one point in her career and it's amazing what they don't take , it's not a bottomless pit and money cannot be spent twice . Even if it is taken it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt
Indeed - money isn't limitless - but they will go out of their way if there is an agenda they need to be seen prosecuting - even with a lack of evidence. Alison Saunders and the failed historic sex crime prosecutions are a case in point. Or even non historic ones - such as the Mark Pearson case.
You can be sure that when the next heinous gun crime comes up, someone in the CPS will be scrutinising any new legislation to see if someone, somewhere can be prosecuted for something - just to be seen to be doing something.
If the case is in the pubic interest but i doubt that includes a lack of any real evidence to prove the intent
Intent can be tenuous - but as I said before - if there is an agenda, or a bone to pick in the name of the 'public interest' - i'd hate to be the guy having to defend myself even though I knew I was innocent.
hopefully on costs alone a guy would want it to be a test case, though yeah rather not have it happen like anything else that ends up in court.
Incorrect. The CPS must follow the full code test, as below.
The Full Code Test
The Full Code Test (“FCT”) is the test that must be satisfied in order for a prosecutor to make the decision to charge a suspect and bring a prosecution.Stage one of the test requires prosecutors to assess the evidence in each case and decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Stage two of the test, which kicks in only once stage one has been satisfied, requires consideration of whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
Costs are the least of your worries - the toll a criminal court case takes on your mental and physical health cannot be bought back.
In theory - yes - but it is not transparent - in fact, it is very opaque. You cannot get any look into the reasoning or methodology of how they justified to go ahead with prosecution either before of after the fact - and next to impossible to sue for any miscarriage of justice. Again - take a look at the Mark Pearson case I linked to above. Staggeringly bad - he's still trying to get some justice 7 years after the case ended.
Similar threads
