Charge by the inch, that way the more you have the more you get shaftedDo you think that would be applied relative to bore size, cartridge powder capacity, barrel length or…..?
Government responds to 2023 firearms licensing consultation
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
I agree entirely, which is why, in my earlier post, I’d said that pushing for the ‘good reason’ being for the license, not each gun, would be sensible - if it becomes plain that good reason is going to be required.
TBH, I’ve never understood the logic of licensing each firearm. Perhaps there’s an argument that it limits what can fall into the wrong hands but really it feels like a control measure, rather than one that serves any immediate public safety benefit.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Some things are best not assumed over!
@Conor O'Gorman
If the response to a consultation is overwhelmingly against said proposals, in this case over 80%, is there any option for BASC to launch a Judicial Review. I'm sure this would be a justified use of the "Fighting Fund".
Pete_Cambs
Well-Known Member
Human nature!
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Wait till they copy Scotland and ban catching rabbits with lurchers
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Legal advice is being taken and perhaps that will be taken into account, I don't know. However, in the detail of the outcome paper is detailed that 45% of GPs/health care professionals, 26% of those in law enforcement and 25% of those who described themselves as victims/friends/family/community of victims of gun crime answered no to the proposed powers of entry. 82% of members of the shooting community, 83% of members of the farming/rural community and 80% of those who did not self-report as belonging to any of these groups responded ‘no’ to the proposal.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Bully for you , if steel shot was superior to lead it would have replaced it years ago!
I’ve got 3 .22s on my licence and 2 .357s, plus a deer calibre for each day of the week and a couple spare.
None of them are work related…
The point is you don’t currently need to justify your 12 bores.
Pete_Cambs
Well-Known Member
I was simply trying to highlight how converted it would get if you did have to start justifying shotguns individually.
It would.
What I was responding to was your suggestion that 2x .308s would need to be work related. Whereas it does not, as my post above if you are a member of a club, under current rules multiple sec 1 firearms is easy (I have 22 on my ticket).
So, if section 2 becomes section 1, if you have good reason it shouldn’t be too complicated. But it will be a poorer state of affair than the current section 2 legislation.
Pete_Cambs
Well-Known Member
Just circling back to the recent Kent shooting…. Police release name and photo of victim but still no official details of the firearm used and more importantly its legal / illegal status and BBC still reporting “it’s unknown if the gun was legally owned”
Can’t help but feel its a deliberate tactic to leave an anti gun impression in the general public’s mind and they’ll release details of the gun which is likely to be illegal weeks down the line when the story is mostly lost.
Can’t help but feel its a deliberate tactic to leave an anti gun impression in the general public’s mind and they’ll release details of the gun which is likely to be illegal weeks down the line when the story is mostly lost.
I’m not currently an FAC holder, so my opinion may be somewhat diluted or lack substance, but categorising calibre by quarry seems like a very logical proposal and would remove a huge burden on firearms departments processing variations. Suppose the issue would be around those on closer FAC’ and how the increase in calibre is managed from a permission perspective?
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not the GTA says it might damage my gun, as do the proof house masters, you sir can stick to your steel shot but it is not for me.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Putting S1 under S2 would be even simpler and cheaper. The big issue with plod is they want good reason on shotguns, which with commonsense could work, if and only if, it allows the unrestricted number of firearms and ammunition. This would put an end to those ridiculous discussions that you can sometimes have with FEOs when the erroneous "need" word creeps into the conversation, when you have "good reason" for all the firearms that you have or wish to acquire. The threat of an armed uprising against the monarchy with legally held firearms has long since past, we no longer generally have access to pistols, semi auto centrefires, and machine guns that the 1920 act allowed, and who apart from fans of James Bond films seriously thinks that sound moderators should be restricted at all?
Checking that you have a genuine interest in shooting sports, access to good shooting opportunities and of paramount importance "fit to be entrusted" background checks all seem reasonable. For recreational shooters full membership of a shooting club and passing their safety test might help to establish this?
Some few years ago, I posted on here, in a similar thread, that I believed that it would eventually come to pass that "good reason" would be required for the possession of shotguns. At the time, I was ridiculed for my opinion. Many of the responses to my post simply consisted of laughing emojis, and "No chance that's ever going to happen" was the general consensus.
I hope the people who laughed then are taking the threat a bit more seriously now.
Everything beyond the determination of "fit to be entrusted" is superfluous, really.
You're either fit to be in possession of firearms, or you're not. It makes no difference what type of firearm, or how many.
Personally, I would like to see a far tougher stance taken on the determination of "fit to be entrusted", even if this were to make obtaining a certificate a rather more difficult process than at present, followed by much greater freedom once that certificate has been granted.
I hope the people who laughed then are taking the threat a bit more seriously now.
Absolutely.
Everything beyond the determination of "fit to be entrusted" is superfluous, really.
You're either fit to be in possession of firearms, or you're not. It makes no difference what type of firearm, or how many.
Personally, I would like to see a far tougher stance taken on the determination of "fit to be entrusted", even if this were to make obtaining a certificate a rather more difficult process than at present, followed by much greater freedom once that certificate has been granted.
Pete_Cambs
Well-Known Member
This may work for rifles but makes no real sense for clay shooting IMO. I’ve tried being a member of 2 different clay clubs in order to get reduced price on clays and found it boring after a while and never saw the return on my membership due to this. The reality is I regularly shoot between 4 or 5 different grounds within an hour of me and routinely visit other grounds further away. I suppose the better alternative if they went down this route would to be a member of the CPSA but not everyone is interested in competitive clay shooting.
I think the real problem here if they go the S1 is for those already with shotguns they will see the value of what they own greatly diminished, cost of cartridges will become unreasonably high if restrictions are put on how many you can hold and where they can be stored, cost of clays themselves will go up due to the reduced volume of shooters and the death of the have a go / corporate days many clubs run.
As I’ve said it does little to nothing in real terms for public safety and still doesn’t work if FLDs and the police don’t follow the set out process and do their jobs properly which is often the case with most of the incidents with legally held firearms.
As someone who spent a great deal of time volunteering with a youth clay shooting club, it makes me wonder how those type of organisations will be able to survive. Will make taster days and bringing in new shooters incredibly expensive and difficult.
Already hard enough with rifle clubs...
Similar threads
