New rules making section 2 obsolete?

[Outandabout-goneshooting]

Have come across this article, which seems to suggest that section 2 shotguns, will in time, all fall under section 1 legislation "needing to prove valid reason to possess" eg, the same as rifles on a firearms ticket.

I've seen all the stuff about two referees before which I'm honestly not too concerned about as mine are coterminous certificates anyhow, but I had thought the aligning of all aspects of section 1 (above being the most restrictive) were not to be implemented as they were disproportionate to the legitimate majority.

Any views to the contrary, or is this an uninformed article? ‘I’ve been in the gun trade for 40 years. I fear Labour’s crackdown will destroy it’

 

[VSS]

Have come across this article, which seems to suggest that section 2 shotguns, will in time, all fall under section 1 legislation "needing to prove valid reason to possess" eg, the same as rifles on a firearms ticket.

I've seen all the stuff about two referees before which I'm honestly not too concerned about as mine are coterminous certificates anyhow, but I had thought the aligning of all aspects of section 1 (above being the most restrictive) were not to be implemented as they were disproportionate to the legitimate majority.

Any views to the contrary, or is this an uninformed article? ‘I’ve been in the gun trade for 40 years. I fear Labour’s crackdown will destroy it’

Looks like someone getting their knickers knotted over the suggested possibility that there might be additional safeguards associated with section 2 firearms in future.

What those additional safeguards might be we don't know. We don't even know for certain that there will be any.
But personally I suspect there'll be some sort of "good reason" requirement for shotguns. Which might not be such a bad thing.

 

[Stalker62]

I suspect there'll be some sort of "good reason" requirement for shotguns. Which might not be such a bad thing.

Really?

What about the folks who have "amassed" a plethora of a shotguns before such conditions were a thing?

Is it fair to now impose the condition of "good reason" for each and every one?

If this this enacted, then I am Royally fcuked...

 

[timbrayford]

Looks like someone getting their knickers knotted over the suggested possibility that there might be additional safeguards associated with section 2 firearms in future.

What those additional safeguards might be we don't know. We don't even know for certain that there will be any.
But personally I suspect there'll be some sort of "good reason" requirement for shotguns. Which might not be such a bad thing.

Oh no, we don't need the target shooting only restrictions if a clay shooter gets the occasional live quarry invite and daft discussions about numbers of shotguns and amount of ammunition possessed. Dreading BASC getting involved and rubber stamping further restrictions too.

 

[Benelli m2]

Have come across this article, which seems to suggest that section 2 shotguns, will in time, all fall under section 1 legislation "needing to prove valid reason to possess" eg, the same as rifles on a firearms ticket.

I've seen all the stuff about two referees before which I'm honestly not too concerned about as mine are coterminous certificates anyhow, but I had thought the aligning of all aspects of section 1 (above being the most restrictive) were not to be implemented as they were disproportionate to the legitimate majority.

Any views to the contrary, or is this an uninformed article? ‘I’ve been in the gun trade for 40 years. I fear Labour’s crackdown will destroy it’

So where did he get this info from

 

[andyk]

A lot will depend on how they implement it.

There seems to be a determination in govt for ‘good reason’, but that could be achieved by making it a requirement to show good reason for the certificate, rather than each gun. It wouldn’t have to be via the complete abolition of s2.

Sensible (by which I mean politician friendly) arguments for achieving their goal via requiring good reason for the cert, and not just moving s2 to s1 could include the difficulty that would face clay grounds were that to happen, plenty offer corporate days, stag dos etc, which wouldn’t work under the s1 regime. Not to mention all the added work for FLDs.

Making the requirement for the cert would allow the govt to say they’ve completed their aims post Keyham, without it being as painful for shooting as the alternative.

It’s also feasible that good reason could be more like how I understand it works for the Scottish AWC than a FAC.

 

[VSS]

Really?

What about the folks who have "amassed" a plethora of a shotguns before such conditions were a thing?

Is it fair to now impose the condition of "good reason" for each and every one?

If this this enacted, then I am Royally fcuked...

My personal guess is that there won't be a "good reason" requirement for each individual shotgun, rather it'll be a case of "good reason" being required for having shotguns.

(Like you, I have quite a few).

 

[enfieldspares]

My personal guess is that there won't be a "good reason" requirement for each individual shotgun, rather it'll be a case of "good reason" being required for having shotguns.

(Like you, I have quite a few).

Indeed at present re s2 the law specifically states that a person may own shotguns even if they do not ever intend to use them.

Given that this was introduced to allow Tory "toffs" to pass down father's or grandfather's pair of Lang or Evans or whatever it would be interesting to see if this might be repealed. On the lines of Cullen's report after Dunblane that led to "use it or lose it" applying to each individual weapon held on s1.

I have highlighted this is bold below. It allows, for example, for a relative to possess a shotgun to keep safe for a minor child until that child comes of age when that child's parent has died and leaves said shotgun to their children.

s28 Special provisions about shot gun certificates.
For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use.

 

[Outandabout-goneshooting]

I have a fair few too, hence asking the question. I can probably prove a need for most of them given they are all different, but it feels like a further unnecessary restriction that achieves nothing but political point scoring (cynical I know).

 

[cjm1066]

We should compare the two systems, for FAC we have a complicated system of good reason for each gun which achieves nothing but bureracy.

SGC are simpler and more efficient , afterall it's the person that matters.

Time to get the shooting organisations on to this.

 

[SimpleSimon]

My guess (and that's the key word here, we are all just guessing and speculating) is that there will be some burden of good reason placed on shotgun ownership, but it won't just be a matter of making all shotguns section one, and there won't be a need to demonstrate good reason for each gun individually.

Even if it's just a case of convincing the FEO at your grant interview that you really do have a genuine interest in taking up clay pigeon shooting, that's more than is required now.

I'm any event, panicking about what might happen isn't going to help, and the daft headlines in some of the shooting press/YouTube, etc. are unhelpful.

 

[Canine]

There is due to be a consultation towards the end of the year to review shotgun certification, with proposals to bring Section 2 “in-line” with Section 1.

Legislatively there are some quite significant differences between Section 1 and Section 2, including reasons to revoke and not being able to have additional conditions on Section 2’s.

There is already a good reason requirement for a Section 2 certificate (albeit very basic) and any amendment to this to bring it in line with Section 1 would require an absolutely massive amount of work for the licensing departments who we all know are struggling with workloads already.

I do not see the good reason test changing for Section 2’s due to the nature of shotgun use, but I definitely think that everything else will fall into line with Section 1.

I can see shotgun ammunition being more tightly controlled though, be that storage or allowances.

Just my opinion, but I think we need to understand that good reason is just one of the differences between Sections 1 and 2.

 

[VSS]

My guess (and that's the key word here, we are all just guessing and speculating) is that there will be some burden of good reason placed on shotgun ownership, but it won't just be a matter of making all shotguns section one, and there won't be a need to demonstrate good reason for each gun individually.

Even if it's just a case of convincing the FEO at your grant interview that you really do have a genuine interest in taking up clay pigeon shooting, that's more than is required now.

I'm any event, panicking about what might happen isn't going to help, and the daft headlines in some of the shooting press/YouTube, etc. are unhelpful.

That's my view of it too.

 

[25 Sharps]

Really?

What about the folks who have "amassed" a plethora of a shotguns before such conditions were a thing?

Is it fair to now impose the condition of "good reason" for each and every one?

If this this enacted, then I am Royally fcuked...

Could be a ‘good reason’ to possess shotguns, rather each and every one as it is with section 1, a sort of half way house?

 

[ruger77]

So if they did put shot guns under S1 would that mean you would need a variation to purchase a replacement shot gun

 

[timbrayford]

My personal guess is that there won't be a "good reason" requirement for each individual shotgun, rather it'll be a case of "good reason" being required for having shotguns.

(Like you, I have quite a few).

That would be sensible for both S1 & S2

 

[VSS]

That would be sensible for both S1 & S2

I agree 100%

 

[Dunwaters]

My personal guess is that there won't be a "good reason" requirement for each individual shotgun, rather it'll be a case of "good reason" being required for having shotguns.

(Like you, I have quite a few).

That common sense approach wont achieve a reduction in firearm numbers, which is the whole point of the change.

 

[VSS]

That common sense approach wont achieve a reduction in firearm numbers, which is the whole point of the change.

On what authority do you claim that a reduction in [legally held] firearm numbers is the whole point of the change?

Rumour, misconception, scaremongering, or actual verified fact?

 

[Liveonce]

apparently the government is going to open a consultation process later this year, we need as many of the 600,000 plus certificate holders to respond to it as possible, unlike the very few that did for the lead ban consultation.