Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Yup
That confirms that then.
Refusal to renew vermin control s1 sgc
- Thread starter Jeff8861
- Start date
That confirms that then.
If anyone has undertaken and/or reviewed a site and task-specific Risk Assessment as allied to a Method Statement you'll be painfully aware you'll arrive at a point where the application of ammendments - obvious or otherwise - must be considered suitable and sufficient. If one proceeds beyond this point the task is increasingly unlikely to proceed; at best in any meaningful manner, as to all intent and purpose you have concluded the undertaking must not be allowed in the interest of achieving 100% safety of person & property.
Need I expand on where I fear both the Home Office and our Firearms Licensing Departments are heading in respect of the above in terms of their approach to the "risk" associated with the private ownership of any firearm?
K
Need I expand on where I fear both the Home Office and our Firearms Licensing Departments are heading in respect of the above in terms of their approach to the "risk" associated with the private ownership of any firearm?
K
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
With the state now looking upon the whole society as criminals then yes, it is obvious where this is going.
Had they removed from society certain individuals permanently there would be no need to brand the rest a threat. Any threat would know their fate.
Had the state not allowed individuals that practice a hate and intolerant religion into our home land fear would not be so prevalent in policy making and thus brand us all a threat.
Had the state acted via their operatives, with current law, deaths from legally held firearms wouldn't of happened in most cases.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
But they didn’t and it did happen!
Time for you lot to scrap the wish list and knuckle down into self preservation!
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
That’s the attitude that will finish shooting off.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Writings been on the wall for decades, I said 5 years ago shooting had 15 years, I bet you I’m not far off.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Good for you . Well done .
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I have to agree. In my lifetime I've seen each word slow written on the wall.
One day, those of us passionate enough will go offline....
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
You can out of season
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
The ridiculous thing is if you have dual purpose target/vermin use for your rimfires and you find yourself between permissions at renewal time you'll be restricted to target only. There's nothing in the Firearms Act or HO Guidance that requires them to do this .
Can shoot what, shoot geese. Sorry i asked loads of questions in my reply. Thanks
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the 3 shot rule applies to shooting geese during the open season, not under the general license or special license.
Was debaited fairly strongly between stalker boydy and someone else
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Stalker boydy RIP a legend in deer stalking and wild fowling
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
Has he died?
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Late last year I believe, he struggled with long Covid a friend with a fowling connection called me and informed me.
He was a man I had great respect for.
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
I live in the next village to him, didnt really know him but respected him.
That is sad news
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
Just found the discussion it was with @25 Sharps
Me.
You can use a sect 1 any time you are shooting under the general licences, they are mentioned specifically in the notes, but not at all if you are simply wildfowling.
Many years ago before we had all this nonsense a mate had one with a high capacity mag. I can’t say that I viewed it as a practical
well you end up in Scotland where the parliamentarians have neither the imagination nor intellectual competence to believe that legislation could be enacted where the risks are recognised and managed.
Easier to virtue signal that the risk to even one individual outweighs any potential benefit to society. ie assisted dying.
We are then in the territory of laws that proscribe dog theft (while protecting domestic abuse survivors) when dog theft is already illegal. Deckchair laws - have to be seen to do something.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
I have had, briefly, a 16 bore Browning Auto 5 on s1 for flocking birds (gulls) on my fishery. This was done immediately subsequent to the Tory 1988 Firearms Act that brought such unrestricted shotguns into s1. I already had the gun on s2 and the request was made to have it, unrestricted, on s1. The logic used was as below.
In my case not because I found need for the full capacity but because of safety. The gun was alongside me when sat at my peg fishing so I usually carried the gun with "four in the magazine" on an empty chamber. Only chambering a round when the flocking gulls appeared. And that is an often overlooked safety benefit of s1.
That the gun can be carried with an empty chamber but with "four in the magazine" or "five in the magazine" or whatever. Thus a keeper or other is not encumbered with loose cartridges in already full pockets as he or she can carry sufficient ammunition for the anticipated need already in the gun but with that gun carried safely with its chamber empty.
That additional capacity meaning that between use any cartridge in the chamber can be ejected, the breech closed without chambering a fresh cartridge, and the now ejected cartridge put back into the magazine tube. Carry a s2 1+2 pump action or self-loading gun with an empty chamber and you've effectively now got only two shots available as of course there are only two rounds immediately available if the gun is carried without a round in the chamber.
So a multi-shot gun is a safer gun as the "working" or "keeper" user knows that are not (as with a s2 of 1+2) so constrained in the gun's cartridge count that they have to carry it with a round chambered and so can know that even having no cartridge chambered they have, immediately usuable, more than just the two shots of the s2 user.
In my case not because I found need for the full capacity but because of safety. The gun was alongside me when sat at my peg fishing so I usually carried the gun with "four in the magazine" on an empty chamber. Only chambering a round when the flocking gulls appeared. And that is an often overlooked safety benefit of s1.
That the gun can be carried with an empty chamber but with "four in the magazine" or "five in the magazine" or whatever. Thus a keeper or other is not encumbered with loose cartridges in already full pockets as he or she can carry sufficient ammunition for the anticipated need already in the gun but with that gun carried safely with its chamber empty.
That additional capacity meaning that between use any cartridge in the chamber can be ejected, the breech closed without chambering a fresh cartridge, and the now ejected cartridge put back into the magazine tube. Carry a s2 1+2 pump action or self-loading gun with an empty chamber and you've effectively now got only two shots available as of course there are only two rounds immediately available if the gun is carried without a round in the chamber.
So a multi-shot gun is a safer gun as the "working" or "keeper" user knows that are not (as with a s2 of 1+2) so constrained in the gun's cartridge count that they have to carry it with a round chambered and so can know that even having no cartridge chambered they have, immediately usuable, more than just the two shots of the s2 user.
Last edited:
Similar threads
