FLD pressure to give up rifles you don't use

Tackleberry270

Well-Known Member
I was pretty certain of my interpretation of the law and my own opinion on this but its been a few years since I had to think about it. The situation (might as well be hypothetical) is,

2 rimfires and 4 deer calibres up to .308. Some used regularly, some tinkered with and one sentimental value and a refurb project for the future.

Do the new guidelines shed any clarification on this? What counties try to 'review' specific rifle usage on a certificate? If you've had direct experience I would be interested. Equally if a member of the BASC team wanted to comment?
 
A member of our club has 17 firearms, some have not Been shot in yrs, hants don,t seem worried.
 
My FEO (Kent) asked for a good reason to own when I first applied for each firearm.
No idea if the number of guns I own were discussed by the FLD manager and her team pre my renewal interview but my cert was renewed with nothing being said to me.
 
The new guidelines will not change the fact that a 'good reason' has to be satisfied for each Section 1 weapon in your possession. Tinkering about as quote is not a 'good reason' and neither is having an unused gun to be refurbed in the future. I believe you are not complying with the HO Guidelines in respect of these weapons and you obviously reside in an area where the local FLD are also not complying with the requirements of office.
 
You should join a local club and show usage at least on the range, to avoid potential problems, like PT says you need to have good reason and be able to prove it if required.

I was pretty certain of my interpretation of the law and my own opinion on this but its been a few years since I had to think about it. The situation (might as well be hypothetical) is,

2 rimfires and 4 deer calibres up to .308. Some used regularly, some tinkered with and one sentimental value and a refurb project for the future.

Do the new guidelines shed any clarification on this? What counties try to 'review' specific rifle usage on a certificate? If you've had direct experience I would be interested. Equally if a member of the BASC team wanted to comment?
 
The new guidelines will not change the fact that a 'good reason' has to be satisfied for each Section 1 weapon in your possession. Tinkering about as quote is not a 'good reason' and neither is having an unused gun to be refurbed in the future. I believe you are not complying with the HO Guidelines in respect of these weapons and you obviously reside in an area where the local FLD are also not complying with the requirements of office.

I'd suggest a quick read of 13.2 and 13.3 of the 2013 HO 'Guide on Firearms Licensing Law'.

It will immediately become clear that both 'tinkering about' and having an unused gun to be refurbished in future might indeed count as 'good reasons to possess': except, of course, in the area where Patterdale Terrier is Chief Constable - which from his profile appears to be Lancashire.
 
I have over 20 rifles and black powder weapons - all are used regularly - no problem.
If you have used them then I suggest you (or your shooting club) would be wise to keep records of where and when they were used.
 
I'd suggest a quick read of 13.2 and 13.3 of the 2013 HO 'Guide on Firearms Licensing Law'.

It will immediately become clear that both 'tinkering about' and having an unused gun to be refurbished in future might indeed count as 'good reasons to possess': except, of course, in the area where Patterdale Terrier is Chief Constable - which from his profile appears to be Lancashire.

I agree. Obviously I would advise against entering 'tinkering' on a renewal form! As said, I would be interested to hear of anyone's dealings with licensing authorities.
 
I'd suggest a quick read of 13.2 and 13.3 of the 2013 HO 'Guide on Firearms Licensing Law'.

It will immediately become clear that both 'tinkering about' and having an unused gun to be refurbished in future might indeed count as 'good reasons to possess': except, of course, in the area where Patterdale Terrier is Chief Constable - which from his profile appears to be Lancashire.
Sorry you must be mistaken sir it says gods country on his profile so the only explanation is that he's one of the master race ....... A Yorkshireman :)
 
At renewal Gwent require you to justify a continued need for each firearm and usually that you do actually use each individual firearm. Some FEO’s are slightly more flexible than others but it appears to be force policy to reduce or restrict the number of firearms that FAC holders may possess.

Sometimes Gwent go a bit over the top such as with a couple who are only into target shooting and who both have firearms certificates on which they both share a number of rifles. At last renewal the lady of the house was asked when she last shot one particular rifle. She replied in all honesty that it was probably about two years ago as she simply prefers to use other rifles. The result was that her authority to use this particular rifle was removed yet she still has access to the same cabinet that her partner uses?

Removing her authority on that particular firearms certificate will have no effect on her as they are both members of a H.O. approved club so can use club or any other members rifle on the range. Go figure out the benefit of this particular action.
 
This could be a problem for me at renewal.... Years ago I used to shoot mostly rabbits and the occasional fox, then I got into stalking. Now I shoot mostly foxes, occasional deer and the odd rabbit.
You could argue that I have no need for a .17hmr or a .223 anymore but I don't want to let them go, why should I?
 
you are confusing "good reason" with "usage"

There is specific text in the HO guidelines to EXCLUDE usage or lack thereof from being applied as good reason on not

E.g.
I need a 416 rigby to go to africa. I go twice. should I lose it because I haven't been for a few years?
If the conditions on range use and shooting boar/deer with it had not been so ridiculously strict then perhaps said rifle would be used more!

also the situation where someone with a deer calibre "loses their permission"
This is NOT an opportunity for the FLO to revoke a certificate.
Bought days, renewed permissions, new leases etc etc

If you are the one on the back foot when it comes to renewal or variation then you should have done more preparation and homework.
No FLO is going to argue with a well presented and backed up description of why you need something.
He just wants it off his desk and not coming back with questions.

ITS UP TO YOU......not them


stop looking for problems where they do not exist.
 
If you were referring to my post Brewsher all I will say is that I am not confusing anything just pointing out the way that Gwent police look at it. Perhaps I should however have said continued good reason rather than "need".


In respect of target shooting they rely upon the following taken from the guidance to police document.


13.53 Target shooters may be expected to use their firearms fairly regularly, say three or more times a year. The police should consider on renewal whether "good reason" continues in respect of all firearms held for this purpose. However, failure to shoot in a year should be regarded as grounds for further enquiries to be made, rather than the automatic partial revocation of the certificate for lack of "good reason". For example, there may be personal circumstances such as illness, working away (where this is not to be repeated regularly), or practice for a particular competition that may preclude the use of all the firearms concerned. In some cases, competitions for unusual or older arms may be few each year. Owners, and especially collectors, may also not want to regularly shoot old, historic, and valuable firearms, thus avoiding excessive wear and tear.



It is my belief that they have adopted a similar stance with regard to continued ownership of firearms purely retained for sporting purposes, that's certainly the impression given by certain firearm enquiry officers.
 
If you are the one on the back foot when it comes to renewal or variation then you should have done more preparation and homework.
No FLO is going to argue with a well presented and backed up description of why you need something.
He just wants it off his desk and not coming back with questions.

Having dealt with this issue a lot within my Club I can only agree.
I would add that the Police are not keen to revoke but will do so.
They also are, in my experience, sensible and reasonable in evaluating non usage.
There can be convincing mitigating reasons such as illness or members serving with HM forces on Tours of Duty.
I think the usage guideline (min 3 or 4 pa) is set right and any active shooter should find it easy to hit.
Non club members have their ammunition usage, paid stalking invoices, syndicate membership, permissions as evidence, just make it easy for the Police. Joining a Club is worthwhile.
 
The new guidelines will not change the fact that a 'good reason' has to be satisfied for each Section 1 weapon in your possession. Tinkering about as quote is not a 'good reason' and neither is having an unused gun to be refurbed in the future. I believe you are not complying with the HO Guidelines in respect of these weapons and you obviously reside in an area where the local FLD are also not complying with the requirements of office.

Now there sounds a voice of misguided confidence! I will have to confess to deliberately using the words I did to open up the debate but interesting to hear your take on the guidance all the same.
 
I find 13.6 of the guidelines the most interesting.

From my own interpretation I think owning a rifle which is being adjusted, customised and tested with handloaded ammunition over an unspecified time period - tinkering- with a view to using for a specific purpose within your 'good reason', whilst using an additional main rifle, is indeed justification for keeping a firearm.

In a similar vein, I am as sure as I ever have been that a rifle in the cabinet that is going to cost a lot to refurbish can sit there for an unspecified time period. I think there would only be reason for the FLO to question it if there was real evidence (not sure how this would be ascertained apart from a confession) that there was no intention to use the rifle again.

I find it interesting that a lot of firearm holders I have met would admit to themselves and perhaps others that certain firearms in there cabinet might be discribed in the same language as the OP, however does this give an FLO genuine reason to be concerned that the public was at risk or that firearms were being misused?

Certainly sweeping generalisations cannot be made thats for sure and this is made clear in 13.
 
Back
Top