rtc dispatch training for police

With respect I think you might also be getting a bit confused.

If I am reading your post correctly {your obviously not} you are implying that to lawfully have an unloaded shotgun in your possession you must satisfy both criteria listed above (a) lawful authority and (b) reasonable excuse?

Where on earth did I say that?
I lifted it directly from the legislation word for word ?????
I know who's confused and it aint me.

I would refer all readers of this thread to CharlieT post back at #58 which seems to have been largely ignored:

"Remember though that the law says "without lawful authority OR reasonable excuse". It does not say and, therefore having lawful authority (my SGC) I do not need to demonstrate reasonable excuse."

I will also stand by that statement as well despite WIDU's misguided insistance that:

"A certificate is NOT lawful authority for having the firearm with them outside of the reason it was issued"

In answer to which I would ask, (in the case of a SGC), what was the 'reason' for which it was issued - as there is no requirement for the applicant to state one?

The SGC application form 103 also clearly states:

"It is – with certain statutory exceptions – an offence for a person to have in his/her
possession, purchase, or acquire any shot gun, without holding a shot gun certificate."

With the converse being that no offence occurs when in possession of a SGC.
You are talking nonsense.. .. are you suggesting that by simply having a shotgun certficate this gives you a blanket authority to keep it with you 24/7 even when not involved or going to and from shooting?

There appears to be much confusion arising on this thread due to the belief that 'reasonable excuse' has also to be somehow proven - it doesn't provided you have a SGC.

It dosn't have to be proven, it does however need to be demonstrated . . .ie, the shotgun certificate authorises you to own a shotgun, the reasonable excuse needs to be demonstrated as to why you actually have it on your back and out the cabinet at the material time.


Of course those who don't hold one, (the bad guys), would have to demonstrate it to avoid an unlawful possession charge as evidenced by the Stated Cases being quoted.

.......................................................................................................
With respect I think you might also be getting a bit confused.

If I am reading your post correctly {your obviously not} you are implying that to lawfully have an unloaded shotgun in your possession you must satisfy both criteria listed above (a) lawful authority and (b) reasonable excuse?

Where on earth did I say that?
I lifted it directly from the legislation word for word ?????
I know who's confused and it aint me.

I would refer all readers of this thread to CharlieT post back at #58 which seems to have been largely ignored:

"Remember though that the law says "without lawful authority OR reasonable excuse". It does not say and, therefore having lawful authority (my SGC) I do not need to demonstrate reasonable excuse."

I will also stand by that statement as well despite WIDU's misguided insistance that:

"A certificate is NOT lawful authority for having the firearm with them outside of the reason it was issued"

In answer to which I would ask, (in the case of a SGC), what was the 'reason' for which it was issued - as there is no requirement for the applicant to state one?

The SGC application form 103 also clearly states:

"It is – with certain statutory exceptions – an offence for a person to have in his/her
possession, purchase, or acquire any shot gun, without holding a shot gun certificate."

With the converse being that no offence occurs when in possession of a SGC.
You are talking nonsense.. .. are you suggesting that by simply having a shotgun certficate this gives you a blanket authority to keep it with you 24/7 even when not involved or going to and from shooting?

There appears to be much confusion arising on this thread due to the belief that 'reasonable excuse' has also to be somehow proven - it doesn't provided you have a SGC.

It dosn't have to be proven, it does however need to be demonstrated . . .ie, the shotgun certificate authorises you to own a shotgun, the reasonable excuse needs to be demonstrated as to why you actually have it on your back and out the cabinet at the material time.


Of course those who don't hold one, (the bad guys), would have to demonstrate it to avoid an unlawful possession charge as evidenced by the Stated Cases being quoted.
 
Last edited:
Oh hello... where have you been hiding?

If what you say is true, then I could legally take an unloaded shotgun to the cinema or in the bowling alley. Why I would want to is anyone's guess but I could right?

You have hit the nail on the head .. .
Orion, would simply having a shotgun certificate cover this lad for this activity?

Public place stands as there is implied entry to the public during hours of business.
 
Going on Saturday with three lads on this site to the BDS course at Carnforth this weekend will give you a full report back !!!!
 
Under firearms law I don't believe an offence would be committed, as long as the shotgun was covered and unloaded. However, it would almost certainly fall under "possession of an offensive weapon" if you were to carry it in public (the cinema etc.)

If you were to keep the shotgun, unloaded and hidden, in the car then I believe the only thing they could prosecute for would be failing to adhere to a condition on a SGC (the condition relating to the level of security required). Of course, if you are IN the vehicle, that could be difficult to make stick.

There is case law that states a vehicle is classed as "a public place" when prosecuting for possession of an offensive weapon, though iirc it relates to the offensive weapon being an aggravating factor in another offence.

 
I think there is a major point being missed here.
The interpretation of "reasonable excuse" (a word which quite frankly I object to!! when I need an excuse it implies I am already in the wrong and trying to worm out of it!)

Ask yourself why any officer would question your reasonable excuse?
Assume all other bases on cover, loading and security are covered.

what have you done up to that point?
Why are you even talking to a Policeman or more importantly what has given them cause to talk to you?
(speeding, coming out the pub, driving erratically, report of armed man on road etc etc...)

When I said "it has feck all to do with you in response" to the question "why do you have a shotgun?" I was not suggesting you use it word for word!

Unless you are being questioned in connection with something other offence or give cause to raise the eyebrows of the questioning officer with either a STUPID reason or your manner and response is causing the red lights in his left eye to come on then I see no reason why we are all going to get locked up for carrying an unloaded shotgun in a car.

in the same vein that if you want a firearm you need to provide good reason
How many of you have ...lets say embellished the reason to provide the FEO with what he needs to hear?
(I don't expect an roll call of admissions but honestly, ....reading the list of cartridges and calibres on here cleared for deer some of you/us should have best sellers out by now!!)


Its up to you to provide good reason (to carry a shotgun in your car)
If you can't or don't feel confident that your reason is good enough then the simple answer is ......Don't.

you should also probably hand in your SGC and FAC
As if you are only confident that you are within the law taking your firearms out of the cupboard when you are going to and from a shooting ground then there is a bigger problem.

and on that I am off shooting.
(taking the new (to me) Hatsan Escort in the boot just in case I see some pigeons, to show a mate, to see if I can get a gunslip for it, to test some 3" magnum steel ammo, in case I hit a deer, because the post office might be open and I am a little short of cash.................)
 
after finding a young mutjac doe today struck by a car unable to move both her back legs i had to call out the police to dispatch her as i had nothing on me (work frowns quite heavily apon me carring a rifle in my cab aparently), when the officer turnt up it took him 3 shots to kill the doe thinking he had killed it on the 1st shot which was through the throat and after me explaining i was a stalker and the deer was very much still alive and to shot it in the chest to finish it he took a 2nd in the liver and then finaly after me touching the spot the bullet needed to go the 3rd and final shot was taken where the doe very quickly expired, now the officer was a nice enough chap and was keen to end the deers life as quickly as possible but he just seemed to lack a basic understanding of how to actualy kill the deer and was quite shocked when i told him not to head shot it and was more than happy when i offered to show him where to shot the deer afterwards and explaining why with the deer still very mobile a head shot wasnt his best option but surley shouldnt of he been trained in how to deal with situations like this? i dont want this to seem as a dig at the police as to be honest rtc deer must take up a very small portion of there day to day work and i truley felt sorry for the chap as he just wanted to do the right thing

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you put a shot in the brain and end it quick with one shot, or just cut it's throat? Much less stress and suffering for the already hurt and scared animal than multiple gut shots hoping to hit something vital......
 
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you put a shot in the brain and end it quick with one shot, or just cut it's throat? Much less stress and suffering for the already hurt and scared animal than multiple gut shots hoping to hit something vital......

Unfortunately the RSPCA would most likely prosecute you for cutting the animals throat as in their opinion it would cause un-necessary suffering! They would much rather it lay there in pain and terror for two hours until the vet arrived.
 
Unfortunately the RSPCA would most likely prosecute you for cutting the animals throat as in their opinion it would cause un-necessary suffering! They would much rather it lay there in pain and terror for two hours until the vet arrived.

you shouldn't be as it is in the best practice methods as long as you use a really sharp and long enough knife but not my first choice of dispatch but i have used it when i had no other option, atb wayne
 
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you put a shot in the brain and end it quick with one shot, or just cut it's throat? Much less stress and suffering for the already hurt and scared animal than multiple gut shots hoping to hit something vital......

Don't even go there daven.... that's one for another day, when the fallout from the Halal thread settles :D
 
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you put a shot in the brain and end it quick with one shot, or just cut it's throat? Much less stress and suffering for the already hurt and scared animal than multiple gut shots hoping to hit something vital......

daven,
I'm not sure if you've ever seen a muntjac, but they really aren't very big and their brain is about the size of a chicken egg............. would you shoot a moving chicken egg with a 9mm? I think it is much easier to shoot to the body as it is a bigger target and also less mobile.
 
On the DSC course I attended I left with the understanding that it was actaully illegal to move injured deer.
 
I don't think that's the case scuba, at least not specifically an offence. You may well be committing an offence if, by moving it, you cause more pain and suffering (causing unnecessary suffering is the offence you'd fall under). I've dispatched a few roe, albeit very badly injured and immobile, with a knife into the atlas joint. Not something I'd try with a deer that was in any way thrashing about. The method has to be adapted to the prevailing conditions.
 
Back
Top