Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: A new one?

  1. #1

    A new one?

    I was speaking to a mate today who told me that a lad he's been helping to apply for FAC has been refused.

    The reason given is that he was in a car with some other lads who are known to the police. The car was pulled over and all their names taken, nothing came of it and they were allowed to go on their way.

    But now it seems because of his "association" with these lads, he can not be trusted with firearms.

    Other than this he has no criminal record and never been in any trouble of any kind,

    Can this be right?
    "It's halfway down the hill, directly below that tree next to a rock that looks like a bell-end"

    Good deals with ~ deako ~ sakowsm ~ dryan ~ 2734neil ~ mo ~ riggers ~ mmbeatle ~ seanct ~ an du ru fox

  2. #2
    Doesn't sound right to me...........if he's no criminal record that would affect the application, & he's fulfilled all the criteria there should be no reason for his application to be refused. Just because he was in the car with these lads is no reason for the police to automatically assume guilt. Pretty shoddy if you ask me. In fact to be perfectly frank, it's high time these people realised they're civil servants & exist to provide us with a service, rather than spend their time dictating the terms of how that service is to be provided

  3. #3
    These sorts of things are bound to be taken into consideration. If you associate with known criminals then its not a positive thing.

    There are a lot of crimes that you may be acquitted of and hold no criminal record, but would show up and prevent you getting a FAC. Police call outs for domestic disturbances but no charges brought as a prime example.

    I think quite reasonable.

    Section 161 of the Highways Act 1980 (England & Wales) makes it an offence to discharge a firearm within 50 ft of the centre of a highway with vehicular rights without lawful authority or excuse, if as a result a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered.

  4. #4
    The test remains:
    A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of
    police is satisfied-
    (a) that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to
    which section 1 of this Act applies and is not person
    prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;
    (b) that he has good reason for having in his possession, or for
    purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect
    of which the application is made; and
    (c) that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to
    have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without
    danger to the public safety or to the peace.


    Presumably the Police are not satisfied on some or all of the above.

    As Apache says, it is far from unreasonable for them to take an applicant's associates into account when making this important decision.
    Last edited by Dalua; 16-11-2014 at 22:46.

  5. #5
    The applicant has the right to appeal against the refusal, it may however be more practical to get a new set of friends and avoid those with criminal inclinations.

    atb Tim

  6. #6
    The guy might've been getting a lift & had no association with any criminality whatsoever...........when are we going to stop seeing an FAC as the right of the elite & start ensuring that people actually get treated fairly & decently as per both the law, and their rights? In any case, regarding criminality, unless you've served over 3 years in prison you're not automatically barred from an FAC as far as I know. As a matter of fact, a member of this very forum (who's account is now suspended for whatever reason) admitted to me that he once shot a policeman in the face with an air rifle, as well as numerous other offences that he was apparently reminded not to repeat when his FAC was granted. Now, either he was full of ****, or Manchester Firearms Licensing didn't see that as a serious enough offence to bar him from rifle ownership. And incidentally, I knew this guy on a (thankfully brief) personal basis & found him to be a complete psychopath who shouldn't have been placed in charge of a water pistol, let alone the multiple calibres he possessed.............
    Last edited by Woodsmoke; 16-11-2014 at 22:51.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodsmoke View Post
    The guy might've been getting a lift & had no association with any criminality whatsoever...........when are we going to stop seeing an FAC as the right of the elite & start ensuring that people actually get treated fairly & decently as per both the law, and their rights? In any case, regarding criminality, unless you've served over 3 years in prison you're not automatically barred from an FAC as far as I know
    The question here is not a history of criminality, but rather of association with criminals: an association which seems to have caused the police to think that his right to a FAC is forfeit.

    We don't know what the police know in this case, so why not let the applicant and the police sort it out between them?

    It is true that FAC-holding is a right of those who fit the criteria (not an elite, unless respectable, responsible non-criminal folk count as an elite) and therefore if applicant and police can't sort it out between themselves, there is the option to apeal to court against the refusal.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodsmoke View Post
    The guy might've been getting a lift & had no association with any criminality whatsoever...........when are we going to stop seeing an FAC as the right of the elite & start ensuring that people actually get treated fairly & decently as per both the law, and their rights? In any case, regarding criminality, unless you've served over 3 years in prison you're not automatically barred from an FAC as far as I know. As a matter of fact, a member of this very forum (who's account is now suspended for whatever reason) admitted to me that he once shot a policeman in the face with an air rifle, as well as numerous other offences that he was apparently reminded not to repeat when his FAC was granted. Now, either he was full of ****, or Manchester Firearms Licensing didn't see that as a serious enough offence to bar him from rifle ownership. And incidentally, I knew this guy on a (thankfully brief) personal basis & found him to be a complete psychopath who shouldn't have been placed in charge of a water pistol, let alone the multiple calibres he possessed.............
    Most likely he has not been truthful. Shooting a policeman in the face and then allowed firearms? Really?

  9. #9

    A new one?

    Old saying , my old man said to me,when I was hanging around with a bad bunch as a teenager .....

    You fly with the crows, you'll get done with the crows.

    I thought that an FAC was now looked at as a privilege & not a "right"

    Paul

  10. #10
    He may be unlucky and just got a lift once with the lads who were of vague acquaintance or he may be more friendly with them and there is a genuine concern. I doubt it'd have been refused if they were all 'just a bit naughty' but understandable if they have a history of more serious offending. Without all the facts we can only guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •