Musing on gun laws...

Tom D

Well-Known Member
So, imagine you are an FEO, you recieve an application, all boxes ticked, he has permission to shoot on land of 1000 acres in a remote area away from housing that has been previously cleared for .375H&H. His referees are not FAC holders and don't have any criminal record, when you speak to them they say that the applicant is safe and reliable and in their oppinion fit to hold a gun. You arrive at his house to be greeted by a skinhead who is dressed in full DPM and has BNP tattooed on his knuckles, he has the SAS emblem tattooed on his arm. He lives on his own, his house is clean and tidy but you notice that all his reading material relates to special forces and far right politics. The house is decorated normally buy there are a lot of military style collectables dotted around, various shell casings and replica hand grenades etc. He appears fairly normal to speak to and has a good knowledge of shooting safely.

What do you do?

And if you recommend refusal will he win an appeal?

Just interested, there is a lot of slagging of FEO's on here, I wonder how easy their job really is...

Not sure what I'd do..

And if the above description is you, I'm not having a go just throwing up a little talking point..
 
So, imagine you are an FEO, you recieve an application, all boxes ticked, he has permission to shoot on land of 1000 acres in a remote area away from housing that has been previously cleared for .375H&H. His referees are not FAC holders and don't have any criminal record, when you speak to them they say that the applicant is safe and reliable and in their oppinion fit to hold a gun. You arrive at his house to be greeted by a skinhead who is dressed in full DPM and has BNP tattooed on his knuckles, he has the SAS emblem tattooed on his arm. He lives on his own, his house is clean and tidy but you notice that all his reading material relates to special forces and far right politics. The house is decorated normally buy there are a lot of military style collectables dotted around, various shell casings and replica hand grenades etc. He appears fairly normal to speak to and has a good knowledge of shooting safely.

What do you do?

And if you recommend refusal will he win an appeal?

Just interested, there is a lot of slagging of FEO's on here, I wonder how easy their job really is...

Not sure what I'd do..

And if the above description is you, I'm not having a go just throwing up a little talking point..

In short, yes !!!
Its called stereotyping . . FEO's can't be approving or declining applications on the basis of what someone looks like, skinhead or not.
 
I thought the same.

Imagine the same but the guy is asian and the tattoos and books are related to muslim fundamentalism...


In essence I think we too have the right to bear arms here in the UK, there are a few hoops to jump through, but providing you don't have too bad a criminal record, or too bad a mental illness then its ok.
 
I was chatting to an FEO about a similar topic not that long ago and he told me of an almost identical scenario where he had the gut feeling the guy wasn't 100% but had no grounds to refuse him. Then a few months later had to revoke his licence due to him chopping barrels and stocks off his shotguns and rifles and adding folding stocks to them and attempting to convert to fully auto.

Another story was of a pub landlord who,was having trouble with some travellers and soon applied for a SGC and the belief of the FEO was he wanted it for personal protection so declined his application which he appealed and had overturned as there was no "justification" for denying it to him. Within days of getting his SGC he had been arrested for threatening people in the pub with a shotgun.

not a job I'd want as "damned if you do and damned if you don't"
 
Probably not for the FEO to worry about. If he has a concern it should be passed on to their boss who will make the decision, if they have concerns it should be passed on to the courts to decide. That's what the system is for?
 
In essence I think we too have the right to bear arms here in the UK, there are a few hoops to jump through, but providing you don't have too bad a criminal record, or too bad a mental illness then its ok.

Here in the UK we have absolutely no right to bear arms, we have to have good reason to own firearms / shotguns and 'defence' is not one of those reasons. So unless Mr Skinhead had good reason and / or land to shoot on, he'd be treated just the same as anyone else in that position.

​Tom
 
Here in the UK we have absolutely no right to bear arms

It might be wrong of course, but I seem to recall reading an arguement that our rights in this regard are found in the Bill of Rights of 1689. The writer went on to point out that this is why we do not have Firearms Licences nor Shotgun Licences - our 'licence', or permission, to own arms being in the Bill of Rights.

The FAC and SGC are simply certificates of fitness, as later defined in Firearms Acts, to excercise that right.

This seems to me to make sense, though of course it has little impact in practice on the position in which we find ourselves nowadays, in particular with respect to the rather arbitrary 1930's decision to remove self-defence from the list of 'good reasons' for FAC.

Interesting to think about, though!
:)
 
Here in the UK we have absolutely no right to bear arms, we have to have good reason to own firearms / shotguns and 'defence' is not one of those reasons. ​Tom


Not quite right I believe: you don't need a good reason to own a shotgun. The FEO may ask you for one, but it's up to them to prove that you're not fit to have one, unlike for an FAC where the burden of proof sits with the applicant.
 
Not quite right I believe: you don't need a good reason to own a shotgun. The FEO may ask you for one, but it's up to them to prove that you're not fit to have one, unlike for an FAC where the burden of proof sits with the applicant.

That's correct. The fitness qualification applies to both but you don't need to provide a good reason to possess a section 2 firearm, whereas with a section 1 you do.
 
Change to the Telegraph old chap... what, what!

Some years ago, I switched from the Telegraph. I used to read it because of the editor's "A free country" campaign. But as events moved along, that seemed to shift from a focus on civil liberties towards something along the lines of "freedom for people like us to do and say the sorts of thinsg we approve of", which wasn't really what I had in mind. But then I don't agree with everything in the Guardian either. Not by a long way. I just find it less objectionable. And they have Charlie Brooker.
 
Some years ago, I switched from the Telegraph. I used to read it because of the editor's "A free country" campaign. But as events moved along, that seemed to shift from a focus on civil liberties towards something along the lines of "freedom for people like us to do and say the sorts of thinsg we approve of", which wasn't really what I had in mind. But then I don't agree with everything in the Guardian either. Not by a long way. I just find it less objectionable. And they have Charlie Brooker.

Sorry, should have put a big fat smiley face on the end of my last post. :D

The OP seems concerned about granting an FAC to the average knuckle dragging, bnp, skin 'ed... when frankly the average Telegraph reader is probably a leet'l to the right of that dreadful stereotype... Maybe it's just my sense of humour though... Too bad... Haussement d'epaules ici.
 
Yes I think he can lawfully refuse on the grounds of "unsuitable character" - the reason I say this is entry to the police force can be refused if you have ever voted for the BNP or otherwise supported a similar organisation (my brother was in hampshire police). I believe in freedom of speech and the right for an opinion, but I'm against those that force their views on others (extremists). The applicant has every right to believe what he wants, but if the FEO believes he might be an extremist then he's entitled to refuse him a license.

Presumably the FEO would ask about the BNP tat's though...

I won't be popular for saying it, but I think they FEO's have the right to refuse someone a licence if they feel they are of unsuitable character - even if that's based on a few observations on their appearance or items present in their home, or both.

I guess each situation has it's own considerations for the FEO, and we can rant about it as much as we like but if someone goes nuts and kills a load of people we don't accept accountability; the heads that roll belong to FEO's and licensing branch heads.

It's a tough job and not one I'd want personally - I've been totally wrong about quite a few people in my life but the worst that's happened is I've lost shooting ground or girlfriends!... when they get it totally wrong people die.
 
When I applied for my first SGC at 17, living with my parents, I'm pretty sure that 50% of my interview was over when the FEO saw that we had a piano... It reminds me of the Goon Show episode "The Whistling Spy Enigma". The secret service recruit two spies from the Labour Exchange.
_ Are you sure that you're proper upstanding trustworthy patriotic British types?
_ Oh yes Sir. I send my Union Jack to same laundry as yours!
 
Back
Top