At what stage was it refused? Did they send the paperwork back or did he have the feo visit and fluff the questions, were they given the option to gain experience, mentoring etc, has he been out shooting with you and you give him a letter of recommendation etc
A friends FAC refusal
- Thread starter bamm88
- Start date
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
I know a few people who have SGCs but don't actually shoot. They have them as they are collectors, just want to hold on to a shotgun for sentimental reasons or simply work/live with someone who shoots and so they move the guns around.
As you don't need "good reason" for a shotgun there can be no experience requirement because you may never be intending to use it. It's sad that some people in Kent must have gone along with this without reading the HO Guidance and questioning such poor practice from the Kent FLD.
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
Durham are just awful and don't adhere to the legislation. They openly state that they are stricter than everyone else. When reminded re the rules and regulation in letter their response was if you don't like it take us to appeal. Overall awful atitude with zero discretion or consideration.
the prowler
Well-Known Member
I may be wrong. But 22lr 17hmr 223 and 6.5x55 is Abit ott for first fac. The guy might have previously had experience of rifles? Am not sure. Still. Hopefully we will find out.
If he can demonstrate genuine "good reason" for those calibres, then it's not OTT at all.
I suspect there's aspects to this tale that we don't know.
the prowler
Well-Known Member
Probably hasn't given a valid reason then.
purdeydog
Well-Known Member
No we wouldn't be happy with that at all. Pretty sure they don't do that.
I don't know and it might not be so, but when someone posts about someone else's refusal there's always the possibility that the whole picture isn't presented. The friend naturally will want to present himself to his pal in a good light and the one who posts is keen to do so too on here. What's more, any questions by members on here have to be relayed back and forward. And in any case really forum members can only hazard guesses as to what is in the minds of the relevant people in the firearms licensing office anyway.
The only advice that would be any good is for the friend to contact his firearms licensing office (often a herculean task in itself, depending on where you are) and ask why he was refused and what he can do to rectify that. All else is well meant speculation.
The only advice that would be any good is for the friend to contact his firearms licensing office (often a herculean task in itself, depending on where you are) and ask why he was refused and what he can do to rectify that. All else is well meant speculation.
I do wonder if some don’t help themselves.
I’m making no comment on this specific situation but I’ve tended to find FEOs fairly accommodating - but they need to hear the right things.
If you tell them you want ‘x’ rifle because you more or less just want it, then get stroppy when they don’t seem receptive, don’t be surprised to be told no. I’ve always gone into a meeting with an explanation for why there’s good reason, not necessarily a need, but a reason and found it’s waved through.
I’m making no comment on this specific situation but I’ve tended to find FEOs fairly accommodating - but they need to hear the right things.
If you tell them you want ‘x’ rifle because you more or less just want it, then get stroppy when they don’t seem receptive, don’t be surprised to be told no. I’ve always gone into a meeting with an explanation for why there’s good reason, not necessarily a need, but a reason and found it’s waved through.
Re the SGC/Safety, I'm sure I saw someone on here quote a legal challenge on that, and it was judged by the (high?) courts that lack of training is a valid "good reason" for FLDs to reject applications?
Honestly? When I was getting my FAC, the FEO said something similar at the home visit! We were going over my ammunition allowances. I put in for 1k for 22, 200 for each of my CFs which I told him is plenty for the shooting I do (add I don't reload nor have plans to yet) and he was like "it's nice to see someone who goes with that". I gather the majority of people do (as is often recommended by others I feel?) to go big and get bumped down by the FEO? In particular, are the people who apparently put in for loads and loads, then show the FEO the tiny built in ammo safe in their cabinet, and expecting to get thousands of rounds in there...
Honestly? When I was getting my FAC, the FEO said something similar at the home visit! We were going over my ammunition allowances. I put in for 1k for 22, 200 for each of my CFs which I told him is plenty for the shooting I do (add I don't reload nor have plans to yet) and he was like "it's nice to see someone who goes with that". I gather the majority of people do (as is often recommended by others I feel?) to go big and get bumped down by the FEO? In particular, are the people who apparently put in for loads and loads, then show the FEO the tiny built in ammo safe in their cabinet, and expecting to get thousands of rounds in there...
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
50-plus posts, and still no reply from a new OP whose story is anecdotal. I've long since lost patience with these threads, and the wholly predictable replies from the regulars. Every refusal to grant, renew, or vary has to be made by the C.O.P. in writing. Without this we're nowhere. I'd suggest that the armchair warriors on here ignore the next vague accusation without documentary evidence of the facts from the aggrieved party i.e. his letter of rejection.
I think this might reduce the number of these half-baked accusations to almost zero.
I think this might reduce the number of these half-baked accusations to almost zero.
We all agree that some FLD’s make up their own rules, and are poor at best.
People making applications, be it for an FAC, or variation, need to take that into account, and preempt anything that the FEO may object to.
I firmly believe that most issues are due to very poorly constructed, and presented applications, and people need to take a step back, and give more thought to what they actually need, why, and how they articulate that.
People making applications, be it for an FAC, or variation, need to take that into account, and preempt anything that the FEO may object to.
I firmly believe that most issues are due to very poorly constructed, and presented applications, and people need to take a step back, and give more thought to what they actually need, why, and how they articulate that.
Yep, I agree with that. Although there's an innate sense by some people wanting to post to be helpful. However pointless. But for one, I shall endeavour to try and resist.50-plus posts, and still no reply from a new OP whose story is anecdotal. I've long since lost patience with these threads, and the wholly predictable replies from the regulars. Every refusal to grant, renew, or vary has to be made by the C.O.P. in writing. Without this we're nowhere. I'd suggest that the armchair warriors on here ignore the next vague accusation without documentary evidence of the facts from the aggrieved party i.e. his letter of rejection.
I think this might reduce the number of these half-baked accusations to almost zero.
Indeed and the law, the Firearms Act, specifically states that a person may possess shotguns and have a SGC even where they have no intention of using the shotguns held on it. This is to allow such situations where a person of age can keep shotguns to later pass them on to others when those persons come of age.
28
[F148(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace.(1A)No such certificate shall be granted or renewed if the chief officer of police—
(a)has reason to believe that the applicant is prohibited by this Act from possessing a shot gun; or
(b)is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one.
(1B)For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use.
The standard of written English displayed by an ever-increasing number of the population is declining at an alarming rate. I don't expect expert-level prose but at least the very basics (like not mixing up "our" and "are", for example) really ought to be the minimum standard when writing to an official/public body. Yes, people make mistakes but is proof-reading too much to ask? If you know you struggle, get a friend who doesn't struggle to read it over and make corrections. Sadly this is probably preaching to the choir in that the vast majority of certificate holders/applicants are not participants on forums like these, where generally the standard of written English is notably above average.
Not really, I applied for X2 .22RF, X2 .38/357, .44, .223, S1 shotgun and mods for all of them. Was granted everything albeit the .223 and a mod for my .44 for some insane reason.
As long as you have good reason for each gun/calibre then there should be no limit on the number you initially apply for.
Similar threads
