The last time I checked my bank account, I wasn’t being paid millions of pounds to act on the shooters behalf.
Court case to decide if police can hide behind Public Interest Immunity in revocation cases
- Thread starter gonzo
- Start date
baguio
Well-Known Member
The last time you checked your bank account did you see a payment go out to BASC?
And therein lies the reason that we, as a group, find ourselves in the situation we are in.
The assumption that paying a bit of money to an organisation divests the individual of the responsibility of fighting for their personal rights.
The utterly abysmal response rates to most public consultations on anything shooting related reinforces this. The vast majority of the British shooting community would rather was their hands of any responsibility for the continuation of their chosen hobby. "I have paid a nominal feel to BASC / SGA / NGO / etc etc etc (delete as appropriate), there ends my responsibility. I shall now compain vociferously, and at length, when things do not go the way that I personally think that they should".
There are an awful lot on here who seem to take perverse pleasure in anything going against us, just so they can complain about shooting organisations.
It is pathetic.
"It is pathetic." is a two way street. I'll just leave this here 
I think some on here lack personality and basic manners….maybe that’s why some don’t understand this basic point and think it relates to ego.
sikamalc
Administrator
From my own point of view and experience with Firearms Departments and the police in general, I have never had an issue, and have always found them to be helpful. Although the present climate, with Covid etc, has put the whole system under strain.
I used to manage a large private collection of firearms, all working, and many tyes, colts, lugers etc. I was also involved on the odd occasion with firearms relating to murder and also those handed in during an amnesty.
In all my dealings with the police I have always found them to be professional and helpful. With my own FAC application/renewal they were helpful, and I have never had any real issue with Kent police.
At days end any new rules, call them what you will, are handed down from central government. It is up to the Chief Constable how they are applied. Now this may not to be to everyone's liking, but that's where we are with it all. IF any FAC holder steps over the line with a firearm, they can expect a visit to either question them or relieve them of their firearms. After all would you really want someone with a firearm, that should NOT have one.
Its not an easy job at times, no doubt there are innocent FAC holders that should not have had their ticket taken off them. Scenarios such as disgruntled ex wife making false claims, neighbours who dont like you shooting and are totally anti. Its going to happen, and when it does its not an easy situation for anyone to be in.
On the flip side, I can tell you that after many years of guiding and taking folk out stalking, I have met a small number who I would have never given an FAC to. Let alone the ones who just think having a rifle is a macho thing. Or the ones that treat a firearm like its a toy gun. Believe me they are out there!!
4 years back now I had a client OFF this site, that ND a 30.06 after getting over a stock fence, with the mag out, but forgot there was a round in it. Then discharged the rifle about a foot from my left leg. Or the other idiot who on arrival at the edge of the ground in the dark, loaded his rifle laying on the back seat of my truck, before we had even started to prepare to stalk. Needless to say neither stalk with me anymore.
There are a few FEO'S and police officers, active and retired who are members of this site. I have stalked with a few of them over the years. I have always found all of them to be great people to be with.
I used to manage a large private collection of firearms, all working, and many tyes, colts, lugers etc. I was also involved on the odd occasion with firearms relating to murder and also those handed in during an amnesty.
In all my dealings with the police I have always found them to be professional and helpful. With my own FAC application/renewal they were helpful, and I have never had any real issue with Kent police.
At days end any new rules, call them what you will, are handed down from central government. It is up to the Chief Constable how they are applied. Now this may not to be to everyone's liking, but that's where we are with it all. IF any FAC holder steps over the line with a firearm, they can expect a visit to either question them or relieve them of their firearms. After all would you really want someone with a firearm, that should NOT have one.
Its not an easy job at times, no doubt there are innocent FAC holders that should not have had their ticket taken off them. Scenarios such as disgruntled ex wife making false claims, neighbours who dont like you shooting and are totally anti. Its going to happen, and when it does its not an easy situation for anyone to be in.
On the flip side, I can tell you that after many years of guiding and taking folk out stalking, I have met a small number who I would have never given an FAC to. Let alone the ones who just think having a rifle is a macho thing. Or the ones that treat a firearm like its a toy gun. Believe me they are out there!!
4 years back now I had a client OFF this site, that ND a 30.06 after getting over a stock fence, with the mag out, but forgot there was a round in it. Then discharged the rifle about a foot from my left leg. Or the other idiot who on arrival at the edge of the ground in the dark, loaded his rifle laying on the back seat of my truck, before we had even started to prepare to stalk. Needless to say neither stalk with me anymore.
There are a few FEO'S and police officers, active and retired who are members of this site. I have stalked with a few of them over the years. I have always found all of them to be great people to be with.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
I've had similar experiences to you and share your views, in general, of our licencing departments. In short, doing the best they can with a large backlog and insufficient resources. In 35 years I've only once had cause to complain about personal opinions of one licencing manager over-ruling Home office guidance and what the law itself says. Gentle persistence and politeness won the day...eventually gaining support from within the department to effect a reasonable outcome.
In terms of shooters, I've experienced similar myself and as a general rule will not shoot with someone I don't know well unless that person is vouched for by someone I do trust. You tend to get the odd twit on target ranges too, but they're generally weeded out very quickly. One of my particular concerns are newbees with little to no experience having a crack at reloading having never bothered to read a manual first. I won't shoot next to someone I suspect lacks the knowledge or experience to know what they're doing and have had a word with one in the past, but constructively, offering to give up time to take him through it properly in my own time, which I did. There are the very odd few who really I struggle to understand ever got their FAC but they're in the minority.
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
Oh yes. If you read post #59 you'll see that Conor has very kindly clarified absolutely nothing for us . . . . .
Can you link to the CPSA response please?
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
No. Because there isn't one
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
Just a word of caution: we haven't go the full facts here.
I sent a friend who is a solicitor the film clip on this latest case. Obviously, he doesn't know the details. We only have one side of the story. Of course, it would be very worrying if legal precedent was about to be set. However, I am told this does not seem to be the case here, despite what has been suggested by Fieldsports TV.
As far as we can tell, this chap isn't a member of any organisation. In the absence of the risk of a legal precedent being set by his case, I am not sure why any member-funded organisation should spend its members' money on a non-member. I do know that BASC acts for its own members on a regular basis on firearms issues. I myself know of just such a case last year in Northern England: the chap got his guns back without going to court and is full of praise for the help he got. I am sure the same could be said of one or two other orgs. Understandably, such members don't necessarily want to broadcast the details of how they got into trouble; everybody wants a quiet life, don't they? Often, there are private domestic or neighbour issues at play.
Again, I don't know the details of this latest case, and nor did the lawyer, but I am told that not revealing certain details of evidence in advance, or in public, is normally connected with protecting the identity of a witness who may be vulnerable to intimidation, or a police informant, or undercover work, or something of that ilk. Furthermore, I gather that only the court can decide whether this particular evidence - or rather, the source - can be protected. So it is the court, not the police, who make the decision and they have to provide their justification.
Yes, the police can make mistakes and over-react. Witnesses can lie, or be mistaken. These things can be contested in court. The bigger problem, to my mind, is that you cannot get your costs back even if you eventually win. That really does seem unfair.
I sent a friend who is a solicitor the film clip on this latest case. Obviously, he doesn't know the details. We only have one side of the story. Of course, it would be very worrying if legal precedent was about to be set. However, I am told this does not seem to be the case here, despite what has been suggested by Fieldsports TV.
As far as we can tell, this chap isn't a member of any organisation. In the absence of the risk of a legal precedent being set by his case, I am not sure why any member-funded organisation should spend its members' money on a non-member. I do know that BASC acts for its own members on a regular basis on firearms issues. I myself know of just such a case last year in Northern England: the chap got his guns back without going to court and is full of praise for the help he got. I am sure the same could be said of one or two other orgs. Understandably, such members don't necessarily want to broadcast the details of how they got into trouble; everybody wants a quiet life, don't they? Often, there are private domestic or neighbour issues at play.
Again, I don't know the details of this latest case, and nor did the lawyer, but I am told that not revealing certain details of evidence in advance, or in public, is normally connected with protecting the identity of a witness who may be vulnerable to intimidation, or a police informant, or undercover work, or something of that ilk. Furthermore, I gather that only the court can decide whether this particular evidence - or rather, the source - can be protected. So it is the court, not the police, who make the decision and they have to provide their justification.
Yes, the police can make mistakes and over-react. Witnesses can lie, or be mistaken. These things can be contested in court. The bigger problem, to my mind, is that you cannot get your costs back even if you eventually win. That really does seem unfair.
Last edited:
Rafter
Well-Known Member
From afar, and in a country that has it's own issues (a lot to do with imported British police, and their attitudes), this is the point.
The process is the punishment. The threat of a multi thousand dollar lawyers bill is enough to keep most people compliant, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their case. The police, not so much...
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
I was told this many years ago. It's oft repeated here, there, everywhere. It's not original. Everybody says it. Never forget that when the Inland Revenue (in this specific case insert the word "police") take you to court not only is your money paying for your lawyers...it's also paying for their lawyers too. Or in other words they don't care as win or lose they aren't the ones picking up the tab.
My only two gripes with the Police are:-
1. My local Police service were the first one's to instigate " No medical cert, No fac".
2. They don't all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Apart from that never had any problems from the far North to the South West and even the South part across the water.
1. My local Police service were the first one's to instigate " No medical cert, No fac".
2. They don't all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Apart from that never had any problems from the far North to the South West and even the South part across the water.
ContinShots
Well-Known Member
It's also worth noting that unless a case has gone to the UK Supreme Court (or House of Lords, for pre-2000s historic cases), any precedent only applies in the jurisdiction in which it was sent, meaning a case in England & Wales doesn't automatically mean that will be the case in Scotland or Northern Ireland (the former being more important fie firearms laws, given NI has its own for the most part). Particularly if a decision is perhaps questionable or is disputed, it may not bind everywhere in the UK. I'm not a lawyer, but worked in a quasi-judicial profession, worked with case and statute law every day, and one of my own cases ended up in the Supreme Court, so I have a reasonable feel for how it all goes together.Not a lawyer, but a court is bound by precedent set at a court of the same level or higher.
The Doctrine of Legal Precedent: When is a Court decision binding? | LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
City of London Litigation Lawyers. Advice on all litigation matters: professional negligence, insolvency, debt recovery, HMRC tax disputes and more. Call 02071830529lexlaw.co.uk
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
100% misses the point!
Similar threads
