BigT
Well-Known Member
You know , throwing us migrants under the bus doesn’t make things better for you.
S1:S2 It has already started
- Thread starter Nimrod1960
- Start date
You know , throwing us migrants under the bus doesn’t make things better for you.
That’s the point this “ compliance “ makes everything a hell of a lot worse for us as a group , honestly we deserve everything we get for not challenging the stuff they make up
Hmmm yeah S&S FEO made a turnabout decision on something that had already been agreed by her predecessor AND supervisor.just like they get challenged for saying you need dsc for a deer legal calibre ?
When challenged they closed ranks and BASC gratefully accepted the BS excuse she gave without any lube...thanks BASC
good old bascHmmm yeah S&S FEO made a turnabout decision on something that had already been agreed by her predecessor AND supervisor.
When challenged they closed ranks and BASC gratefully accepted the BS excuse she gave without any lube...thanks BASC
in all seriousness though where doers it end with these made up restricitions ?
In my opinion - that’s an FEO overstepping his authority. It sounds very much like he applies his personal opinions to the role and not the required law and regulations.
Also, “immigrant” is far too loose a term, I have South African “immigrant” friends who would show most a thing or two about firearms.
We must be careful to not confuse legal migrants with illegally entering migrants - who are criminals from the start.
12gsnapcaps
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Legal immigrants who have gone through all the checks and processes are welcome in Britain. I would happily have a pint with them. The owner of my local gunshop came here legally (decades ago) and has forgotten more about shooting in his life than I’ve ever learnt!
Illegal immigrants on the other hand are, by definition, criminals, and therefore not welcome.
Nor, mind you, should they be mistreated - as they’re still human beings - but they should not be allowed to stay.
To do so is offensive to all the decent people who jump through the hoops to come here legally.
RF76
Well-Known Member
This needs to be legally challenged in the High Court by ALL Organisations coming together and combining resources.
A petition will have very little effect, and will only be heard in a Committee side room somewhere, much like the petition that called for General Election with Millions of signatures. This Govt has even less respect for Democracy than the illusion that came before, and as Herr Starmer said 'if you don't like what we are doing, you are free to leave'.... name one PM who has said that to its electorate in the UK before.
If the Organisations, with support from the whole industry, don't use the legal system and the law to make a stand, then the damage will irreparable across multiple industries and employees.
A petition will have very little effect, and will only be heard in a Committee side room somewhere, much like the petition that called for General Election with Millions of signatures. This Govt has even less respect for Democracy than the illusion that came before, and as Herr Starmer said 'if you don't like what we are doing, you are free to leave'.... name one PM who has said that to its electorate in the UK before.
If the Organisations, with support from the whole industry, don't use the legal system and the law to make a stand, then the damage will irreparable across multiple industries and employees.
As I suspected, someone taking offence at my stating the truth.
I did not tar all migrants, I tarred those migrants who cannot provide a full life history that can be substantiated. That background check is the rule for us, and it should be the rule for everyone.
We do not need someone with ISIS affiliations, who comes to the UK, does not go down the naturalisation route, has no history, laying up as a sleeper cell until something we do triggers him, such as supporting Jewish people in their battle against racism. In my view, no substantiated history should mean no certificate.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
If you read the Home Office Guidance to Police Officers 2022, which is stickied in this Legal Section.
Look at Chapter 1. Commonly asked questions. It opens with:
What is meant by the term ‘firearm’?
1.1 ‘Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged.
In other words the guidance notes relate to all guns and does not differentiate between a Rifle or a Shotgun.
It then goes on
What is a ‘good reason’ to own a firearm?
1.6 Applicants should be able to demonstrate to the police that they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research). Chief officers are able to exercise discretion over what constitutes a good reason, judging each case on its own merits.
See Chapter 12 for further details.
In other words long gone are the days where it was your “right” to possess shotguns and other firearms. It is down to the Chief Officers of Police to exercise their discretion as to what constitutes a good reason.
These guidance notes were, I think, legally binding in that Police have to follow them. In reality other filling a different piece of paper, and in the case of rifles authorising each one, versus authorising you to posses and use shotguns, the criteria and decision making process is about firearms.
And this was brought in by the Conservative Government.
You may or may not agree with the current licensing system, but we have to live and work with what we have.
It may be changed through lobbying and further parliamentary time, but I suspect that rather than easing things, it will be used as bargaining chips between the various parties for other bits of legislation. Strengthening Firearms legislation will hardly loose any meaningful level of votes.
Look at Chapter 1. Commonly asked questions. It opens with:
What is meant by the term ‘firearm’?
1.1 ‘Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged.
In other words the guidance notes relate to all guns and does not differentiate between a Rifle or a Shotgun.
What are the basic principles of firearms law in GB?
1.2 GB firearms policy is based on the fact that firearms are dangerous weapons and the State has a duty to protect the public from their misuse. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Firearms control in GB is among the toughest in the world and, as a result, firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion of recorded crime.It then goes on
What is a ‘good reason’ to own a firearm?
1.6 Applicants should be able to demonstrate to the police that they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research). Chief officers are able to exercise discretion over what constitutes a good reason, judging each case on its own merits.
See Chapter 12 for further details.
In other words long gone are the days where it was your “right” to possess shotguns and other firearms. It is down to the Chief Officers of Police to exercise their discretion as to what constitutes a good reason.
These guidance notes were, I think, legally binding in that Police have to follow them. In reality other filling a different piece of paper, and in the case of rifles authorising each one, versus authorising you to posses and use shotguns, the criteria and decision making process is about firearms.
And this was brought in by the Conservative Government.
You may or may not agree with the current licensing system, but we have to live and work with what we have.
It may be changed through lobbying and further parliamentary time, but I suspect that rather than easing things, it will be used as bargaining chips between the various parties for other bits of legislation. Strengthening Firearms legislation will hardly loose any meaningful level of votes.
Coming from the man who welcomes any further restrictions to firearms licensing ammunition etc .
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Far from it. Just stating what is already in place.
Give over you absolutely love restrictions to firearms and ammunition in fact in previous threads have questioned people’s fitness to hold an fac because they don’t agree with your viewpoint so please don’t give me that
Apparently, in some states in the US, a relevant mental illness is not an automatic disqualifier for owning firearms.......I'd certainly like to see some form of screening for such risks here.
Such a vetting process might have saved some lives in the UK over the past few decades.
Instead, all we get is a gov. knee-jerk reaction to an atrocity by some nutter, which affects everyone who shoots safely and legally, and makes no difference whatsoever to the use of firearms by criminals and other nutters.
D.
Such a vetting process might have saved some lives in the UK over the past few decades.
Instead, all we get is a gov. knee-jerk reaction to an atrocity by some nutter, which affects everyone who shoots safely and legally, and makes no difference whatsoever to the use of firearms by criminals and other nutters.
D.
12gsnapcaps
Well-Known Member
There is in the UK. GP reports are now mandatory/standard, and any issues raised by the GP are followed up in detail. Due to the firearms marker, upon someone holding a cert, any matters that arise are flagged to the relevant FLM and passed on a live basis to the FLM.
In the US and in relation to mental health - and presuming this isn’t any case where imminent exigent circumstances apply, your firearms can be confiscated by the police - if an individual is serious enough to be sectioned, but it’s on a case by cases basis and requires sign off by a judge.
We need to be careful how we deal with mental health in regards to firearm laws and licensing, as it can become self defeating.
We already have a situation in the UK where many people who are experiencing mental health problems will not seek treatment and/or will not talk to friends or family about it due to the very real chance of them losing their tickets, guns and livelihood. I’m not saying this is right or that I support this approach by anyone, but we would be silly and foolish to blindly presume this doesn’t happen, especially where people need certs for their jobs!!
I would rather have people who suffer with a mental health issue who are able to talk to friends about it and seek medical treatment, and have police support and understanding - and even if their guns are taken off then for a few months - don’t fear a certainty of a compassionless knee jerk heavy handed law enforcement response.
The alternative, which I believe is now becoming more common in the UK, is that we have police forces with no ability to use discretion, and therefore we have certificate holders with serious mental health problems that nobody knows anything about, and who are not receiving treatment or support. This is bloody dangerous.
With mental health issues being more common and with my generation
And younger generations more open to talking about them, it’s actually a really stupid idea in regards to public safety, to have a strict black and white view on dealing with it.
Someone who openly admits to having a mental health problem and seeks treatment for it, by the very act of doing that, is already proving they are the right kind of person to own firearms. Punishing applicants or certificate holders with black and white ramifications for doing that, is extremely counter productive to both fairness and public safety.
Last edited:
12gsnapcaps
Well-Known Member
Also to add, having mental illness is not an automatic Disqualifier to have a shotgun or firearm cert in the UK!! It’s all taken on a case by case basis. What is the condition? Is the person treated for it? Are they generally law abiding and decent in other areas of their life?
I know some people I wouldn’t trust with a stick, who don’t have any mental illnesses. Because they are at the core, arseholes.
I have some friends who really suffer with melancholy and stress, but I wouldn’t have any problem or issue with them owning firearms if they one day woke up and decided they wanted to get into clay shooting. Because they are at the core, a decent person just trying to make sense of this life and world we live in.
Last edited:
The above which is in the "guidance" may say that but is not wholly on point in respect of s2 and what the Firearms Act sets out as the law. I have underlined the relevant part.
This was expressly inserted to allow the retention and keeping of (usually family owned) shotguns by, say, the spouse or other friend or relative of, say, a deceased individual for it retention until a person to whom it was intended for could on obtaining a SGC then take possession of it.
As below:
Special provisions about shot gun certificates.
(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.
Excellent points. However, the problem with the case by case system is that these matters are adjudicated by a person or persons (in the FLD) who is not technically competent to do so with no clear standards.
12gsnapcaps
Well-Known Member
Agreed, the adjudication of this needs to be standardised so people know where they stand. However if we didn't have a case by case system, situations where applicants or current certificate holders would not seek any help or treatment due to fear, would be more common, which ultimately is a far worse outcome as a whole in regards to public safety.
Similar threads
