Shooting in Yorkshire??

[castbullets.co.uk]

The example I gave of a legally held shotgun being used in self-defence (and subsequently upheld as legitimate action in a court of law)

Are you sure that is what happened? The link you posted quoted a judge's comment while passing sentence on another matter before the court. That is not even remotely close to an action being upheld. The court was not asked anything about the legality of how they came to have been shot, was it?

 

[Swedish]

Are you sure that is what happened? The link you posted quoted a judge's comment while passing sentence on another matter before the court. That is not even remotely close to an action being upheld. The court was not asked anything about the legality of how they came to have been shot, was it?

You are correct, my main point was that the owner of the shotgun was not charged at all, I should have chosen my words more carefully. However the fact remains that despite Dunwater's assertions, using a legally held firearm in self defence is allowable. There are other examples of this in recent times but unfortunately a simple search results in reams of Tony Martin articles who of course was jailed for shooting burglars but he used an illegally held shotgun.

 

[Dunwaters]

. Are you saying that no such revocations take place on the Emerald Isle?

Not at all, we do revoke but the process is not so heavily weighted in favour of the Gardai and is far more likely to be challenged. I have never heard of a cert being revoked because a mans wife was terminally ill or because they were the victim of a burglary.
A few years ago there was a gruesome murder/suicide, at a press conference the regional chief superintendent was asked did our firearms legislation need strengthening, his response was no, our legislation was fit for purpose and working well, but that there would always be rare exceptions.
It’s also a fact that Irish juries rarely convict someone who injures or kills an intruder while defending themselves. The law was changed to reflect this, we do not have to retreat, we can hold our ground in the course of defending ourselves.

 

[Swedish]

Not at all, we do revoke but the process is not so heavily weighted in favour of the Gardai and is far more likely to be challenged. I have never heard of a cert being revoked because a mans wife was terminally ill or because they were the victim of a burglary.
A few years ago there was a gruesome murder/suicide, at a press conference the regional chief superintendent was asked did our firearms legislation need strengthening, his response was no, our legislation was fit for purpose and working well, but that there would always be rare exceptions.
It’s also a fact that Irish juries rarely convict someone who injures or kills an intruder while defending themselves. The law was changed to reflect this, we do not have to retreat, we can hold our ground in the course of defending ourselves.

I believe that our firearms legislation is more than adequate but we have a system where area forces can interpret the guidelines differently and sometimes perversely. I believe that in most cases it the ignorance of the personnel involved that is the problem. Devon and Cornwall, Cumbria and Police Scotland for example ended up with issues because they'd been lazy and not properly tested applications against the rules and guidelines so consequently issued certs to people that should never have been allowed them. Tragic events unfolded that then sparked a knee-jerk reaction from the force concerned in an effort to justify and correct it's glaring mistakes that seems to spread quickly to other areas. There are certainly other cases were the rules are subverted to match the political aims of some forces too when it comes to gun ownership. The fact remains though that when we resort to self-defence in the heat of the moment, virtually any means necessary to eliminate the perceived threat is lawful as long as you believe that the threat is real.

Using reasonable force against intruders

The steps you can take to tackle an intruder or burglar in your own home - and what force you can use to defend yourself

www.gov.uk

 

[castbullets.co.uk]

You are correct, my main point was that the owner of the shotgun was not charged at all, I should have chosen my words more carefully. However the fact remains that despite Dunwater's assertions, using a legally held firearm in self defence is allowable. There are other examples of this in recent times but unfortunately a simple search results in reams of Tony Martin articles who of course was jailed for shooting burglars but he used an illegally held shotgun.

It is very easy to make broad assertions. What I have tried to demonstrate in my replies to this thread is that every circumstance is different and the outcome depends on several factors - the precise circumstances, the law, the opinion of the CPS as to if a conviction is reasonably achievable (and in the public interest) and finally the jury on the day.

While it is a long, long way from clear, the law and the body of case law surrounding it strongly suggests that the use of a firearm in self defence can only be reasonable in so exceptionally narrow a set of circumstances as to be practically non-existent. ANY pre-meditated action on the part of the person doing the defending is ENTIRELY unsupported by the law. If you deliberately set out an item such that it is readily available to you should the need arise to defend yourself then you are, as far as the law is concerned, no longer acting reasonably. This is why items in the UK cannot wisely be marketed for self-defence. You may buy a reinforced umbrella because you are sick and tired of inferior umbrellas breaking and then use that umbrella to defend yourself should you be attacked while carrying it. You would be doing so without risking the pre-meditation aspect of the law (save, perhaps, if you were carrying it on a hot summer's day with no prospect of rain). You could not rely on the same being true had you purchased a similar umbrella marketed as being for self-defence.

Given the legal requirement that all of our firearms are to be kept as secure as practicable, I return to my earlier statement where I asked if it was reasonable that (crucially!) in the heat of the moment and faced with immediate danger the instinctive thing to do would be to retrieve the keys to your cabinet from their hiding place, go to the cabinet, unlock it, retrieve a firearm from within, load it and then take aim at the assailant, all while believing that it was a necessary, reasonable and appropriate use of force given the prevailing situation and that no other lesser course of action would suffice?

Would you trust the course of the entire rest of your life to the examination of those circumstances after the fact?

Personally, all of my belongings are insured and nothing I own is worth enough to me to trade my life for - either through death or through prolonged imprisonment.

 

[Swedish]

It is very easy to make broad assertions. What I have tried to demonstrate in my replies to this thread is that every circumstance is different and the outcome depends on several factors - the precise circumstances, the law, the opinion of the CPS as to if a conviction is reasonably achievable (and in the public interest) and finally the jury on the day.

While it is a long, long way from clear, the law and the body of case law surrounding it strongly suggests that the use of a firearm in self defence can only be reasonable in so exceptionally narrow a set of circumstances as to be practically non-existent. ANY pre-meditated action on the part of the person doing the defending is ENTIRELY unsupported by the law. If you deliberately set out an item such that it is readily available to you should the need arise to defend yourself then you are, as far as the law is concerned, no longer acting reasonably. This is why items in the UK cannot wisely be marketed for self-defence. You may buy a reinforced umbrella because you are sick and tired of inferior umbrellas breaking and then use that umbrella to defend yourself should you be attacked while carrying it. You would be doing so without risking the pre-meditation aspect of the law (save, perhaps, if you were carrying it on a hot summer's day with no prospect of rain). You could not rely on the same being true had you purchased a similar umbrella marketed as being for self-defence.

Given the legal requirement that all of our firearms are to be kept as secure as practicable, I return to my earlier statement where I asked if it was reasonable that (crucially!) in the heat of the moment and faced with immediate danger the instinctive thing to do would be to retrieve the keys to your cabinet from their hiding place, go to the cabinet, unlock it, retrieve a firearm from within, load it and then take aim at the assailant, all while believing that it was a necessary, reasonable and appropriate use of force given the prevailing situation and that no other lesser course of action would suffice?

Would you trust the course of the entire rest of your life to the examination of those circumstances after the fact?

Personally, all of my belongings are insured and nothing I own is worth enough to me to trade my life for - either through death or through prolonged imprisonment.

I agree entirely. My main concern (and I presume that of many others) would not be for possessions and property but for the safety of my loved ones/friends, myself etc... My firearms are of course secure and not particularly handy to get to so I might/probably have to rely upon other means of self-defence should the need arise. I hope it never does.