Shotgun licence refused,

geoffrey

Well-Known Member
Hi Folks thanks for all your input, but on reflection without all the facts maybe this is not the place discuss this issue. cheers Geoff
 
Last edited:

8x57

Distinguished Member
If he can prove that he has indeed turned his life around and would like to take up shooting then he should consult a lawyer with a view to submitting an appeal to the court.
At the moment the very fact that he has been refused the grant of a SGC could be quite limiting in some ways. For instance he would not be granted membership of a rifle club should he apply for such, and also if he were wishing to use the estate rifle exemption to go stalking with a friend or a professional stalker and they knew of it it could put them in a very awkward position.
 

Akeld

Well-Known Member
Tough, the fact he did a term in prison shows it wasn't for smoking cannabis once at a party, it may well be in his past and he's turned his life around but he made the choice.
 

RED-DOT

Account Suspended
Sounds like he was a drug dealer so good decision in my oponion. He has had to have Class A to do three years behind bars so he is not exactly a kid caught peeing in a shop doorway?
 

joed

Well-Known Member
I'm not one to judge another and I'm not sure this thread is designed for us to cast our uninformed opinion on someone else's past. I would expect any application to be difficult. Is it a three or five years prison conviction that completely rules you out. Or am I making it up
 

mannlicher

Well-Known Member
under section 21 if you do more than 3 years in jail you are prohibited for life from gun ownership

if you serve 3 months you are prohibited for a period of 5 years
 

SimpleSimon

Well-Known Member
Flip it around and imagine the headlines if somebody with a previous conviction were to go on the rampage with a legally-held shotgun/firearm. Not saying that's the case with this chap, but it's far easier for the Police to issue a blanket ban than to assess each individual with the risk of huge consequences if their assessment proves wrong.
Better safe thab sorry is, in my opinion, the correct attitude to have here.
 

Uncle Norm

Well-Known Member
If the individual concerned was indeed sentenced to three years imprisonment, then he is prohibited for life. In which case the police cannot grant a certificate.
There is a right of appeal to have the prohibition removed and the police would be invited to be represented. In both such cases I experienced, the police were asked whether there was any objection. In both cases, there was no objection and the Court lifted the prohibition, one of which was five years and the other life.

There is rightly room for rehabilitation of those who have genuinely changed their ways.

If the individual was sentenced to three months but less than three years, he would have been prohibited for five years from the date of his release.
If the current application was made more than five years from the date of his release and refused by the police, then the normal route of appeal is available against the decision.

As others have suggested, he needs to get competent legal advice.
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
I've known and worked with guys that have done time in their younger days, do we give up on all just because they transgressed in their younger days. I'm not exactly one of your soft sloppy pinko types myself in fact I am often described as a bit of a Alf Garnett type but I believe everyone deserves at least a second chance and fortunately so does the legal system in this country and that is why we have an appeal system for such cases.

Saying that I also believe that in some cases some offenders and some people who have never been actually convicted who should never have the opportunity to gain access to even a pea shooter but let's not judge everyone exactly the same. Let the guy make his case to the crown court if he is serious.
 

pheasant sniper 1

Well-Known Member
I've known and worked with guys that have done time in their younger days, do we give up on all just because they transgressed in their younger days. I'm not exactly one of your soft sloppy pinko types myself in fact I am often described as a bit of a Alf Garnett type but I believe everyone deserves at least a second chance and fortunately so does the legal system in this country and that is why we have an appeal system for such cases.

Saying that I also believe that in some cases some offenders and some people who have never been actually convicted who should never have the opportunity to gain access to even a pea shooter but let's not judge everyone exactly the same. Let the guy make his case to the crown court if he is serious.
:tiphat:

I went into the forces as a lot of my mates went into prison. A life changing choice

Some of the comments on here :doh:
 

Northwest

Well-Known Member
Some of the comments on here :doh:
I read this thread the other night and frankly some of the comments by people whose views I previously respected are quite shameful to be honest.
Don't get me wrong, I am no "Bleeding Heart Liberal" as my friend likes to refer to them:rolleyes: but Jesus, aren't people allowed to make a mistake? You are going to beat them with it for the rest of their lives?

This is a very difficult and contentious issue, that of "rehabilitation" or whatever tag you want to apply. But you know what? I think the Bible is a good reference here (no, I am not religious in the slightest) He without sin, cast the first stone.

I am not trying to be clever, superior or anything along that vein, but for goodness sake, have a bit of tolerance.

graham.
 

rodp

Well-Known Member
Perhaps there's a lot of truth in what I was once told. "A lot of folk who have never been in trouble with the law in their younger days were just very fast runners" !!
 

pricedo

Member
I'm not one to judge another and I'm not sure this thread is designed for us to cast our uninformed opinion on someone else's past. I would expect any application to be difficult. Is it a three or five years prison conviction that completely rules you out. Or am I making it up
Most of us have picked up on the fact that this is a public forum in the public domain.
Certainly no expectation of privacy for anything posted here other than the fact that the identity of the poster on an anonymous message board is for most intents and purposes unknown.
We didn't ask him to post his personal business here or indeed commit the crime that led to his difficulties.
People need to understand that once something is posted on the WWW it's "in the wind" and you can't pull it back so think before you hit the send button.
 

sikamalc

Administrator
Site Staff
Most of us have picked up on the fact that this is a public forum in the public domain.
Certainly no expectation of privacy for anything posted here other than the fact that the identity of the poster on an anonymous message board is for most intents and purposes unknown.
We didn't ask him to post his personal business here or indeed commit the crime that led to his difficulties.
People need to understand that once something is posted on the WWW it's "in the wind" and you can't pull it back so think before you hit the send button.
As Admin have pointed out time and time again. As an open forum anyone can read what is on this site, so think before you post. Also be AWARE that the authorities monitor many sites, including this one.
 

Woodsmoke

Well-Known Member
The bloke was given a jail sentence for a reason. I don't know what that reason was, but it was obviously a good one. I'm not saying he should be punished for the rest of his days, but it's beyond the realms of credibility that some of you seem to think he should now be entrusted with a firearm. 'Rehabilitation' extends as far as his reintegration into society without continued judgement or punishment, not for him to automatically be given the same rights and privileges that the law-abiding enjoy.

I wonder how many who are playing the 'unfair' card in this instance feel the same regarding the number of re-offences committed by previously-jailed criminals? And I also wonder how many of those same people express disgust and outrage with the judicial system when hearing of instances of recently-released prisoners reoffending? There's a good reason why people who have served a significant jail term are prohibited from owning or using firearms, and that is because they were guilty of committing a serious criminal act. I don't care what the details of this blokes crime were, it was serious enough to send him to jail for 3 years. Would YOU trust him with your life? Because that, effectively, is what this boils down to. I sure as hell wouldn't..............
 

pheasant sniper 1

Well-Known Member
Not knowing the details of this case i wouldnt speculate on it or play the unfair card..
However what i would say is that the few people i know that have served a misdemeaner sentence is that they are some of the most loyal, caring and responsible family men i know.
When it comes to integrity, and community spirit they are the ones that open their door when they hear a scream in the street not cower behind a curtain pretending they didnt hear it.
A custodial sentence covers a vast array of possibilities. All i know is im glad i lived in an era when the local bobby clipped you, took you home and your father made you wish you hadnt been caught.
Anybody arguing that todays kids have more respect and community spirit should contact their local drug rehab centre.
Fortunate to live in a beautifull part of the country Poole is home to both the Royal Marines and SBS.
Seems bizarre that two of the most decorated men since the second world war have both been incarcerated. According to some this makes them secondary citizens when it comes to holding a firearm...
Unbelievable :doh:
 

csl

Administrator
Site Staff
A guy at work served time for armed robbery in his youth (30+ years ago). I think he actually served less than the three year mandatory disqualification period however he was convinced that due to the nature of the conviction he'd be automatically refused.

I advised him to apply because he had nothing to lose and I (and others) would be willing to act as referees or give character references if required. I've known him for 10 years and trust him completely and our MD actually acted as the referee on the application. Anyway, the police went through their processes, and he was granted his shotgun certificate a couple of years ago.

One thing which was quite interesting was that they had obviously gone through the case file in some detail because in the interview the FEO asked him what happened to the firearm which was used in the original robbery! Evidently it had never been recovered. He answered that he genuinely didn't know, his 'partner in crime' had always been the one in possession of it.

You can't make sweeping statements about people. Every case is different and each application is treated on a case-by-case basis as they should be. The OP has removed his original post now anyway so no real point speculating further!
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
Pheasant sniper's comment reminded me of a TV documentary some years ago on the airborne pathfinders.

The interviewer asked one of the soldiers a typical stupid journalists question. "If you hadn't joined the army would you have thought of perhaps becoming a civil servant or maybe a banker?"

The soldier replied " The only sort of banking that I could have seen myself doing would have involved a balaclava and a sawn off shotgun."
 

Top