Shotguns on section 1

[Benelli m2]

Forgive me for looking on the downside on this but if it happened how would it work
Would it be over say a number of year's to transfer over to section 1 give people time to apply for a fac similar to the lead shot ban
Over the course of 5 years
Myself I think the licence authority's would totally collapse would never cope with it
Clay grounds game shoots Olympic sports
And gun shops would be gone
Just my thoughts

 

[Rewulf]

Forgive me for looking on the downside on this but if it happened how would it work
Would it be over say a number of year's to transfer over to section 1 give people time to apply for a fac similar to the lead shot ban
Over the course of 5 years
Myself I think the licence authority's would totally collapse would never cope with it
Clay grounds game shoots Olympic sports
And gun shops would be gone
Just my thoughts

It would certainly cause a lot of SGC holders to give up, too much hassle ect.... A lot gave up when the doctors note thing came in.
Lead ban will have a further effect, as the price of ammunition goes up.
As far as implementing it, my thoughts go something along the lines of good reason, being proven regular use at a clay club, possibly mandatory membership, or ground permissions including game shoot attendance.
It must be said that there are many people who keep a Sec 2 gun at home and never use it, these are the target audience.

Whether it comes in straight away, or maybe at your next renewal remains to be seen, but I would err towards the side of swiftness to implement it, and am quite surprised how slowly its moving.

 

[VSS]

The only significant difference I forsee is that in future I expect that "good reason" will be required for shotgun ownership, just as it is currently with Sec1 firearms. Beyond that, I don't think anything much will change.

 

[Benelli m2]

So good reason would be clay shooting vermin control etc
But if you have more than 1 shotgun then good reason for each one I take it

 

[nf-fuse]

The only significant difference I forsee is that in future I expect that "good reason" will be required for shotgun ownership, just as it is currently with Sec1 firearms. Beyond that, I don't think anything much will change.

For each gun?

 

[nf-fuse]

It would certainly cause a lot of SGC holders to give up, too much hassle ect.... A lot gave up when the doctors note thing came in.
Lead ban will have a further effect, as the price of ammunition goes up.
As far as implementing it, my thoughts go something along the lines of good reason, being proven regular use at a clay club, possibly mandatory membership, or ground permissions including game shoot attendance.
It must be said that there are many people who keep a Sec 2 gun at home and never use it, these are the target audience.

Whether it comes in straight away, or maybe at your next renewal remains to be seen, but I would err towards the side of swiftness to implement it, and am quite surprised how slowly its moving.

It might effect those people but ostensibly the idea to stop people going on gun rampages. All of which recent ones shouldn't have had a licence anyway - I e police incompetence.

 

[Will the chippy]

So good reason would be clay shooting vermin control etc
But if you have more than 1 shotgun then good reason for each one I take it

Most if not all clay grounds won't let you use a section 1 shotgun. It's against there insurance. Happy to be corrected tho.

 

[Heym SR20]

I really see why anything would need to change if we just had one certificate.

Shotguns - you would be authorised to posess and use shotguns. The barrier are good charachter and secure place to keep. No need for 1 for 1 etc - you just inform police of transfers - as you already.

Air weapons - (in scotland).

Rifles - treated as they are currently.

Currently SC and FAC applications / renewals are done on one form and processed by the same individual who asks one set of questions. To support the rifles you need a little more evidence and good reason. I haven’t yet been authorised to acquire a 600 Nitro Express, principally because I haven’t asked for it and that I don’t really have a need for one, but I am currently authorised to possess and buy shotguns (listed on my SC) and hold and use the firearms that are listed on (FAC).

The cover page of both as regards my personal details is the same.

 

[VSS]

For each gun?

I don't know. I'm just speculating. As we all are, at this stage.

 

[markyw]

Section 1 for shotguns:
Kills the buying and selling of shotguns without clearing a slot and justifying a slot. Too much hassle for some/many.
Kills the 72 hour loan capability that currently exists, good for trying out new kit or holding a gun for someone for whatever reason.
Many "clay clubs" are not in fact clubs with membership. May kill off the pay and play grounds and make members only clubs somewhat mandatory.
Overturns the (weakly) implied right to bear arms - the need for the authorities to prove lack of fitness rather than the individual to prove good reason - of section 2 firearms. (see below)
Will also swamp an already overburdened licensing service and no doubt degrade this service further.

An interesting article entitled The British Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Defence which traces some of the history of our laws with regards to bearing arms, the obligation around this and how things have changed in recent (post-war) times.
Edit: I have to add I found this article on a quick google about UK right to bear arms.

Just my thoughts.

Regards

Mark

 

[andyk]

It’s only a consultation for now (if it’s even that, I lose track) so it could take whatever form the Government decides.

At the lowest level, s28 of the Firearms Act could simply have a subsection added that a certificate will not be granted unless good reason for a certificate is shown. That wouldn’t change anything beyond the need to show you use the shotguns.

At the other end, s2 could be abolished and shotguns become s1 but that would cause all the issues Mark identifies above, along with all the extra bureaucracy.

I’d hope this isn’t pursued but, if it is, the orgs should be saying that the concern about people who ‘just want guns’ but have no reason can be ameliorated by the addition of good reason to the test in s28 (and good reason for the certificate, not gun) and that anything more is unnecessary.

 

[nf-fuse]

It’s only a consultation for now (if it’s even that, I lose track) so it could take whatever form the Government decides.

At the lowest level, s28 of the Firearms Act could simply have a subsection added that a certificate will not be granted unless good reason for a certificate is shown. That wouldn’t change anything beyond the need to show you use the shotguns.

At the other end, s2 could be abolished and shotguns become s1 but that would cause all the issues Mark identifies above, along with all the extra bureaucracy.

I’d hope this isn’t pursued but, if it is, the orgs should be saying that the concern about people who ‘just want guns’ but have no reason can be ameliorated by the addition of good reason to the test in s28 (and good reason for the certificate, not gun) and that anything more is unnecessary.

Consultations are only a box ticking exercise to stave off legal challenges. (See the recent Chagos court case).

They will do what they want any way. I've seen so many consultations where the vast majority is against it and they just do it anyway.

'they' don't give a monkeys if it closes down clay grounds or rfds.

 

[Liveonce]

just remind me of the benefits to public safety given it was a recommendation from keyham report, when the police failed despite opportunities to stop the keyham murders from happing.

Zero benefit in moving section 2 firearms to section 1 very easy to fulfil the requirements with a shotgun to posses, possible only gain would be two references required rather than one as it is now.

The extra work would need far more staff to handle it, which given we now pay full cost recovery for certificates would just push the licensing fees up and up in cost.

 

[gixer1]

Absolute nonsense and low hanging fruit to point score for anti’s/government.

Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[nf-fuse]

The push back against it isn't going to be anything to do with what shooters say it will come from FLDs/chief constables who don't want/can't handle the extra work.

The system can barely cope as it is with bonkers stuff like 1 for 1 variations.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Shotgun ownership is an entitlement and should stay as such.
No reason required , basic right and we are all the better for it .

 

[Zetter]

I think it will kill a lot of shotgun sporting use stone dead tbh if it goes along the lines of section 1. There have been a few occasion when I have thought is section 1 worth it especially for club use compared to clay shooting.

 

[Kersnow]

We dont need changes all we need is the Police to follow the rules correctly and consistently, Police errors have contributed to recent shooting in the UK

 

[rocketdogbert]

I’m in two minds about the whole thing.

Personally, I think shotguns (sec 1 or 2) are inherently more dangerous than anything FAC, you don’t need to be accurate or even really know what you’re doing to potentially cause a lot of harm. Being both a SGC and FAC holder, like most of us, making all shotguns sec1 likey wont affect me a great deal.

On the other hand, erosion of our rights is a slippery slope, which worries me immensely. We are vastly outnumbered by the non-shooters in this country, we won’t get any support from the general public, and I see very little we can do about it, no matter how organised we become, nor how much we lobby.

J

 

[Liveonce]

I’m in two minds about the whole thing.

Personally, I think shotguns (sec 1 or 2) are inherently more dangerous than anything FAC, you don’t need to be accurate or even really know what you’re doing to potentially cause a lot of harm. Being both a SGC and FAC holder, like most of us, making all shotguns sec1 likey wont affect me a great deal.

On the other hand, erosion of our rights is a slippery slope, which worries me immensely. We are vastly outnumbered by the non-shooters in this country, we won’t get any support from the general public, and I see very little we can do about it, no matter how organised we become, nor how much we lobby.

J

really moving shotguns to section 1 will not affect you? you will need a variation to change or buy a new shotgun and justify why you need it, you will need to have land to use in for live quarry shooting or be a member of a clay ground.

It will likely devalue the shotguns, make it harder for anybody to enter the sport.

All firearms if used as a weapon are dangerous, to suggest a short range shotgun is more dangerous than a long range rifle is not logical, a ruger 10/22 with a 110 round .22lr magazine (yes they are available) is probably more dangerous then a three shot section 1 shotgun.