Shotguns on section 1

[rocketdogbert]

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.

That’s just an assumption though, surely? It’s far more likely, as others have said, shotguns will be on our FAC but with the same requiremtns as currently, otherwise issuing constabulary’s won’t be able to cope.

I do agree, a semi auto .22lr is dangerous, but also inherently more difficult to use than, say, an over/under. In my opinion, of course.

But still, the authorities will do whatever they want, no new firearms legislation ever increases our rights after all.

 

[timbrayford]

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

To my mind the problems arising from good reason are the failure by the administering FLD to recognise that the same good reason may lawfully apply to multiple firearms, requirements not in the firearms act such as frequency of use, and failures to recognise that you might lawfully buy stalking on an ad hoc basis without any permanent shooting lease. I do wish that FLDs would train their staff to read and understand what the firearms act specifies in respect of S1 rather than making it up as they go along.

 

[rocketdogbert]

To my mind the problems arising from good reason are the failure by the administering FLD to recognise that the same good reason may lawfully apply to multiple firearms, requirements not in the firearms act such as frequency of use, and failures to recognise that you might lawfully buy stalking on an ad hoc basis without any permanent shooting lease. I do wish that FLDs would train their staff to read and understand what the firearms act specifies in respect of S1 rather than making it up as they go along.

This I wholeheartedly agree with, however, I have to say Essex, and my FEO, are extremely reasonable and very easy to talk to.

 

[Liveonce]

That’s just an assumption though, surely? It’s far more likely, as others have said, shotguns will be on our FAC but with the same requiremtns as currently, otherwise issuing constabulary’s won’t be able to cope.

I do agree, a semi auto .22lr is dangerous, but also inherently more difficult to use than, say, an over/under. In my opinion, of course.

But still, the authorities will do whatever they want, no new firearms legislation ever increases our rights after all.

how does same requirements as currently improve public safety? which is the reasoning behind moving them in the first place. Not that doing so will improve public safety other than by reducing down significantly the number of shotguns in private ownership.

It will also hit the trade hard in sales. The constabulary will be able to cope, they have full cost recovery for fees now so will just take on more staff and we will pay a lot more for our licence. Would not surprise me if they are not already planning for that eventually now.

 

[rocketdogbert]

how does same requirements as currently improve public safety? which is the reasoning behind moving them in the first place. Not that doing so will improve public safety other than by reducing down significantly the number of shotguns in private ownership.

It will also hit the trade hard in sales. The constabulary will be able to cope, they have full cost recovery for fees now so will just take on more staff and we will pay a lot more for our licence. Would not surprise me if they are not already planning for that eventually now.

It won’t improve safety at all, we know that. I was saying that I think shotguns are more dangerous than rifles, generally

I work part time in my mates gun shop, it’s entirely possible it will affect sales, or it may not, it depends entirely how the licensing requirements are set up. I think you’re assuming it will be identical to section1 firearms. It may my well, but we don’t know and nothing we say or do will make a single jot of difference to how it’s eventually implemented unfortunately.

 

[Liveonce]

It won’t improve safety at all, we know that. I was saying that I think shotguns are more dangerous than rifles, generally

I work part time in my mates gun shop, it’s entirely possible it will affect sales, or it may not, it depends entirely how the licensing requirements are set up. I think you’re assuming it will be identical to section1 firearms. It may my well, but we don’t know and nothing we say or do will make a single jot of difference to how it’s eventually implemented unfortunately.

agree we will have little influence on the outcome.

But if you just transfer the SGC law into the FAC then no point in doing so. Remember for a FAC you need to justify every firearm and the reason for owning them. For a SGC they must prove you are not a fit person to own a shotgun.
That is a significant change in law.

Hopefully it will never happen and we keep both certificates.

And don’t forget Scotland has licences even for all airguns.

 

[rocketdogbert]

agree we will have little influence on the outcome.

But if you just transfer the SGC law into the FAC then no point in doing so. Remember for a FAC you need to justify every firearm and the reason for owning them. For a SGC they must prove you are not a fit person to own a shotgun.
That is a significant change in law.

Hopefully it will never happen and we keep both certificates.

And don’t forget Scotland has licences even for all airguns.

True, and let’s hope it doesn’t. It will never be a good thing

 

[timbrayford]

agree we will have little influence on the outcome.

But if you just transfer the SGC law into the FAC then no point in doing so. Remember for a FAC you need to justify every firearm and the reason for owning them. For a SGC they must prove you are not a fit person to own a shotgun.
That is a significant change in law.

Hopefully it will never happen and we keep both certificates.

And don’t forget Scotland has licences even for all airguns.

Fit to be entrusted is the crux of the matter, much of the S1 controls originate from the establishments fear of a post ww1 uprising. Shotguns were not considered dangerous within this context because the armed forces could out gun this kind of firearm with the service rifle and its projectiles

 

[Benelli m2]

If it did happen maybe it will be over a 5 year period.give time for people to apply for a grant similar to the lead shot ban

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

Coorrrrr you lot are full of the joys how about worry about it, when you have actually got something to worry about!

Until then enjoy your guns, whatever you do with them.

Personally I’ve never seen the need for a full armoury, one shotgun and one rifle does me

 

[enfieldspares]

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.

Not to soldiers shooting at you with their rifles from one hundred yards away. Which originally is why s1 controls were introduced. To control those types of weapon that would enable the public to take on the forces of the state in a firefight on equal or better terms. After eighty yards a smoothbore shotgun firing shot is a poor friend if fighting men armed with rifled bore weapons fitted with any sort of sight be that iron sights or optical sights.

 

[rocketdogbert]

Not to soldiers shooting at you with their rifles from one hundred yards away. Which originally is why s1 controls were introduced. To control those types of weapon that would enable the public to take on the forces of the state in a firefight on equal or better terms. After eighty yards a smoothbore shotgun firing shot is a poor friend if fighting men armed with rifled bore weapons fitted with any sort of sight be that iron sights or optical sights.

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about nutters walking down the high street, but you are right, of course

 

[Heym SR20]

As I said in my earlier post I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t simply everything into just one Gun Licence, but with different criteria for different types of weapons.

Shotguns - you are granted to possess and acquire shotguns - ie the same as a Shotgun Certificate.

Rifles - you are authorised to possess particular rifles - each with different justification.

Most of us probably do coterminous certificates, all processed by the same FEO recorded on the same database etc etc.

Makes sense to streamline everything into one licence.

 

[Heym SR20]

Not to soldiers shooting at you with their rifles from one hundred yards away. Which originally is why s1 controls were introduced. To control those types of weapon that would enable the public to take on the forces of the state in a firefight on equal or better terms. After eighty yards a smoothbore shotgun firing shot is a poor friend if fighting men armed with rifled bore weapons fitted with any sort of sight be that iron sights or optical sights.

And that was why rifles are controlled as they are. Go back 100 years ago the Kings cousin, Tsar Nicholas and his family had recently been executed by a group of peasants armed with rifles, and we had a little armed insurrection ongoing in the British Isles with the IRA, and the very real likelihood of it spilling over into England.

 

[timbrayford]

As I said in my earlier post I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t simply everything into just one Gun Licence, but with different criteria for different types of weapons.

Shotguns - you are granted to possess and acquire shotguns - ie the same as a Shotgun Certificate.

Rifles - you are authorised to possess particular rifles - each with different justification.

Most of us probably do coterminous certificates, all processed by the same FEO recorded on the same database etc etc.

Makes sense to streamline everything into one licence.

Personally I think that S2 should cover rifles as well. This justification nonsense merely distracts FLDs from carrying out the essential background/fit to be entrusted checks. Their failure to do so has lead to tragedies at Hungerford, Dunblane and Plymouth, let's stop being the whipping boys for outdated legislation and police incompetence and corruption.

 

[Liveonce]

Personally I think that S2 should cover rifles as well. This justification nonsense merely distracts FLDs from carrying out the essential background/fit to be entrusted checks. Their failure to do so has lead to tragedies at Hungerford, Dunblane and Plymouth, let's stop being the whipping boys for outdated legislation and police incompetence and corruption.

Wouldn’t that be nice

 

[Heym SR20]

Personally I think that S2 should cover rifles as well. This justification nonsense merely distracts FLDs from carrying out the essential background/fit to be entrusted checks. Their failure to do so has lead to tragedies at Hungerford, Dunblane and Plymouth, let's stop being the whipping boys for outdated legislation and police incompetence and corruption.

Agreed, and indeed in the Home Office guidance to the police the emphasis is put on ensuring that the person is fit and proper. It then goes on to say if the person is fit to possess and use firearms then unnecessary restrictions should not be put in place.

I would suggest that a lot of the restrictions that are mooted by FEOs are really them trying to avoid having to say “no you are unsuitable to possess firearms”.

Section 1 covers all Firearms and this was the basis in the 1920’s

Section 2 - provides an exception for shotguns, where in the past there was a much lower threshold for possession. I don’t there any restrictions on buying and owning shotguns till the 1960’s. In the 1968 Firearms Act consolidated and gave the Police the job of issuing Shotgun Certificates. Person had to be of good repute, not a criminal and provide a reference from a professional type person (lawyer, docter, company director, headmaster etc).

Nowadays the Police do treat a SC pretty much like an FAC in terms of the individual applicant. You definitely are asked why you want one and what you will be using it for and I suspect if you give an unsatisfactory answer you will not be granted such. The only practical difference is that you don’t need individual permission to buy and possess each shotgun.

All guns and their ownership are recorded by the police. There will be human error in the system, but I suspect that in the vast majority of cases it is correct.

Rifles - I have no issue with the need to have good reason for possession of rifle, particularly for a centre-fire rifle. We all know how easy it is to hit a target at several hundred metres away and the terminal effect. Shotguns are deadly at close range, but at a few tens of metres they are pretty ineffective. However as stated above, the onus is still on the individual being fit and competent, and if they are, and can demonstrate good reason then they will be issued with an FAC. The bar for good reason is higher than a shotgun.

Where the system could easily be streamlined is the requirement for a variation to change a rifle.

So you could have a slots for say a “deer stalking rifle” and a “vermin rifle” and 2 slots for “Target Shooting”. If you then choose to change your stalking rifle you can do so without lots of additional paperwork on the part of the police FLD. And you shouldn’t need to have to justify different cartridges as part of the process. In terms of public safety etc there is really no difference between a 243, 6.5cm, 6.5x55, 270, 7x57, 7x64, 308 etc etc. The only paperwork should be a notice of transfer - sold my 243 serial number xyz to Joe Bloggs FAC and acquired a 7x57 seriel #1234 from Bang & Bodget RFD123 etc.

 

[timbrayford]

Hiv

Agreed, and indeed in the Home Office guidance to the police the emphasis is put on ensuring that the person is fit and proper. It then goes on to say if the person is fit to possess and use firearms then unnecessary restrictions should not be put in place.

I would suggest that a lot of the restrictions that are mooted by FEOs are really them trying to avoid having to say “no you are unsuitable to possess firearms”.

Section 1 covers all Firearms and this was the basis in the 1920’s

Section 2 - provides an exception for shotguns, where in the past there was a much lower threshold for possession. I don’t there any restrictions on buying and owning shotguns till the 1960’s. In the 1968 Firearms Act consolidated and gave the Police the job of issuing Shotgun Certificates. Person had to be of good repute, not a criminal and provide a reference from a professional type person (lawyer, docter, company director, headmaster etc).

Nowadays the Police do treat a SC pretty much like an FAC in terms of the individual applicant. You definitely are asked why you want one and what you will be using it for and I suspect if you give an unsatisfactory answer you will not be granted such. The only practical difference is that you don’t need individual permission to buy and possess each shotgun.

All guns and their ownership are recorded by the police. There will be human error in the system, but I suspect that in the vast majority of cases it is correct.

Rifles - I have no issue with the need to have good reason for possession of rifle, particularly for a centre-fire rifle. We all know how easy it is to hit a target at several hundred metres away and the terminal effect. Shotguns are deadly at close range, but at a few tens of metres they are pretty ineffective. However as stated above, the onus is still on the individual being fit and competent, and if they are, and can demonstrate good reason then they will be issued with an FAC. The bar for good reason is higher than a shotgun.

Where the system could easily be streamlined is the requirement for a variation to change a rifle.

So you could have a slots for say a “deer stalking rifle” and a “vermin rifle” and 2 slots for “Target Shooting”. If you then choose to change your stalking rifle you can do so without lots of additional paperwork on the part of the police FLD. And you shouldn’t need to have to justify different cartridges as part of the process. In terms of public safety etc there is really no difference between a 243, 6.5cm, 6.5x55, 270, 7x57, 7x64, 308 etc etc. The only paperwork should be a notice of transfer - sold my 243 serial number xyz to Joe Bloggs FAC and acquired a 7x57 seriel #1234 from Bang & Bodget RFD123

Not so sure that there needs to be a distinction between target and stalking, as for lethal distances surely that is the penalty that we pay for being untrained?

 

[Heym SR20]

@timbrayford - Big big difference between stalking and target shooting under a home office approved club, is that in the latter you are shooting under the close supervision of competent Range Officers, with a clearly marked range, range flags sentries etc etc. and the whole process up with range orders etc.

Deer stalking - no such restrictions and members of the general public could be anywhere and you shooting over farmland, woodland, open hill, where the ground, backdrops, position of deer etc etc is constantly changing. Often the hunter will be alone so nobody else involved in decision process of taking a safe shot.

So as a FLO giving authorising a rifle to be used for target shooting at XYZ club, is ver very different to granting fir use in Deer Stalking, especially when it comes to an open licence.

 

[timbrayford]

@timbrayford - Big big difference between stalking and target shooting under a home office approved club, is that in the latter you are shooting under the close supervision of competent Range Officers, with a clearly marked range, range flags sentries etc etc. and the whole process up with range orders etc.

Deer stalking - no such restrictions and members of the general public could be anywhere and you shooting over farmland, woodland, open hill, where the ground, backdrops, position of deer etc etc is constantly changing. Often the hunter will be alone so nobody else involved in decision process of taking a safe shot.

So as a FLO giving authorising a rifle to be used for target shooting at XYZ club, is ver very different to granting fir use in Deer Stalking, especially when it comes to an open licence.

As a qualified ro I appreciate what you are saying, but I do believe that this is the price that we pay for being untrained, with the FLD in essence taking on the role of supervising our individual shooting activities instead. I would't presume that the possession of stalking rights guarantees that the holder is a safe shot either!