Temporary certificate
- Thread starter Rogerp
- Start date
How so, why haven't they? Why should he be put out because of poor service, also my original reply was aimed at the "temporary 6 month ticket", not as it now appears to be a sect 7
I'd say that if it doesn't say you can't use them in the conditions then you can use them (Conditions state what you can't do, rather than what you can) I'm happy to quote the conditions of my sect7, I would fully expect a sect7 issued to my wife or child after I passed to have the condition "for sale or disposal only"
Pretty sure there is a precedent in law that if something isn’t specifically prohibited it is permitted.
baguio
Well-Known Member
No one is saying that the situation is ideal. The fact remains that they are running behind. Lack of staff I presume. It’s a legal certificate that they’re issuing. Would you really want them to stop doing checks because they’re behind and just give out FACs? Should the Driving test Centres start giving out Driving Licenses without people being actually tested because they’re running behind too?
fixedwheel
Well-Known Member
From the STATUTORY Guidance - https://assets.publishing.service.g...rms_Licensing_Statutory_Guidance_Feb_2023.pdf
Pay particular attention to the last sentence.
Pay particular attention to the last sentence.
Not at all, but no other sector would allow this to happen continuously, the system has over the years been made more and more difficult with no increase to public safety. Pretty sure if I or most members on here repeatedly delivered objectives 8-12 weeks late questions would be raised and penalties would apply
baguio
Well-Known Member
How do you know that there has been no increase in public safety? Do you know everyone who has had their certificates revoked?
Revocation would suggest a crime or incident has happened after grant, involving an existing law.
DesG
Well-Known Member
I'm currently on my third section seven after a section 23B.
Unlike some on here who are just guessing what a sect 7 is I'll read you what it actually says:- "The holder of this permit hereby permitted to have in his (sic) possession (but not to purchase or acquire) the firearms and/or ammunition specified below, on the terms that the holder shall:" followed by the usual rules for lost guns, etc..
The sic remark is mine, they obviously are sexist about gun ownership!
What this clearly says is that I can have the guns and ammo but I can't buy or acquire any more. No restriction on use of the firearms or disposing of them it appears.
I have one just the same for my shotguns.
I had one identical when a friend of mine died and the widow wanted me to dispose of his guns on her behalf and the wording was exactly the same.
Unlike some on here who are just guessing what a sect 7 is I'll read you what it actually says:- "The holder of this permit hereby permitted to have in his (sic) possession (but not to purchase or acquire) the firearms and/or ammunition specified below, on the terms that the holder shall:" followed by the usual rules for lost guns, etc..
The sic remark is mine, they obviously are sexist about gun ownership!
What this clearly says is that I can have the guns and ammo but I can't buy or acquire any more. No restriction on use of the firearms or disposing of them it appears.
I have one just the same for my shotguns.
I had one identical when a friend of mine died and the widow wanted me to dispose of his guns on her behalf and the wording was exactly the same.
They don't all say the same thing.
Different conditions may be imposed according to individual circumstances.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, two members of my household have had sec 7 permits issued, one of which (issued to a FAC holder) specifically allowed use, and stated what it could be used for, and the other (issued to a non- FAC holder) specifically forbade use, as it was for the purpose of transport only.
baguio
Well-Known Member
Correct. However, how many renewals have been refused because something has cropped up through additional checks?
What you cannot say with any degree of confidence is that there has been no increase in public safety.
I agree to a certain extent, but likewise, can it also be said its any safer than it was in the 80's
baguio
Well-Known Member
Who knows? You certainly can’t say that it isn’t, as you said in post #27.
Similar threads
