Jump to content

SportingShooter

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,430

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SportingShooter

  1. SportingShooter
    You are quite legal Stubby as long as he has permission and you were in his presence. Matt is quite right about the "Estate Condition" which mentions the "occupier" can lend someone a rifle to use in his presence. The definition which the Home Officer recommends for "occupier" is that from S.27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Source
  2. SportingShooter
    I'd like to think that the shooting community would pull together and suggest what can be done to help towards preventing things such as this happening in the future. My thoughts are that the gun laws are already very tight in this country, we have very few options left with regards to the control of firearms, we cannot introduce security and vetting checks because they are already in existence, for example. The idea of an annual mental health check can work i'm sure but 12 months is still a very long time when the mind can turn within minutes. I personally would agree to letting my d
  3. SportingShooter
    Not sure about the rest of the country, but down here we do have spot checks at times, had one myself as have quite a few I know. Can't speak for other forces though, depends on how much time their FEOs have. I didn't realize that some forces already do spot checks in over 25 years of gun ownership I have never had a check other than at renewal perhaps each force could employ another feo to make the checks better enforcement of existing law must be better than new legislation. I think we're quite fortunate to have I think four FEOs down here for, what is a well populated area, but
  4. SportingShooter
    Not sure about the rest of the country, but down here we do have spot checks at times, had one myself as have quite a few I know. Can't speak for other forces though, depends on how much time their FEOs have.
  5. SportingShooter
    You can never fully appreciate what the mind may do. You cannot legislate for mental health, it can change in a matter of minutes, your perception of things, and changes what you are capable of.
  6. SportingShooter
    Blitz, I have no wish to delete the thread on such a day. I fully comprehend your frustration, its a totally understandable reaction to what must have been an awful day in your part of the country, the third in recent months. Unfortunately, whereas our reaction to the shooting may be selfish upon reflection, like everything else today, it is a knee jerk reaction and as fellow countrymen/women we mean no harm by it as I'm sure you truly appreciate. My condolences by the way to you and those around you. SS
  7. SportingShooter
    I'm sure they would have if he was anywhere to be seen.
  8. SportingShooter
    Point taken.
  9. SportingShooter
    Even if it was a licensed shotgun/firearm, it still doesn't mean a great deal in terms of licensing itself. You cannot tell what any potential/current certificate holder is thinking. From what I've heard on the news, he was a quiet person who kept out of trouble, some may say a good candidate for a certificate. But it will affect us if proved true nonetheless because of the outcry from the public. Still can't see how on earth you assess what someone is thinking or planning before you grant them a certificate.
  10. SportingShooter
    Well, the problem is that you commit the offence if you actually cause soemone to be injured, interrupted or endangered. So, shooting at night may result in less of a risk through fewer people being around to be injured, interrupted or endangered but if you do then you are guilty. It's a ridiculous clause. If you are 51 feet from the centre of a highway and you injure, interrupt or endager someone then you don't commit the offence. If you are 49 feet away and it's a foot path and someone is injured, interrupted or endangered then you don't commit the offence. Bizzare, to say the least!
  11. SportingShooter
    Well, the problem is that you commit the offence if you actually cause soemone to be injured, interrupted or endangered. So, shooting at night may result in less of a risk through fewer people being around to be injured, interrupted or endangered but if you do then you are guilty. It's a ridiculous clause. If you are 51 feet from the centre of a highway and you injure, interrupt or endager someone then you don't commit the offence. If you are 49 feet away and it's a foot path and someone is injured, interrupted or endangered then you don't commit the offence. Bizzare, to say the least!
  12. SportingShooter
    Interesting creatures Dave. Obviously tensions about what diseases they carry, but I quite like to sit and watch them if they happen to be about, leave it to the "officials" to decide whether they are good or bad. I'm happy to remain neutral! Nice pic
  13. SportingShooter
    Sounds like your standard shotgun cabinet, of which the majority will be fine when properly secured
  14. SportingShooter
    I've seen quite a few bumbling about as they do this last month or so. Not noticed many dead have to say. I do enjoy seeing them going about their business, sign of spring/summer I suppose.
  15. SportingShooter
    John, You will often see things such as "Police Approved 100%" and "Conforms to British Standard BS1111..." etc. However, your cabinet does not necessarily have to have that specification, it could be over it or under it. The British Standard is there, just as the name suggests, a standard for the industry to aim for. In the majority of cases these days, almost all cabinets conform to it. What you have to do is satisfy the FEO that your cabinet is secure enough to keep Shotguns and/or Rifles in. Can you describe the cabinet in a little more detail? I take it its made of stee
  16. SportingShooter
    Didn't know that CT Learn something new every day.
  17. SportingShooter
    I've seen this question raised a few times in the past, when someone takes on new ground with lots of crows or pigeons, instantly they think they need five more shots to deal with them. In reality, when you fire at either species and especially if you fire more than twice, whatever was nearby is going to suitably far away for you to be able to reload. Sec.1 Shotguns tend to be issued where the applicant is a Keeper or servant of an estate where a particular species is in plague proportion. Many estates have them for Rabbits for instance. Also, you will need to provide specific lan
  18. SportingShooter
    Certainly is a tricky one, on both legal and moral grounds. The moral grounds are simple, I would have felt the same way, put the animal out of its misery as soon as possible. Essentially, showing some form of mercy. Legally, if you are speaking strictly to the letter of the law, you have breached the terms of your FAC. However, there is something niggling in the back of my mind as to whether the destruction of an animal who is injured is exempt. I know it doesn't say it in the conditions of your FAC, but something tells me I have read it somewhere.
  19. SportingShooter
    Brought a smile to my face.
  20. SportingShooter
    Nice one, did you establish the full facts about it, its spec etc?
  21. SportingShooter
    I have Latex gloves, but not for holding my guns for holding other mens weapons perhaps You promised you wouldn't say
  22. SportingShooter
    Unfortunately, for a site such as this, verification simply would not work. As has been pointed out above, some very good members don't know anyone on here, should they be excluded? Should it become a clique of people who knows someone, who knows his best friends aunt? No, of course not. A very good point made by UG above, your membership depends on your conduct while you are here, not before.
  23. SportingShooter
    I have Latex gloves, but not for holding my guns
  24. SportingShooter
    I don't get it He must be just obsessive!
  25. SportingShooter
    Best of luck
×
×
  • Create New...