Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About JonathanL

  • Rank
    Mega Hunter

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North East Coast
  1. Numrich Gun Parts Corp is probably a good bet. http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Products.aspx?catid=7524 J.
  2. It's anywhere which is a public place. Perhaps you can even get done on land which isn't a public place but not sure on that. Interesting that there were arrests relating to perverting the course of justice as well. Perhaps they were suspected of covering up who was driving or how the incident actually happened? J.
  3. Oh yes they could, and they will. The fact that no further action was taken is not really relevant for the purposes of getting an SGC/FAC. The Firearms Act was wordedf the way it is in order that convictions were not necessary to make a refusal. The CC has to be satisfied that the applicant does not present a danger to public safety or the peace. If you are constantly getting arrested for disorder, criminal damage and fighting then it's unlikely that he will be able to conclude that you meet that criteria.
  4. In short - yes. How much it affects it will depend on the circumstances. The fact that you weren't charged goes in your favour. However, as a matter of law the police can only issue a cert if they are satisfied that the applicant; '....can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. I think that you would be seriously struggling to meet that criteria at the moment, to be honest. J.
  5. The link below is to a story from Australia. Shooters there have actually got off their backsides and done something about gettng what they want and have managed to get seats in government. The story shows quite nicely that you do not have to have massive public support to get something done. They only have a few seats but seem to be doing quite nicely at screwing up the governments plans by simply not supporting the government unless they get something out of it. Good on them! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-26/shooters-fired-up-against-nsw-government/2856606/?site=sydney J.
  6. Just out of interest, what sort of price is the Kynoch ammo? J.
  7. The original Kynoch went out of business in the early 1960's. It had been taken over by ICI years previously, I think. Or maybe. At the time I think they were the only company loading the old British express cartridges and suchlike which was one of the factors meant you couldn't give away things like double rifles which today are worth a fortune - as they should be. I don't know much about the modern Kynoch ammo but it seems to be well thought of, as far as I can tell. They make most of the old stuff again and I think a lot of it is made as near to identical specs as the old stuff as possi
  8. I don't think it's quite that simple. The absolute numbers of people in the country who may or may not want something is largely irrelevant as they aren't the ones doing the banning, Parliament is. What matters - and the only thing which really matters - is how many politicians may or may not lose their seats over something. There are marginal constituencies here and there where some MP's have a very small majority so the picture is far more complicated. There are around 500,000 SGC's on issue which represents a very small minority out of our 60m population yet no one has seriously called
  9. Petitions are pointless. Politicians only listen to one thing - votes. If they think something is election losing or winning then they'll do it or not do it accordingly. The best way to get pistol shooting back, or to secure the future of what we have left, is to attract more new shooters. Simple as that. If banning pistols in 1997 was likely to have cost a government an election it wouldn't have happend. Last year we saw a nutter go on the rampage in Cumbria with a shotgun yet no party has called for them to be banned. The difference is, of course, that there are 500,000 SGC holders as ag
  10. That would only apply if it were a bullet which was designed or adapted to expand on or immediately after impact. You are correct if it's ammunition though, and you don't have authority for it. J.
  11. I was assuming he wasn't as the original poster didn't say he was. Even then, strictly speaking, the publican would have to 'produce' his SGC every time he took then gun. J.
  12. Your parents cannot purchase firearms or ammunition for you. You need a certificate to purchase, acquire or possess the firearms or ammunition so your parents would be committing an offence if they purchased guns or ammo for you, as would the person selling it to them. This is the reason as to why many dealers will take a deposit on a gun until the buyer gets the required variation, even if that 'deposit' is the agreed purchase price less £1 with an agreement for a refund if the variation is not granted. You haven't purchased the gun, in the legal sense, until the full price has been paid
  13. Although this will place the publican in the position of being in unlawful possession.
  14. My concern would be, firstly; The pub may be safely locking your gun away but it seems as though they may be in unlawful possession of it. Secondly; there is a provision in the Firearms Act which creates an offence of transferring a firearm to a person who is drunk. I don't think that there is a specific offence of being drunk in possession of a firearm but there may be stuff like being in breach of the security condition on your cert if you were very drunk or being a danger to public safety or something. Also, there is an offence of being in possession of a firearm and ammunition suit
  15. It shouldn't do. If you can satisfy the 'good reason' requirement then there is no reason why it should not be granted. J.
  • Create New...