Legal issues regarding applications

[PlasticJock 539]

Right, I've decided to write a fairly in-depth post on some aspects of the law and legislation surrounding firearms you may not have heard of or thought about. I have been researching this for well over a year, for my own interest really. I have read dozens of cases, consulted Hansards, Archbolds and other legal references (geek )

Having read most posts on here referencing the law it is clear to see that most accept things because it is the 'Status Quo', however there are a few things that not many know about, hence this post.

 

None of this constitutes legal advice, I'm not a lawyer so therefore as with anything please do your own research before doing something and saying ''PlasticJock said it was ok!''

This is not designed to override the pinned posts at the top of the page, more as a supplement to them, and also to give people the confidence to understand what the Police's role actually is when it comes to granting FAC/SGC's.

I'll skip the legal terminology and make it easy to understand...

 

To get us started, let's look at police officers briefly. They carry an extendable baton (Offensive weapon), and CS spray (Firearm under Section 5 FA 1968). If you ask them what law allows them to carry these items they will say ''On the authority of my Chief Constable'' or ''The Home Office''. Incorrect!

Actually, the 'Prevention Of Crime Act 1953', or POCA '53 gives any citizen the right to bear arms to defend their lives.... There is NO extraordinary allowance for the Police. This has been confirmed in several cases, in one a man left his house after recieveing a phone call from his wife, saying 2 men had blocked her car in and were shouting at her for cutting them up. He took his shotgun and confronted them, and was charged with 'Brandishing a shotgun in a public place with the intention to cause fear, alarm or distress.'

He was found not guilty after using the above as his defence, stating that he knew he was outnumbered and needed to protect himself, especially with the knowledge that the aggressors were being physically aggressive.

 

Now, I'm NOT advocating any of the above, in fact I would seriously advise anyone not to 'test the water', I wanted to show a real example that demonstrates how ignorant most of us are of the law.... Ask any police officer, write to the home office, and I guarantee their response would be ''It would be unacceptable to arm yourself for self defence unless exceptional circumstances dictated you had to...'' Not so, according to the law of our land. I have also spoken to a barrister and solicitor advocate who agree that it does constitute 'lawful authority' provided your life is in imminent danger, and they said they would like to see a few more test cases!

 

Anyway, on to FAC's....

 

When you apply to hold a firearm, you are asking permission from the Chief Constable.

He, or rather his 'authorised agents' ie. the Firearms Licensing Department, must ask 3 questions;

 

1) Are you fit to be entrusted with a firearm?

 

2) Will you be a danger to public safety?

 

3) Do you have a GOOD REASON to possess the calibre stated?

 

That's it. Not ''Have you done your DSC1?'' or ''How many times a week will you shoot?'' (Although this question may form part of the 'good reason').

 

Let's take these 3 questions in turn....

 

1) Gun ownership, irrespective of type, calibre etc is a big responsibility. If you are negligent, there are no second chances as they are designed to kill. This is why the questions can seem intrusive. This first question is why they ask about your experience with firearms, and drag up previous convictions. Convictions such as assaults, domestics might seem like nothing to you but everything in your record builds a picture for them as to your character. If most of your previous troubles have been whilst drinking (As mine have), expect them to ask about your drinking habits. If you have had domestic dramas, and you still live with the person in question, don't be surprised if eyebrows are raised.

Even small, regular breaches of law for example, breach of the peace, motoring offences will make them question whether you actually give a s**t about the law as a whole; the problem here isn't that you will be dangerous with a firearm, but will you observe game/deer seasons? Will you shoot deer at night? Poach? Nip onto someone elses land to pick up the runner?

 

2) Coupled with the above, this is of utmost importance to them, and for good reason. This is why you will asked, in depth, about your previous experience with firearms, any medical conditions, and don't be surprised if you are asked to provide examples of shooting trips... They aren't trying to trip you up, they are ascertaining your level of proficiency and safety with firearms as a whole, the end result being them happy to let you loose with a firearm, satisfied that you're not going to take unsafe shots left right and centre.

 

3) The one most people don't understand fully. Paragraph 13.6 of the Home Office guidelines state: ''Good reason should be neither confined to need nor equated with desire...''

In other words, you don't have to prove you have a need, but just 'wanting' one isn't a 'Good Reason'.

Without getting into a calibre vs calibre debate, here's an example;

You want a .308 for deer and fox. The firearms department says ''no, we don't give .308 on first applications, but you can have a .243 as that will also do the job...''

Well cheers mate, but I wasn't asking for your input! To be asked to accept the smallest possible calibre to do the job is a ridiculous notion. Some stalks won't let you use a rifle under a certain calibre, usually .308, sometimes .270. They believe that because the bullet is bigger, it's somehow more dangerous than the .243

I'll leave it at that, suffice it to say that in this instance, provided the first 2 questions are answered satisfactorily, you have a good reason to acquire a .308.

Most also believe that you need acres of land - completely untrue. For most of us, that provides a large part of our good reason but, in the case of the pest controller who can demonstrate he would have to use firearms on a regular basis, it is not a prerequisite.

 

I'll finish with a few things to bear in mind;

 

* Believe it or not, you do not automatically need referees - Subsection (3)( of Section 26A states that the Chief of Police may require references stating that they know of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm. Under existing legislation it is not mandatory, it is a matter for the Chief Officers discretion.

*The above was taken from a Barrister specialising in firearms licensing appeals*

 

* The cases of Anderson v Neilans (1940) and Joy v Chieg Constable of Dumfries and Galloway (1966) suggests that the Chief Officer should consider the application firstly ''from the standpoint of the applicant rather than from that of a possible objector''.

 

* Mental illness is not an automatic bar to holding a license.

 

* You can appeal against a refusal/revokation.

 

* Allegedly, you can't appeal against any conditions on your ticket ie mentoring conditions R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland [1998]. Not so...

Where conditions are opposed by an applicant, the usual recourse is to have them judicially reviewed, where the issue of whether or not they are ['Wednesbury'] unreasonable will be considered.

In line with HO guidelines, attached conditions must be; ''Lawful, unambiguous, reasonable, proportionate, non-contradictory, demonstrably beneficial to the public safety, properly notified and evidenced''

Were the conditions vexatious, you may also consider lodging a complaint with the IPCC, or the Professional Standards Authority.

 

 

AGAIN, ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SIMPLY MY OWN OPINION - PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH BEFORE ANY APPLICATION OR LEGAL ACTION.

 

Hopefully, I've given some a bit more confidence to apply for FAC or SGC. I've got quite a dramatic record, ranging from the trivial to the moderate, stretched over several years. Probably why my SGC took 7 months to come through

 

If you have a good reason, go for it. If they refuse, you get a full refund and at least you'll have an idea of when you can re apply realistically.

Join BASC

 

Good luck, and remember the law is there supposed to be fair and equal to all; if you aren't happy do something about it

[hyperion 122]

Brilliant!, thank you Jock as some one with a not too bad but not too good past history and now in the process of jumping through the FAC hoops (or just about to) I find this post encouraging and helpfull

 

Cheers

Hyperion

[PlasticJock 539]

Brilliant!, thank you Jock as some one with a not too bad but not too good past history and now in the process of jumping through the FAC hoops (or just about to) I find this post encouraging and helpfull

 

Cheers

Hyperion

 

Thanks Hyperion, I'm in the same boat but we all deserve a second chance, most of us make mistakes when we're young.... How are you supposed to show responsibility when you aren't given any?

 

Good luck mate

Edited April 15, 2012 by PlasticJock

[SportingShooter 0]

Interesting thread Jock

 

Slightly geeky myself when it comes to law, case law in particular.

[PlasticJock 539]

Interesting thread Jock

 

Slightly geeky myself when it comes to law, case law in particular.

 

Cheers, yes it's interesting to say the least when you look at the wording in the acts, a lot of us, the police included, fail to notice and understand what is really meant.

 

As you know the legal language is called 'Legalese', it has it's own dictionary, as every word used in a legal framework has a specific meaning. Eg. ''The Chief Constable MAY request referees...''

 

That tells us that it's a case of policy, not law. A policy that's been implemented nationwide and so we all assume it's a legal requirement.

 

The other problem is the departments themselves are either unclear, or refuse to listen to reason and plain facts, relying instea on the ignorance and inability of most to stump up £10,000+ in mounting a legal challenge.

 

Having said that, there are some very good Firearms departments out there

[matt_hooks 188]

All of the law is readily available online, and people should do their research, if you'll excuse the pun "arm themselves properly" to deal with the hurdles the police will try and throw in their way. Forewarned is forearmed.

[PlasticJock 539]

All of the law is readily available online, and people should do their research, if you'll excuse the pun "arm themselves properly" to deal with the hurdles the police will try and throw in their way. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

Exactly

 

''Ignorance of the law is no excuse'' - A legal maxim.

Shame it doesn't work both ways...

[SportingShooter 0]

Interesting thread Jock

 

Slightly geeky myself when it comes to law, case law in particular.

 

Cheers, yes it's interesting to say the least when you look at the wording in the acts, a lot of us, the police included, fail to notice and understand what is really meant.

 

As you know the legal language is called 'Legalese', it has it's own dictionary, as every word used in a legal framework has a specific meaning. Eg. ''The Chief Constable MAY request referees...''

 

That tells us that it's a case of policy, not law. A policy that's been implemented nationwide and so we all assume it's a legal requirement.

 

The other problem is the departments themselves are either unclear, or refuse to listen to reason and plain facts, relying instea on the ignorance and inability of most to stump up £10,000+ in mounting a legal challenge.

 

Having said that, there are some very good Firearms departments out there

 

I suppose if you have all the legal evidence in the exact current wording, then in the event of a challenge, someone like BASC should mount the challenge on your behalf should it get that far. Thats why people pay them £60 a year.

[Mac7117 1]

Just wanted to add my thanks to you for a very interesting post. I was hung on your every word and written in a way that even I could understand .

[PlasticJock 539]

Just wanted to add my thanks to you for a very interesting post. I was hung on your every word and written in a way that even I could understand .

 

Cheers mac