help please

[MAIN MAN 277]

Im a thick fuker when it comes to forms an stuff! im doing me renewal for my firearms cert.

right (its asked for a referee x 2 so i can sort that no problem)

 

Do i have to get any farmers or land owners have to right anything as there isnt a part for them to fill in?

 

im not sure as they wrote a letter when i first applied ? about 10 years ago so do i need written permition again?

 

and how do i ask for an open certificate do i write a seperate letter to go with the application?

 

any help would be much appriceated thanks.

[TWOTWOTHREE 152]

Hi

If this is the renewal for your fac? yes you need a letter from the farmer granting permission for the specific calibres.you usually get a form with the application pack for you to let him or her sign,if it's ten years ago didn't you have to do this 5 years ago on your last renewal ? As for the open cert you can write a letter or request it with the feo when he calls to see you, even after its opened on your next renewal you still need a permission slip to send in.

Atb 223

Edited May 29, 2012 by TWOTWOTHREE

[sjy 16]

i'v never had to get letter of farmer for renewal,your visit will just ask you are you still shooting the same land you had checked on your first application,has for your open just tell your visit officer when he comes,

[MAIN MAN 277]

Thanks guys! i think il get some letters anyway just in case as it takes months to sort out and dont want it to drag on cheers.

[matt_hooks 188]

They might want to see permission letters, they might not. It's best to have them to hand anyway, just in case they do ask. Just have them on the table next to you where he can see them and he probably won't bother to ask.

 

As for opening the cert, write a quick note to go in with your form saying something along the lines of "Having held firearms for over ten years, I believe that I am safe and capable of assessing ground, and would therefore appreciate if you would remove the restrictive territorial condition from my certificate."

 

After ten years they should have no problem removing the restrictive condition.

 

Good luck!

[airbourne 128]

thought they gave you a open ticket on your first renewel if you asked ???

[paulus 26]

thought they gave you a open ticket on your first renewel if you asked ???

varies from region to region the general rule in leicestershire is 3 years without incident, even with an open ticket leicestershire still require one permision letter with the renewall application

[airbourne 128]

thought they gave you a open ticket on your first renewel if you asked ???

varies from region to region the general rule in leicestershire is 3 years without incident, even with an open ticket leicestershire still require one permision letter with the renewall application

staffordshire first renewal 5 years open ticket, thought its one country but the law is different from one county to another no wonder the country in a mess ???

[matt_hooks 188]

Paulus, as far as I can ascertain all forces still require one permission letter at renewal for an open ticket. It's to prove good reason.

[paulus 26]

Paulus, as far as I can ascertain all forces still require one permission letter at renewal for an open ticket. It's to prove good reason.

as it should be if im honest

[matt_hooks 188]

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I think that all regulation and licencing achieves is to ensure that only criminals have firearms.

 

Obviously it's not reached that stage yet with S1, but look at handguns. Does the fact that they are banned stop criminals from owning and carrying them? Of course it doesn't.

 

All it does is punishes the massive majority of lawful shooters who lose their right to enjoy their hobby.

 

Frankly, once the police have decided that you are safe and responsible, and can be trusted to have a firearm, why should they then seek to curtail that right?

 

Why should they be able to dictate how many weapons we can hold?

 

What does it matter if I have five .22's, or .243's?

 

Does it mean I can do more damage?

 

Of course not!

 

Either we are safe to possess firearms, in which case let us decide how many, and of what type, or we are not, in which case we shouldn't have them at all.

 

The firearms licencing system is expensive to run, and as far as I can tell achieves nothing in the way of increasing public safety.

 

The number of violent offences committed with legally held firearms is tiny. There are several hundred thousand S1 firearms held legitimately in the UK, and over a million shotguns. How many violent offences were committed with legally held firearms in the past, let's say, ten years.

 

One?

 

Ok, some would say one is too many, and for those involved of course that's the case. But the only way you will stop that single freak event from occurring is to ban all firearms completely.

 

All that will ensure is that only criminals have firearms, and will make a huge dent in an important country industry, in fact several important countryside industries.

 

So, why should I need to prove that I have somewhere to use a rifle? If I am safe to possess it "at all times" as the legislation says I must be, then why can I not be left alone to enjoy my sport as I see fit?

[paulus 26]

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I think that all regulation and licencing achieves is to ensure that only criminals have firearms.

 

Obviously it's not reached that stage yet with S1, but look at handguns. Does the fact that they are banned stop criminals from owning and carrying them? Of course it doesn't.

 

All it does is punishes the massive majority of lawful shooters who lose their right to enjoy their hobby.

 

Frankly, once the police have decided that you are safe and responsible, and can be trusted to have a firearm, why should they then seek to curtail that right?

 

Why should they be able to dictate how many weapons we can hold?

 

What does it matter if I have five .22's, or .243's?

 

Does it mean I can do more damage?

 

Of course not!

 

Either we are safe to possess firearms, in which case let us decide how many, and of what type, or we are not, in which case we shouldn't have them at all.

 

The firearms licencing system is expensive to run, and as far as I can tell achieves nothing in the way of increasing public safety.

 

The number of violent offences committed with legally held firearms is tiny. There are several hundred thousand S1 firearms held legitimately in the UK, and over a million shotguns. How many violent offences were committed with legally held firearms in the past, let's say, ten years.

 

One?

 

Ok, some would say one is too many, and for those involved of course that's the case. But the only way you will stop that single freak event from occurring is to ban all firearms completely.

 

All that will ensure is that only criminals have firearms, and will make a huge dent in an important country industry, in fact several important countryside industries.

 

So, why should I need to prove that I have somewhere to use a rifle? If I am safe to possess it "at all times" as the legislation says I must be, then why can I not be left alone to enjoy my sport as I see fit?

you carnt stop nutters but the odd safeguard helps

[matt_hooks 188]

With the tightest gun laws in the world, nutters still get hold of guns. If it weren't guns, it would be a car, or a bus, or a knife, or a baseball bat. All of these things kill more people in a week than legally held firearms do in a year in the UK.

 

Ok, the baseball bat was hyperbole, but you get the point, although I'd bet more people are killed with baseball bats than guns, especially legally held ones, every year.

 

Now tell me again the logic behind them controlling the number and type of guns I can own? How exactly does it make things safer? I don't think I could do more damage with three .243's than I can with one. I can fire at several rounds a minute, and accurately too. Would a 30-06 be more dangerous than a .243? Take it to the extreme, is a .600 Nitro express more dangerous than a .243 if the holder decides to go on a killing spree.

[PlasticJock 539]

Agree with you Matt - it's easier to get hold of an illegal firearm than jump through the hoops legally. With regards to your calibre question, well, anything that has a greater potential range is viewed as the worst case scenario for PC Plod who has to deal with a Derek Bird style shooting. Switzerland has a mature attitude towards firearms, and virtually zero gun crime in the last 10 years.

[matt_hooks 188]

I guess in theory a 30-06 has a longer effective range than a .243, but how often do loonies manage to hit people at long range? Bar a few ex marine snipers in the US, most nutjobs like to get up close and personal.

 

As for "overkill", well, don't get me started!