Mentoring Condition - West Mercia

[roe-buck 63]

"

"Listen mate I think it stinks dont get me wrong,but home office guidelines are just that guidelines,they are not the LAW,so I am afraid within reason the police CAN put down any additional conditions they like,and the op was mentioning having been told that breaching his conditions is not breaking the law,OH yes it is,it is an offence to breach any conditions set out by the chief officer of police,so I was merely trying to steer him away from any misguided and quite frankly stupid advice he has been given to the contrary. The "misguided and quite frankly stupid advice" you speak of, was confirmed by the Firearms Lic Dept at Malvern. Unfortunately, they are not obliged to issue me with a FAC and for that reason alone, they could also take it away for no reason. I would not face criminal charges but would probably have my ticket and rifles taken off me. As I now reload, there will be no more ammo going on my ticket. I hope this doesn't harm my case in 6 months time." You just have to state you are reloading the .223 ammunition and ,that will cover the fact that you have not been purchasing it.Obviously, you should have the equipment and components to do so.I wouldn't suggest for a minute you break the Law.Conditions are there to be changed.As I said if your not a member of a Shooting organisation, join now!Wait a bit and get them to broach the subject for you in a little while.It was £26 here to join the SACS as a HL member! Not alot in the scheme of things!

Edited April 17, 2013 by roe-buck

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

 

 

I was only at a BASC open evening last week and Bill Harriman broached this very subject of one Constabualry wanting ,this and another a different thing! Its not legal ,as simple as that.By being issued a certificate you have satisfied the criteria that you are a fit and proper person to hold and use firearms.Like I said join a reputable Fieldsports organisation and they will broach the subject for you.BASC definitely has the best Firearms consultative team in the UK or even Europe for that matter!

As a BASC member for many years they were my first port of call. I have to say that, whilst sympathetic to my situation, they had nothing to offer. If BASC is "the best Firearms consultative team in the UK or even Europe for that matter" then I have nowhere else to go with it. I'll serve my time with my mentor and make an application to have the condition removed in a while.

[roe-buck 63]

Hmm I'm very surprised at that.I wouldn't be satisfied with that reponse and I would contact them again and say your not happy with that responsE.Thats certainly not the view expressed by BASC at the meeting.Is there any special circumstance as to why this condition has been placed on your certificate?

[rimmer 33]

 

"

"Listen mate I think it stinks dont get me wrong,but home office guidelines are just that guidelines,they are not the LAW,so I am afraid within reason the police CAN put down any additional conditions they like,and the op was mentioning having been told that breaching his conditions is not breaking the law,OH yes it is,it is an offence to breach any conditions set out by the chief officer of police,so I was merely trying to steer him away from any misguided and quite frankly stupid advice he has been given to the contrary. The "misguided and quite frankly stupid advice" you speak of, was confirmed by the Firearms Lic Dept at Malvern. Unfortunately, they are not obliged to issue me with a FAC and for that reason alone, they could also take it away for no reason. I would not face criminal charges but would probably have my ticket and rifles taken off me. As I now reload, there will be no more ammo going on my ticket. I hope this doesn't harm my case in 6 months time." You just have to state you are reloading the .223 ammunition and ,that will cover the fact that you have not been purchasing it.Obviously, you should have the equipment and components to do so.I wouldn't suggest for a minute you break the Law.Conditions are there to be changed.As I said if your not a member of a Shooting organisation, join now!Wait a bit and get them to broach the subject for you in a little while.It was £26 here to join the SACS as a HL member! Not alot in the scheme of things!

The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.

 

Thats the legal basis, taken from a political party web site.

[charlie caller 3,654]

There is unfortunately a very valid reason why the BASC,whilst perhaps being sympathetic to your plight,will not get involved in challenging conditions on new applicants certificates,put in simple terms they realise that,as I have stated before within the bounderies of common sense,the police are entitled to put any additional conditions on your certificate,I know one or two people have dissputed this(and dont get me wrong here chaps I am not in any way deffending them) but if anyone cares to ring BASC firearms dept for clarification,that is exactly the response they will get! The response from BeefBeefBeef,earlier is the most common sense approach,serve your time with your mentor,put plenty of rounds through your rifle,get more supporting letters from fellow shooters,then get the damn things removed,by all means if after serving your probationary period,they start being arsy then get on to BASC ect to back you up,I will say it again,generally speaking,THERE IS NO MILEAGE IN CHALLENGING POLICE CONDITIONS ON NEW APPLICANTS CERTIFICATES.

[dadioles 68]

 

 

"

"Listen mate I think it stinks dont get me wrong,but home office guidelines are just that guidelines,they are not the LAW,so I am afraid within reason the police CAN put down any additional conditions they like,and the op was mentioning having been told that breaching his conditions is not breaking the law,OH yes it is,it is an offence to breach any conditions set out by the chief officer of police,so I was merely trying to steer him away from any misguided and quite frankly stupid advice he has been given to the contrary. The "misguided and quite frankly stupid advice" you speak of, was confirmed by the Firearms Lic Dept at Malvern. Unfortunately, they are not obliged to issue me with a FAC and for that reason alone, they could also take it away for no reason. I would not face criminal charges but would probably have my ticket and rifles taken off me. As I now reload, there will be no more ammo going on my ticket. I hope this doesn't harm my case in 6 months time." You just have to state you are reloading the .223 ammunition and ,that will cover the fact that you have not been purchasing it.Obviously, you should have the equipment and components to do so.I wouldn't suggest for a minute you break the Law.Conditions are there to be changed.As I said if your not a member of a Shooting organisation, join now!Wait a bit and get them to broach the subject for you in a little while.It was £26 here to join the SACS as a HL member! Not alot in the scheme of things!

The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.

 

Thats the legal basis, taken from a political party web site.

I don't know where you got that from Rimmer. We live in a Parliamentary Democracy, painful though that may be sometimes.

 

There is absolutely no right whatsoever to own and use firearms, they were made illegal in 1920.

It is possible, however, that if you have a "good reason" to possess and use those firearms, you can be granted a license to do so. This is a privilege that can be withdrawn at any time, subjected to whymsical conditions with, generally, no right of appeal . It is up to you to prove that you have a "good reason" and for "The Chief Constable" to agree that your "good reason" is valid and that you are a suitable person. Under no circumstances is this a "right".

 

So best be nice to the Chief Constable......

 

Although "Wiki" has its problems this extract rather says it all.

 

"The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the police. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate."

[rimmer 33]

i saw that on the lib dem web site when i was doing a search, i always thought it was the case and am not sure your source is correct.

Bear arms and own arms are not the same in law.

the 1920 act did not make firearms illegal, you didnt read it properly.

also there is a right to appeal, if you are refused or your cert withdrawn.

Firearm ownership is a right not a privilege, but as you say you have to give good reason to exercise your right.

Edited April 18, 2013 by rimmer

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

Hmm I'm very surprised at that.I wouldn't be satisfied with that reponse and I would contact them again and say your not happy with that responsE.Thats certainly not the view expressed by BASC at the meeting.Is there any special circumstance as to why this condition has been placed on your certificate?

 

No idea Roebuck. Okay, I've never had a rifle before but I am a long term shotgun certificate holder, no issues, no (criminal) record. Just an ordinary working bloke with a good understanding that safety comes first. Maybe it's a change of emphasis from West Mercia. I just wish they would explain themselves a bit more openly than stick on the condition at the last minute.

[dadioles 68]

i saw that on the lib dem web site when i was doing a search, i always thought it was the case and am not sure your source is correct.

Bear arms and own arms are not the same in law.

the 1920 act did not make firearms illegal, you didnt read it properly.

also there is a right to appeal, if you are refused or your cert withdrawn.

Firearm ownership is a right not a privilege, but as you say you have to give good reason to exercise your right.

 

Rimmer

 

You are playing on words but that is fair enough.... I rise to the challenge, it's fun.

 

OK, Firearms are not illegal. Their existence is not against the law. Obvious!

 

I said - "There is absolutely no right whatsoever to own and use firearms, they were made illegal in 1920."

I should have said - "There is absolutely no right whatsoever to own and use firearms, that was made illegal in 1920."

 

 

The difference between "bear arms" and "own arms" is also obvious and not worthy of comment.

 

You stated:

 

"The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis."

also

"In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments."

also

"the 1920 act did not make firearms illegal, you didnt read it properly."

 

 

These are the first few words of the Firearms Act 1920:

 

 

"Restriction on purchase, possession, and use of firearms

(1) A person shall not purchase, have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a certificate (in this Act called a firearm certificate) granted under this section, and in force at the time."

The Act removed, absolutely and totally for everyone, the possibility of legally holding a firearm unless they applied for and were granted a certificate by the chief officer of police in their area.

 

 

You further stated:

 

"also there is a right to appeal, if you are refused or your cert withdrawn."

 

Correct in part, if you apply for a certificate and it is refused you do have the right of appeal to the court.

 

What I intended though was reference not to certificate refusal but to certificate conditions - I should have made that clearer.

 

"... subjected to whymsical conditions with, generally, no right of appeal"

 

There is no right of appeal against conditions imposed on your license by the Chief Constable. A polite approach and a bit of patience is the way to handle that one.

You could apply for a judicial review to see if they are "Wednesbury" unreasonable but you will need very deep pockets.

 

In the case of having your license revoked, you could, as with most things, challenge the decision in the Crown Court but the police do not generally lose such cases and you would find yourself paying their costs in addition to your own, deep pockets required again.

Edited April 18, 2013 by dadioles

[The Seeker 3,048]

As said by CC we can complain and disagree all we like at the end of the day it is up to your local firearms dept to remove this condition and they won't until they are satisfied you have met their criteria.

 

I'm a member of BASC and have been so for 15 years and however much I admire and support them they are toothless when it comes to issues of dealing with the Police. Yes they liaise and work closely with ACPO but as already stated home office guidance is just that guidance, that is why some areas allow .22rf for fox and others don't. Anyone that wants to challenge this and pay to do so in a court of law is a wealthier man than me.

 

Serve your time speak with you FEO and get the condition removed. it's not nice but once it's done it's done.

 

ATB

[rimmer 33]

 

i saw that on the lib dem web site when i was doing a search, i always thought it was the case and am not sure your source is correct.

Bear arms and own arms are not the same in law.

the 1920 act did not make firearms illegal, you didnt read it properly.

also there is a right to appeal, if you are refused or your cert withdrawn.

Firearm ownership is a right not a privilege, but as you say you have to give good reason to exercise your right.

 

Rimmer

 

You are playing on words but that is fair enough.... I rise to the challenge, it's fun.

 

OK, Firearms are not illegal. Their existence is not against the law. Obvious!

 

I said - "There is absolutely no right whatsoever to own and use firearms, they were made illegal in 1920."

I should have said - "There is absolutely no right whatsoever to own and use firearms, that was made illegal in 1920."

 

 

The difference between "bear arms" and "own arms" is also obvious and not worthy of comment.

 

You stated:

 

"The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis."

also

"In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments."

also

"the 1920 act did not make firearms illegal, you didnt read it properly."

 

 

These are the first few words of the Firearms Act 1920:

 

 

"Restriction on purchase, possession, and use of firearms

(1) A person shall not purchase, have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a certificate (in this Act called a firearm certificate) granted under this section, and in force at the time."

The Act removed, absolutely and totally for everyone, the possibility of legally holding a firearm unless they applied for and were granted a certificate by the chief officer of police in their area.

 

 

You further stated:

 

"also there is a right to appeal, if you are refused or your cert withdrawn."

 

Correct in part, if you apply for a certificate and it is refused you do have the right of appeal to the court.

 

What I intended though was reference not to certificate refusal but to certificate conditions - I should have made that clearer.

 

"... subjected to whymsical conditions with, generally, no right of appeal"

 

There is no right of appeal against conditions imposed on your license by the Chief Constable. A polite approach and a bit of patience is the way to handle that one.

You could apply for a judicial review to see if they are "Wednesbury" unreasonable but you will need very deep pockets.

 

In the case of having your license revoked, you could, as with most things, challenge the decision in the Crown Court but the police do not generally lose such cases and you would find yourself paying their costs in addition to your own, deep pockets required again.

 

Firearm ownership became controled or restricted not illegal. your wrong old chap, still i can see your convinced your right so we will have to agree to disagree because i cant be bothered lol. But you are wrong buddy.