Nigel bloody Farage sinks hope of pistol ban repeal

[Demonic69]

I think sport is a perfectly acceptable reason for owning a firearm, it's inherently part of our culture and our nature, the government spends billions of our own money furthering the sports they deem suitable.
Want is also fine, how many f#!+tards own cars they don't need, probably including a fair number of antis. Nice big gas-guzzling, polluting 4x4 to drive the kids to the school 10 minutes down the road, then round to the shops you could walk to?
The problem (one of) with our society now is that we've allowed ourselves to feel like it's ok to stop someone else doing what they enjoy simply because we don't like it. That's a slippery slope towards forced conformation in my eyes

[Chuck]

The problem (one of) with our society now is that we've allowed ourselves to feel like it's ok to stop someone else doing what they enjoy simply because we don't like it.

clapclap clapclap clapclap

[Gaz]

To be fair I don't think he (Gaz) agrees with "need" - but, it's in the legislation and that's also the anti's argument - "you don't NEED..."

Perhaps we feed this back to the various national bodies, at least let them know what we think? In fact I'll do just that.

Need isn't in the legislation (check the wording of section 2), because need isn't relevant. At least the authors of the 68 Act knew that much.

More to follow from me tomorrow - my pit's calling.

[nickb834]

To be fair I don't think he (Gaz) agrees with "need" - but, it's in the legislation and that's also the anti's argument - "you don't NEED..."

Perhaps we feed this back to the various national bodies, at least let them know what we think? In fact I'll do just that.

Need isn't in the legislation (check the wording of section 2), because need isn't relevant. At least the authors of the 68 Act knew that much.

More to follow from me tomorrow - my pit's calling.

I lifted this bit from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Code: Select all

27 Special provisions about firearm certificates.

[F91(1)A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.]

See paragraph "B" - good reason, that smells like a "need" to me - I'll grant you the word "need" isn't used, but it boils down to the same - another way of looking at it - does "because I want" satisfy that requirement of paragraph "B"? I don't think it does (could well be wrong - happy to be educated on that). My point is merely to remove paragraph "B" and it's "good reason| need" requirement - and let us responsible firearms owners just have what we "want".

Nick

[DL.]

Scenario*:

Isolated farmhouse with surrounding farmland.
Mother and Father lives there, Son and Daughter visit occasionally. The only one who is licensed is the Father, two bunny bashing rifles, they are kept securely however the keys to the rifle cabinet are kept in the top drawer of the Father's desk in his study and everybody who works on the farm know that. Everybody who has access to the farmhouse can access the keys/cabinet/rifles to shoot those pesky rabbits.
One day somebody grabs one of those rifles and shoots whoeever is present on the farm. It is a right blood bath and not a pretty sight for the postman who discovers the scene.

Going back over family history, Father and Mother have a tendency to take their faith a tad too far, Daughter has a history of depression, Son has alcohol problems. As with life in general everywhere I am sure there were other issues, on the farm, with the people working there, with the animals...you get my drift, I am sure.

So who did it and how to prevent a situation like that?
If you ask me, the verdict is still out on who did it and it is absolutely impossible to prevent a situation like that, if people want to kill, they will kill, be their preferred method a baseball bat, kitchen knife, rifle, injection, whatever is out there that can kill people.

I, for one, am not going to subject myself to more tests and evaluations in order to shoot targets, just because there is a possibility that someone somewhere "snaps".
Even if that means I have to give up my sport, I will fight hard for it not to happen however ultimately if I have to give it up to avoid more tests and evaluations then I will.

The Scenario* described here has no connection to real life and the legality of the rifles being kept as described is not really important.

But Jeremy Bamber springs to mind....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders

Sometimes mentally ill people use guns to do harm.
No-body wants this to be the case, but the last thing we need is more red tape and bureaucracy involved in firearms licensing - for people on this thread to be suggesting this is shockingly naive.

[Chuck]

Sometimes mentally ill people use guns to do harm.
No-body wants this to be the case, but the last thing we need is more red tape and bureaucracy involved in firearms licensing - for people on this thread to be suggesting this is shockingly naive.

To say the least. Give them a bit and they'll take it all.

[mackie]

To me "good reason" does not equal "need" and "good reason" is the term used throughout the act. What constitutes good reason is open to interpretation but I think the current guidance is sensible.

[Gaz]

To be fair I don't think he (Gaz) agrees with "need" - but, it's in the legislation and that's also the anti's argument - "you don't NEED..."

Perhaps we feed this back to the various national bodies, at least let them know what we think? In fact I'll do just that.

Need isn't in the legislation (check the wording of section 2), because need isn't relevant. At least the authors of the 68 Act knew that much.

More to follow from me tomorrow - my pit's calling.

I lifted this bit from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

27 Special provisions about firearm certificates.

[F91(1)A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.]

See paragraph "B" - good reason, that smells like a "need" to me - I'll grant you the word "need" isn't used, but it boils down to the same - another way of looking at it - does "because I want" satisfy that requirement of paragraph "B"? I don't think it does (could well be wrong - happy to be educated on that). My point is merely to remove paragraph "B" and it's "good reason| need" requirement - and let us responsible firearms owners just have what we "want".

Nick

No, not at all. "Good reason" just means writing the words "target shooting" on your application form and being a member of a club, or whatever the equivalent wording is for hunting (you can tell I'm a gravelbelly...). Individual FEOs may try to impose a "need" requirement but strictly speaking the law does not allow them to do that.

[Sandgroper]

I lifted this bit from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Code: Select all

27 Special provisions about firearm certificates.

[F91(1)A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.]

See paragraph "B" - good reason, that smells like a "need" to me - I'll grant you the word "need" isn't used, but it boils down to the same - another way of looking at it - does "because I want" satisfy that requirement of paragraph "B"? I don't think it does (could well be wrong - happy to be educated on that). My point is merely to remove paragraph "B" and it's "good reason| need" requirement - and let us responsible firearms owners just have what we "want".

Nick

Australia may be seen as the land of milk and honey, but not in relation to firearms.

To put good reason and need into perspective this is what Western Australia has to say

What is the difference between a genuine reason and a genuine need?

Genuine reason under Section 11A of the Firearms Act sets out what is accepted at a legislative level as to who or what is deemed to be considered a genuine reason for wishing to licence/possess a firearm.

Under Section 11A (2) (a)-(f) of the state's Firearms Act 1973:

A person has a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm or ammunition if and only if -

it is for use by the person as a member of an approved shooting club and the person is an active and financial member of the club;

it is for use by the person as a member of an approved organisation;

it is for use in hunting or shooting of a recreational nature on land the owner of which has given permission for that purpose;

it is required by the person in the course of the person's occupation;

it is to form part of a genuine firearm collection or genuine ammunition collection; or

it is for another approved purpose.

The genuine need is based on a process of why a particular firearm is required over and above one of another type.

Basically, you may be allow a firearm but unless you show a need for a particular type of rifle you're not going to get it - a situation we don't want in the UK.

[mackie]

I think I'd prefer living in NZ.