The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

alextwogun wrote:

Ginger wrote:

IainWR wrote:Mike

Thats right.

S1 Firearms Act 1968 says that you can't have a firearm (other than a shot gun or an air gun) without a FAC unless one of the exemptions applies. The above is the exemption that allows Club members to hold firearms without a FAC. As you observe, it doesn't mention anything except rifles (there is a clause further down S15 that makes it applicable to MLPs). Therefore, there is no exemption for LBRs / LBPs / S1 Shotguns. Therefore, you can't have one of those without a FAC.

Of course, if you can persuade a court that "rifle" includes anything with a rifled barrel, then the rules of precedence may override the rules of interpretation. Otherwise, the law says what it says, and this is an Act of Parliament, so what anyone other than Parliament or the Courts say about it is irrelevant.

Simples!

Hello Iain,

welcome back, is the advice in paragraph two the guidance you have been given but Surrey Police? Or have you not had time to raise this with them yet? If you haven't had chance to raise it the above guidance might be premature. If the above guidance is correct then there is at least one UK Police Force breaking the law!

I don't see this as being 'Simples' as one UK Police Force is issuing slots on LBR & LBP's to clubs and I assume the head of the licensing team would have gone via the HMO etc.

I think there is more to this than has been discussed. I've seen non fac guests shooting black powder revolvers at clubs and these wouldn't be classed as rifles. Think i'll ring my force and see what they say.

A bit clearer now. A & S say rules are set by home office. What a non fac holder on a guest day is allowed to shoot is based on what the Home Office deem reasonable for a club to have on their own licence. So this includes small and full bore rifles including semi .22 AND black powder revolvers. Does not include LBR's/LBP because of the grey area on whether they are rifle or not and does not include sec 1 shotgun as a club wouldn't normally have one on their licence.

May change in future pending home office approval as their are more PSG clubs and comps opening up nowadays.

"I've seen non fac guests shooting black powder revolvers at clubs and these wouldn't be classed as rifles. Think i'll ring my force and see what they say."

Perfectly legal.

"My FEO told me I was ok to let others shoot my S1 shotgun on private land under supervision."

Unbelievable.

Chapuis wrote:"I've seen non fac guests shooting black powder revolvers at clubs and these wouldn't be classed as rifles. Think i'll ring my force and see what they say."

Perfectly legal.

"My FEO told me I was ok to let others shoot my S1 shotgun on private land under supervision."

Unbelievable.

wtfwtf You think that ALL FEO's have both full knowledge of the laws AND enforce them fairly & without personal bias?

It's ONLY their professional job!! So if an FEO can have gaps in their knowledge (or departments can act illegally by not issuing Temp. Section 7's when certificates expire) then how fair is it that OUR ignorance of the law, as amateurs, is not seen by the courts as a valid excuse for genuine mistakes?!

FEO's find it confusing & I bet they'll have had quite a lot of extensive training...or is the training/law one thing & local policy another?

VERBAL ASSURANCES FROM AN F.E.O. ARE, LEGALLY, WORTH THE VALUE OF THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON

"VERBAL ASSURANCES FROM AN F.E.O. ARE, LEGALLY, WORTH THE VALUE OF THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON"

How very true. Hence their reluctance to commit in writing or even to give a direct answer to a question.

MLPs are legal for HOA Club members to use without a FAC. Read S15(11) and (12) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/45/section/15

The opinion of Firearms Licensing, the Home Office, me, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all is irrelevant, as is what it says on the Club FAC. What counts is the opinion of the court when someone borrows a LBR etc, the police make an issue of it, said someone gets charged with a breach of S1 Firearms Act 1968 and their defence is that S15 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 as amended applied to what they did. As that has not yet happened, the rest is and will remain speculation.

Iain

IainWR wrote:MLPs are legal for HOA Club members to use without a FAC. Read S15(11) and (12) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/45/section/15

The opinion of Firearms Licensing, the Home Office, me, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all is irrelevant, as is what it says on the Club FAC. What counts is the opinion of the court when someone borrows a LBR etc, the police make an issue of it, said someone gets charged with a breach of S1 Firearms Act 1968 and their defence is that S15 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 as amended applied to what they did. As that has not yet happened, the rest is and will remain speculation.

Iain

Does this mean you have not spoken to Surrey Police / Home Office?

Last Question Ian,

If a club has a Sect 1 Shotgun on their club certificate, can said Shotgun be passed to members without Sect 1 authority to use on the specified range?

Hi Mike

This is very much an opinion.

The fact that a firearm is on a FAC does not confer any right on another person, not named on that FAC, to take possession of that firearm. The right of another to accept the firearm stems from their holding a FAC with appropriate conditions and variations or their meeting one of the exemptions in the Acts (S1 Firearms Act 1968). Since there is no indication in any of the exemptions that a S1 shotgun can be held without a FAC, the only possibility I can come up with is that the FAC could contain a discretionary condition extending its effectiveness to persons other than the one named on the face. I'm not sure what the effect of a condition on the FAC saying the guns could be lent would be. I suspect that as an FAC is an administrative document and the offence is defined in primary legislation an FAC condition purporting to permit lending would be of no legal validity. Now if the FAC applied explicitly to "The members of Dundee R&PC" rather than "Dundee R&PC - Mike357" that might stand up, if all the members signed it?

In short, I think the answer is no, but there are various possibilities that might muddy the waters.

And Ginger, I'm sorry, I haven't managed to get through to Surrey Police. I have about eight issues to discuss with them; if I get all the way down the list I will ask.

Iain

Hi Iain,

thanks for the update, I appreciate that you are busy after 2 weeks away, the old inbox fills up dam quick :)

It will be an interesting resolution to the question either way.

Many thanks Ian. A definite minefield. Further discussion with FEO seems sensible.