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

Dark Skies wrote:

TattooedGun wrote:

Dark Skies wrote: As far as I am aware the bloke has no criminal convictions and the bulk of his prohibition is down to falling foul of having differing views to the approved narrative. Heard some gossip about home life but nothing that translated into charges so that's all that it is, gossip.

Utter bo...cks.

If it was down to "Gossip" and there were no substantiated claims, he'd have a license and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

It's got nothing to do with having different views to the approved narrative - how many on this forum alone have vocalised views of wishing we had castle doctrine or ability to possess for self defence.

He might be squeaky clean when it comes to criminal convictions, but what's to say there's not a medical report he's failed on that he doesn't want public. What if that same medical report makes him un-suitable for possessing firearms, yet he's not divulging it to any other people involved... He's even admitted there's more going on that he doesn't want to make public.

"bo...cks"
I've got no answer to that. I guess it acts as an authoritative statement ... to someone.

"How many on this have ... ?"
Irrelevant - they're saying it from the safety of anonymity whereas this chap is very public.

"He may be squeaky clean ... but ..."
What ifs and who is to say? is just conjecture.

Your whole post was essentially just, well, ... empty.

No more empty than what you posted. Essentially you're posting just as much conjecture as myself. Well played. Have a smiley face. clapclap

Thorney wrote:However at the end of the day licencing rules are actioned by the Firearms Licencing Teams as a civil application of the act, criminal proceedings are decided by the CPS who have far clearer rules to adhere to other than 'intention'.

As has been said, its all a question of how far you are prepared to go.

Firearms Licencing revokes an FAC .
CPS say there is no case to answer .
The shooter asks for his FAC back , Firearms say take us to Court !

As a lawyer well versed in Firearms Laws has said , the act is a total shambles , made worse by Home Office Guidance.

At present there are 14 RFD's who are either under investigation,have been charged or are on remand .

Whatever the story around it, there is a lot to this that the mere bits we are discussing, if he and they see this as the right way forward then who am I/we to say otherwise.

MistAgain wrote:

Thorney wrote:However at the end of the day licencing rules are actioned by the Firearms Licencing Teams as a civil application of the act, criminal proceedings are decided by the CPS who have far clearer rules to adhere to other than 'intention'.

As has been said, its all a question of how far you are prepared to go.

Firearms Licencing revokes an FAC .
CPS say there is no case to answer .
The shooter asks for his FAC back , Firearms say take us to Court !

As a lawyer well versed in Firearms Laws has said , the act is a total shambles , made worse by Home Office Guidance.

At present there are 14 RFD's who are either under investigation,have been charged or are on remand .

And in a firearms revocation appeal - unlike criminal cases..........they are allowed to use hearsay evidence !

I am curious - I am not sure how many videos there are but I saw 2 - an older one where he tells us that he has been revoked, gave vague reasons and alluded to a matter which contributed but he was not willing to reveal. He had taken legal advice ( basc or nra appointed legal assistance if I remember rightly ) and they said keep your head down, make this your last video and reapply again in a couple of years.

Then another one where he is using legislation to allow him to possess / handle firearms and that he had taken legal advice which assured him he would be ok.

Assuming the legal advisor has been replaced - I would be interested in who his current legal advisor is ( if he has one ) because the way he worded it - it could be legal advice from a professional or it could be himself googling the words firearm and loophole and advising himself.

I would love to know which firearms specialising barrister advised him it would be a good idea to bin keeping his head down and go in quite the opposite directon ?

Every time he says Professional Media Company I think Of Jake Gyllenhall in the movie Nightcrawler. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

TattooedGun wrote:

breacher wrote: At the end of the day - a person is either fit or unfit to possess firearms. Legislation is lacking if someone can have their FAC pulled as their possession of firearms is considered unsafe..........then go out and possess firearms anyway.

Therein is the rub.

This is a man that his FEO has deemed unfit, and his attempts at appeals have been unsuccessful to see him holding firearms. The Section 5 RFD that is going against the FEO and giving him possession of firearms under this exemption is playing with fire in my humble opinion.

I also agree with whoever said it came across as smug in the latest video. Spot on...

Some people should know when to stay out of the limelight.

As an aside, this wikipedia article is interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

You're not far wrong there.
Know a little about the case as he phoned to threaten me a little while back and I saved his phone number.
Turns out, I am not popular enough or introduced enough people to the sport of shooting to have an opinion, or make jokes about popular YT "celebrities".

MistAgain wrote:
At present there are 14 RFD's who are either under investigation,have been charged or are on remand .

That surprises me, is this information in the public domain?

Ovenpaa wrote:

MistAgain wrote:
At present there are 14 RFD's who are either under investigation,have been charged or are on remand .

That surprises me, is this information in the public domain?

Me too.

I would have thought the media and antis would have been crowing about that !

Ovenpaa wrote:

MistAgain wrote:
At present there are 14 RFD's who are either under investigation,have been charged or are on remand .

That surprises me, is this information in the public domain?

It is more than possible that there is "local" knowledge of what is happening to some of these RFD's .

Certainly last year Merseyside Police leaked a story to the local rag about their clamping down on RFD's .

My information came from a BASC staff member . He did not say who the RFD's were , their location or what offences they
are supposed to have committed . I did not expect him to give more information and I did not ask for more details .

I would not mind betting that many of the RFD's are under investigation for a small minor detail that they had slipped up on .