-
the Daily hi thread
New section 1 shotgun laws coming
- Thread starter Mattjb
- Start date
It only needs one to start it and the others often follow .
Darth Vader
Member
Police officers do not have the authority to interpret laws; their duty is to follow established legal procedures and guidelines. While police officers have some discretion in how they enforce the law (e.g., issuing warnings vs. arrests), this does not equate to interpreting the law.
Weihrauch17
Super member
To be fair as the past owner of a 3 shot Benelli and many Beretta's any Pigeon or Crow is well out of range after the third shot has been fired. All a Section 1 does is add weight in the magazine tube which is a negative for sporting use.
Rich79
Member Extraordinaire
I've never had one myself but will for practical this year.
For pest control yes anything flying isn't going to hang around but for fox dens they're handy, also the organised rat shoots where you dump a big pile of rotting veg in a field, they all gravitate toward it and all you've got to do is burn it and they all come running out.
You wouldn't manage with a 2-3 shot.
Triggermortls
Well-known member
To a keeper a sec 1 shotgun is not a want to have toy, something to flash at your mates down the club or brag about to people that are easily impressed by films, its a tool of the trade in vermin control and really essential to them.
It’s an important part of a keepers job to effectively control squirrel numbers and also a legal requirement to control and report on numbers taken as part of any countryside/woodland stewardship scheme.
When 4 or 5 squirrels burst from a drey 3 shots are insufficient .
Darth Vader
Member
The Home Office document “Firearms Law” – ‘Guidance to the Police 2002’ – states in chapter 13 (good reason to possess a firearm):
13.18 Self-loading shot guns (semi-automatic is defined in section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as holding more than two cartridges in the magazine and applies only to large magazine shot guns (and .22RF)) may be used to shoot certain pest species under the terms of a licence from either Natural England, the Welsh Government or the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD), but is applicable to avian species only (the general licences are applicable to avian species only, not that shotguns are applicable to avian species only).
Large magazine shotguns may be required to deal with serious pest problems with wood pigeon or corvids (rooks and crows). Unfortunately, due to film and media coverage the multi-shot shotgun has been demonized and now many police forces regard these firearms as unnecessary and dangerous.
There are many people who control vermin with standard two-shot shotguns and have never found it necessary to carry out vermin control with a multi-shot shotgun. That may be the case, but the experience of another person does not constitute a valid reason for a chief officer to refuse an application.
This is supported by paragraph 13.6 of the Home Office Guidance: “Most firearm certificate holders possess firearms for reason of their profession, sport or recreation, and may properly wish to exercise discretion as to what types of firearms they chose for these purposes.”
If an application was refused on the grounds of the opinion of another person who had not found it necessary to use a firearm for the purpose for which the application had been made, then this would place the chief officer in conflict with settled law. He/she would be viewing the application from the standpoint of an objector.
13.18 Self-loading shot guns (semi-automatic is defined in section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as holding more than two cartridges in the magazine and applies only to large magazine shot guns (and .22RF)) may be used to shoot certain pest species under the terms of a licence from either Natural England, the Welsh Government or the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD), but is applicable to avian species only (the general licences are applicable to avian species only, not that shotguns are applicable to avian species only).
Large magazine shotguns may be required to deal with serious pest problems with wood pigeon or corvids (rooks and crows). Unfortunately, due to film and media coverage the multi-shot shotgun has been demonized and now many police forces regard these firearms as unnecessary and dangerous.
There are many people who control vermin with standard two-shot shotguns and have never found it necessary to carry out vermin control with a multi-shot shotgun. That may be the case, but the experience of another person does not constitute a valid reason for a chief officer to refuse an application.
This is supported by paragraph 13.6 of the Home Office Guidance: “Most firearm certificate holders possess firearms for reason of their profession, sport or recreation, and may properly wish to exercise discretion as to what types of firearms they chose for these purposes.”
If an application was refused on the grounds of the opinion of another person who had not found it necessary to use a firearm for the purpose for which the application had been made, then this would place the chief officer in conflict with settled law. He/she would be viewing the application from the standpoint of an objector.
Skid
Super member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2022
- Messages
- 3,582
- Reaction score
- 5,272
- Points
- 188
- Location
- Notts/Derbys border, near the river.
This could all be connected with the possibility of S2 merging with S1, which, if it happens would stave off a likely huge take up of high capacity shotguns. The thinking being, if all shotguns moved to S1 why be restricted to three shots for general use? That said, the police have always made the decision regarding good reason so nothing changed there except it's been on a case by case basis, not a blanket one decision fits all because it doesn't.
Darth Vader
Member
BASC and other shooting organisations should be challenging decisions made by different Police Authorities in a court of law. The Police have no right to make up their own rules/laws, only Parliament can do that. Where does this end, for example, can a certain Police Authority decide that .22 LR semi-auto is no longer allowed and should only be .22 single shot ?, NO, its ballocks. They just trying their luck. If every individual S1 and S2 holder (145,306) each put £5 towards a legal fund then it would be more than enough to challenge the Police in a court of law and ultimately, set a precedence. Also, if you read the firearms acts, its not up-to the Police to decide good reason, those are defined in legislation, being 1. A person who is a member of an approved club where said calibre's are allowed. 2. A person who has authorised access to land where said calibre's are allowed. That's it in a nutshell, if the Police think differently then they are basically breaking laws of Parliament. Obviously there are some additions, like being allowed Section 5 prohibited firearms for maritime security or dispatch of quarry. Most members of the public and MP's think that ALL handguns are banned. That is not the case.
Last edited:
rocketdogbert
Super member
You are right, but you can’t just “take the police to court”
First, a shooting organisation needs to find an FAC holder willing to pursue the matter with said shooting authorities backing, potentially risk losing their grant, and definitely getting a black mark with their local FLD.
Then agree to a very long process where there is no guarantee of a positive outcome.
Normally, if the shooting organisations get involved, it’s a strongly worded letter and it never gets to court.
Jester
Superior member
Challenging the decision to grant a variation by a FLD, or any other business as usual function of one, will not usually mean revocation. That will only happen if the issue's due to wrongdoing by the cert holder. Any attempt to revoke just due to a legal challenge would be wrong.
Also any evidence that a certificate holder would end up on an unofficial shitlist in a FLD and treated unfairly going forward just because they've exercised their legal rights should also be robustly challenged in court.
Certificate holders shouldn't refrain from just legal action due to fear of unfair repercussions from police licensing departments. The deciding factor for most is cost which is where shooting organizations should step in. For cases that impact and could ultimately help all shooters they should consider supporting non members legal action.
rocketdogbert
Super member
I agree with all of this. In principle you are completely correct. I’ll leave it at that
Redboat01
Member Extraordinaire
While partially accurate, this is a bit misleading. It is perfectly possible for an individual to take legal action without the backing of a shooting organisation. This would be quite a bit of money for an individual, however, it is possible to get legal insurance for it (but this would need to be before you are aware of any issue):
https://www.ccc3.co.uk/shooting-insurance
Sharing this as an example, I have no relation with this company apart from as a paying customer. They then cover legal expenses up to a maximum value, but only if, on evaluation, you are more than 50% likely to succeed in your case.
rocketdogbert
Super member
You’re taking my reply out of context. I was replying to somebody insisting BASC or similar “take the police to court”, and pointing out you can’t just do that. Nothing to do with private individuals at all.
Here’s the NGO's Senior Firearms Adviser, Alan Barrell, addressing a recent issue that gained traction on social media.
After a number of questions from members - and following a misinterpretation of firearms legislation by West Mercia Police - the NGO met with the force to resolve the matter.
West Mercia had refused several renewals for Section 1 shotguns on the basis that the same job could be done with another gun, and because they considered S1 shotguns “more dangerous” and at greater risk of being stolen.
The NGO challenged this approach, clarified the correct legal position, and the situation has now been resolved.
This is yet another example of the NGO working hard for our members and the wider gamekeeping and shooting community.
There is a Video on the NGO Facebook page.
Here is the video for those not on Facebook .
After a number of questions from members - and following a misinterpretation of firearms legislation by West Mercia Police - the NGO met with the force to resolve the matter.
West Mercia had refused several renewals for Section 1 shotguns on the basis that the same job could be done with another gun, and because they considered S1 shotguns “more dangerous” and at greater risk of being stolen.
The NGO challenged this approach, clarified the correct legal position, and the situation has now been resolved.
This is yet another example of the NGO working hard for our members and the wider gamekeeping and shooting community.
There is a Video on the NGO Facebook page.
Here is the video for those not on Facebook .
Last edited:
Ashf9999
Super member
Jolly good. Another example of a particular force deciding to interpret the law as they wanted, and not by the book. Well done the NGO & BASC for getting this resolved.