New section 1 shotgun laws coming

I think Derbyshire has come out and now said they're enforcing this policy now.
Pest control now no longer a good reason for sec1 shotgun.
 
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.
 
Rich79 said:
I think Derbyshire has come out and now said they're enforcing this policy now.
Pest control now no longer a good reason for sec1 shotgun.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Weihrauch17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Weihrauch17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top