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

GeeRam wrote:

bhodge wrote: Dummy well and truly spat, or so it seems.

So it would seem.

It's going to be an interesting conversation in a couple of weeks time when I next see the person who is the subject of this thread

I wonder if he even knows about it. Do let us know, please.

I think many of the posts were negative about the club rules, not the police imposed restrictions for an initial grant. Everyone agreed that some of the comments by the copper were bang out of order.

The OP seems to have decided that there should be no limit whatsoever on a FAC first application. And whilst I am the first to agree that as long as you can demonstrate a need / good reason, you should get what you ask for.

But.......there has to be SOME limit surely ?

I would also be curious to hear both sides of the story !

breacher wrote:The OP seems to have decided that there should be no limit whatsoever on a FAC first application. And whilst I am the first to agree that as long as you can demonstrate a need / good reason, you should get what you ask for.

But.......there has to be SOME limit surely ?

I would also be curious to hear both sides of the story !

The fact is there is no limit presently.

Why must you need a limit? What would it achieve?

wildrover77 wrote:
Why must you need a limit? What would it achieve?

Normally I would suggest it's to stop you buying a load of firearms and then realising you don't have the time to shoot them all enough for good reason?

Obviously the (bizarre to me) enforced taking part in all club activities would mean that is not a problem in this case though.

RDC wrote:I think many of the posts were negative about the club rules, not the police imposed restrictions for an initial grant.

I think that's exactly why he got the hump, in that everyone wasn't howling derision about the restriction to only 3 in this case?

RDC wrote: Everyone agreed that some of the comments by the copper were bang out of order.

Agreed, that the comments were far from ideal, but I would say that from what I've heard direct from the applicant, this guy is NOT a copper but civvy staff, and it seems quite new to the Firearms team as well.

We don't know the full facts here having only got a third-hand account. It may be that the FEO has previously advised the club not to push for so many on first grant. It may be that the last ten applicants from the club never filled all their slots and had some removed on renewal. It may be all sorts of things.

What I do know is that flying off the handle, name calling, arguing and flouncing off never achieves anything. I expect more grown-up behaviour from my five-year-old

Just my 2 pennys worth, but if someone is a total novice to shooting sports, surely putting in for a grant of 3-4 firearms, with good reason is enough to take their time up to master the basics? I know its your right to put in for as many as you can justify, but why not learn the ropes and grow into the sport?

Woodworm wrote:Just my 2 pennys worth, but if someone is a total novice to shooting sports, surely putting in for a grant of 3-4 firearms, with good reason is enough to take their time up to master the basics? I know its your right to put in for as many as you can justify, but why not learn the ropes and grow into the sport?

Far too much common sense shown here...

Woodworm wrote:Just my 2 pennys worth, but if someone is a total novice to shooting sports, surely putting in for a grant of 3-4 firearms, with good reason is enough to take their time up to master the basics? I know its your right to put in for as many as you can justify, but why not learn the ropes and grow into the sport?

I agree.

(I will point out though, just for clarity and fairness in this case, that the applicant in question, isn't a total novice to shooting sports in general being a very competent and long time sporting clay shooter, and being only new to small-bore/full-bore rifles)