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

Not sure if any of this is new/unknown info (some of it was to me)


https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... acquitted/

Obviously section 11(4) is useful for some to have so doing away with it would cause some problems. But the fact these people put it at risk with their stupidity, and were completely above the law, does call for some sort of change. The question is, what is the solution? Make sure that all ranges operating under 11(4) are inspected for safety? Ensure that a qualified RCO is present at all times?

I have no experience of section 11(4) so I don't know the answer but I'm sure plenty here do.

Thanks for posting that CraigH, having watched a short report on the T.V. news some time ago I wondered when the case was going to court and what the result would be.
To be perfectly honest I'm totally shocked that they got off so lightly. I couldn't believe what I was watching on the T.V. and that any shooter would act so irresponsibly in such a reckless manner beggars belief. Not only did they totally abuse a well used exemption that small bore clubs often rely upon but they also brought the sport into disrepute.

Chapuis wrote:Thanks for posting that CraigH, having watched a short report on the T.V. news some time ago I wondered when the case was going to court and what the result would be.
To be perfectly honest I'm totally shocked that they got off so lightly. I couldn't believe what I was watching on the T.V. and that any shooter would act so irresponsibly in such a reckless manner beggars belief. Not only did they totally abuse a well used exemption that small bore clubs often rely upon but they also brought the sport into disrepute.

They aren't shooters as we know them. They are wannabe gangstas that were exploiting a legal exemption to pretend to be gangstas. Not a single person had any interest in safe shooting, just looking a certain way on social media.

I don't know about wannabe gangstas but what they were doing was certainly criminal.

Any body make a note of who their brief was, because I certainly want that guy representing me if I am ever up in the criminal court.

I'm afraid, it was the correct verdict and judgement. The law is such and in regards to acquiring and keeping the guns and ammo for the "range", that was lawful. But, the Judge's and the Specialist Prosecutors words will be heeded in the Home Office. Expect this exemption to disappear whenever new primary legislation is brought forward...

Yes I don't doubt that you are absolutely correct Sim G.
They have been mooting that they wish to dispose of this exemption for some time now as they see it as a legal loophole. I've read of a couple of cases of "wise guys" who have used the exemption to their advantage in one instance where I believe a firearm was removed from a premise due to inadequate supervision and used to commit an extremely serious crime.

Pippin89 wrote: But the fact these people put it at risk with their stupidity, and were completely above the law, does call for some sort of change.

no it doesn't they went to court and were dealt with. if they were above the law, that wouldn't have happened.

DO NOT WISH MORE LAWS ON US

if you are found to be unsafe, there are more than enough laws in existence to deal with it.

bradaz11 wrote:

Pippin89 wrote: But the fact these people put it at risk with their stupidity, and were completely above the law, does call for some sort of change.

no it doesn't they went to court and were dealt with. if they were above the law, that wouldn't have happened.

DO NOT WISH MORE LAWS ON US

if you are found to be unsafe, there are more than enough laws in existence to deal with it.

They were presumably operating a business, I wonder if prosecution under health and safety legislation was considered. The penalties available to the courts under such legislation can be considerable.

Essex have been recomending RFD to not sell onto these showman exemption tickets since the case began .. something along the lines of 'we cant stop you but we would prefer you not too '