rifle shoot organisers

[brown dog]

it is up to you, but stop and think.

 

If you do not put any reference to section 21 and the person turns out to be dodgy you've not asked the question i.e. you are at fault, so for a simple wording you're covered.

 

 

Can't follow that. If you have a valid FAC, you can't be a prohibited person. There's no second question to ask (unless you're into tautologies (but that'll set Gbal off! ))

 

To a FAC holder, the section 21 question is effectively saying 'do you really really promise that that FAC is valid?.

 

Do RFDs ask the section 21 question to FAC holders when selling rifles and ammo?

"Thanks for the FAC, but it may not be valid. Please would you sign a section 21 declaration before I pass you this firearm and ammunition."

Do they boll'x! People are scared of their own shadows nowadays.

[tackb]

 

Can't follow that. If you have a valid FAC, you can't be a prohibited person. There's no second question to ask (unless you're into tautologies (but that'll set Gbal off! ))

 

To a FAC holder, the section 21 question is effectively saying 'do you really really promise that that FAC is valid?.

 

Do RFDs ask the section 21 question to FAC holders when selling rifles and ammo?

"Thanks for the FAC, but it may not be valid. Please would you sign a section 21 declaration before I pass you this firearm and ammunition."

Do they boll'x! People are scared of their own shadows nowadays.

 

and if there isn't enough shadows to be scared about they make some new unnecessary ones ..............

[bradders]

[terryh]

Gents,

 

As I said, it is entirly up to you what you do and when, you might live/exist in a nice protected World where legalities are taken care of out of your sight (or responsibility), some of us do not so we learn as we go along.

 

So for the sake of adding a single line into a competition sign up form you put a layer between yourself and any legal crap, your house your rules.

 

But this is simply a discussion, Bradder's view, 'don't give a *hit', BD & TacB , I'm in the right so I'll also don't give a *hit, me, for 30 seconds of typing (longer than responding to this post) I'd make the minimal effort and put something in.

 

If I'm right or wrong, quite crudly - I don't give a flying *uck to be honest !

 

Just do what you see best - simple as that.

 

Re. the gun dealer analogy - quite correct, he is simply following the law as written and more than likely has professional insurance to cover legal costs etc. against his company, which would not have any threat say on his home (if he has things set up correctly). What club official has specific legal insurance for his actions, some might, some probably won't - nice gamble on your home in our litiguous enviroment? So trusting an SSC or FAC (when you know the former is abused) is abolsute madness. remember, it is all fun and games until someone pokes an eye out?

 

T

[bradders]

As I said earlier, since I started shooting Practical Rifle in about 1997, that S21 declaration has been on entry forms.

The declaration I posted up from the NRA CSR page didn't originate from us, they put it on there themselves, but the declaration statement is more or less the same.

 

So it must've originated somewhere, and my guess it is a MoD condition or similar.

 

We do it as a matter of course and don't bat an eyelid.

If others don't want to do it, then fine it doesn't bother me one bit

 

Crack on

 

As stated also earlier by me, in 18 years of competitive shooting I have never been asked to show a FAC.

The NRA don't ask for them, (it would be f**kin' difficult with online entry anyway) but they, like others, do ask for FAC number and expiry date.

Probably always have too

[brown dog]

Gents,

 

As I said, it is entirly up to you what you do and when, you might live/exist in a nice protected World where legalities are taken care of out of your sight (or responsibility), some of us do not so we learn as we go along.

 

So for the sake of adding a single line into a competition sign up form you put a layer between yourself and any legal crap, your house your rules.

 

But this is simply a discussion, Bradder's view, 'don't give a *hit', BD & TacB , I'm in the right so I'll also don't give a *hit, me, for 30 seconds of typing (longer than responding to this post) I'd make the minimal effort and put something in.

 

If I'm right or wrong, quite crudly - I don't give a flying *uck to be honest !

 

Just do what you see best - simple as that.

 

Re. the gun dealer analogy - quite correct, he is simply following the law as written and more than likely has professional insurance to cover legal costs etc. against his company, which would not have any threat say on his home (if he has things set up correctly). What club official has specific legal insurance for his actions, some might, some probably won't - nice gamble on your home in our litiguous enviroment? So trusting an SSC or FAC (when you know the former is abused) is abolsute madness. remember, it is all fun and games until someone pokes an eye out?

 

T

 

I also don't actually care, but it's a superb psychological issue that's being played out here. 'If I put a line in and get a signature, I'm absolved of all responsibility' - think you'd recognise/admit that real life, particularly when played out in court, isn't actually as simple as that

 

 

(It's also rather bemusing to try to work out quite what it is, now that we've got a criminal in possession of illegally held firearms (but who's peculiarly gone to the bother of getting himself himself to a legal club to use them! ) that people think the 'disclaimer' protects them from. Anyone?)

[brown dog]

As I said earlier, since I started shooting Practical Rifle in about 1997, that S21 declaration has been on entry forms.

The declaration I posted up from the NRA CSR page didn't originate from us, they put it on there themselves, but the declaration statement is more or less the same.

 

So it must've originated somewhere, and my guess it is a MoD condition or similar.

 

We do it as a matter of course and don't bat an eyelid.

If others don't want to do it, then fine it doesn't bother me one bit

 

Crack on

 

As stated also earlier by me, in 18 years of competitive shooting I have never been asked to show a FAC.

The NRA don't ask for them, (it would be f**kin' difficult with online entry anyway) but they, like others, do ask for FAC number and expiry date.

Probably always have too

 

As with everything NRA, it'll be a product of rigorous and intelligent risk analysis: 'but that's how we've always done it'.

 

But, you're right:

 

[bradders]

Actually it's probably more relevant if Joe Bloggs turns up with his mate to let him have a crack with his spare rifle, and him only just recently being let out of the pokey

[John MH]

SECTION 21 DISCLAIMER

 

It is an offence for someone who is prohibited by Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 to have a firearm or ammunition in his or her possession at any time. Section 21 applies to anybody who has been sentenced to imprisonment or to youth custody or detention in a young offenders’ institution for three months or more. The period for which they are prohibited depends on the length of their sentence, if the sentence was longer than three years the prohibition is for life. If the sentence was three months or more but less than three years, the prohibition lasts for five years from the date of their release. It is an offence for a person to transfer, let or hire, give or lend a firearm or ammunition to someone whom he/she knows has reasonable grounds for believing to be prohibited by Section 21.

 

Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 covers persons who are banned from being in possession of firearms or ammunition.

 

It is an offence for a shooting range operator to knowingly allow persons who are banned under section 21 from using guns at the range, whether or not there is a section 11(6) permit in operation.

 

Best practice is to identify all non-certificate holders (by requesting sight of license on all entrants), and any who cannot produce a certificate are asked to sign in on a form such as the pro-forma or Entry Forms discussed.

 

Note, that persons not in possession of a current certificate because of a revocation are not banned persons unless they have also had a custodial sentence as defined by section 21. These persons may be able to shoot legally under the provisions of section 11(6).

 

 

So to get a signature on a Section 21 declaration covers your ass as you’ve asked the question and if they lie you are not ‘Knowingly’ letting them break the law.

[brown dog]

SECTION 21 DISCLAIMER

 

It is an offence for someone who is prohibited by Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 to have a firearm or ammunition in his or her possession at any time. Section 21 applies to anybody who has been sentenced to imprisonment or to youth custody or detention in a young offenders’ institution for three months or more. The period for which they are prohibited depends on the length of their sentence, if the sentence was longer than three years the prohibition is for life. If the sentence was three months or more but less than three years, the prohibition lasts for five years from the date of their release. It is an offence for a person to transfer, let or hire, give or lend a firearm or ammunition to someone whom he/she knows has reasonable grounds for believing to be prohibited by Section 21.

 

Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 covers persons who are banned from being in possession of firearms or ammunition.

 

It is an offence for a shooting range operator to knowingly allow persons who are banned under section 21 from using guns at the range, whether or not there is a section 11(6) permit in operation.

 

Best practice is to identify all non-certificate holders (by requesting sight of license on all entrants), and any who cannot produce a certificate are asked to sign in on a form such as the pro-forma or Entry Forms discussed.

 

Note, that persons not in possession of a current certificate because of a revocation are not banned persons unless they have also had a custodial sentence as defined by section 21. These persons may be able to shoot legally under the provisions of section 11(6).

 

 

So to get a signature on a Section 21 declaration covers your ass as you’ve asked the question and if they lie you are not ‘Knowingly’ letting them break the law.

 

...all of that reads as saying it's a disclaimer required only of persons not in possession of a FAC! :)

[John MH]

Yes, but if you get them to sign it anyway its proof you asked the question so you are not 'Knowingly' letting them shoot on your range when they are not legally allowed to. As I said its purely ass covering. I ask for a signature on the RBL Entry Forms, on the day I ask to see a SSC Card as I don't need to see the FAC. Would it stand up in court, don't know and don't know what circumstances a match organiser would be challenged and I'm not lending any firearms or ammunition. Hey ho, if someone doesn't want to sign a declaration when asked thats up to them, right to refuse entry and all that.

[terryh]

Yes, but if you get them to sign it anyway its proof you asked the question so you are not 'Knowingly' letting them shoot on your range when they are not legally allowed to. As I said its purely ass covering. I ask for a signature on the RBL Entry Forms, on the day I ask to see a SSC Card as I don't need to see the FAC. Would it stand up in court, don't know and don't know what circumstances a match organiser would be challenged and I'm not lending any firearms or ammunition. Hey ho, if someone doesn't want to sign a declaration when asked thats up to them, right to refuse entry and all that.

This.

 

BD, you are obsolutly correct, it might not actually 'do' anything legally, but if you've not bothered to ask in the first place then 'you' have not bothered, 'you' did not try!

 

Simple CYA.

 

Question - do you want it to be tested in case law? (which the other day eveyone was pissing and moaning about yes or no to transporting ammo in magazines - be good to have bit of consistency here please?)

 

T

[brown dog]

This.

 

BD, you are obsolutly correct, it might not actually 'do' anything legally, but if you've not bothered to ask in the first place then 'you' have not bothered, 'you' did not try!

 

Simple CYA.

 

Question - do you want it to be tested in case law? (which the other day eveyone was pissing and moaning about yes or no to transporting ammo in magazines - be good to have bit of consistency here please?)

 

T

 

Tel,

 

What you have here is the equivalent of letting a car with only a self-declaration that the person isn't banned - but never actually asking to see their driving licence.

 

The requirement is clearly articulated in John's copy/paste. The section 21 declaration only applies to non-FAC holders. There's no ambiguity.

 

 

Best practice is to identify all non-certificate holders (by requesting sight of license on all entrants), and any who cannot produce a certificate are asked to sign in on a form such as the pro-forma or Entry Forms discussed.

 

'Section 21 for all' is classic perpetuation of a shooting myth created by someone back in the mists of time who didn't understand what they were reading. And now it's become 'fact'. A self-imposed made-up rule.

 

But now that it's become an embedded faux-fact, I can see that it's easier just to comply....and the sky might fall on our heads.

 

 

There's no case Law to establish here. "Why did you let him shoot?" "He showed me his FAC". End of conversation.

[terryh]

Matt,

 

You are absolutly right, it is probably a 'habit' just to comply with trends, what's gone before, 'I saw this somewhere so it must be right. We have it on the range sign on sheet, along with 'you will aboide by range rules, etc.etc.' One sheet, all sign, regardless of thier status, FAC posssion, whatever. Think it also asks if you are currently suffering from any medical condition or taking medication that might affect thier abilty to shoot - after having a person who had a heart condition flake out on the range. Just process.

 

Re.the car hire - I pick up cars or have them dropped to my house all the time, will be doing so tonight, without ever showing my license - just photo ID so not sure I get your frift on this (but it is early here after night on the lash?)

 

Did you have a specific time for this sky falling you mentioned BTW?

 

T

[brown dog]

Re.the car hire - I pick up cars or have them dropped to my house all the time, will be doing so tonight, without ever showing my license - just photo ID so not sure I get your frift on this (but it is early here after night on the lash?)

 

 

You must have shown it to the company at some point! I've never hired a car without being required to show both parts of my driving licence. (Unless, of course, your hire company is owned by the same bloke who started this section 21 'fact' across UK shooters )

[John MH]

Never had to show my driving licence for a MoD hired car.

[brown dog]

Never had to show my driving licence for a MoD hired car.

Is that a waaaaaaa?! Your MT will have seen/have a record of your FMT600!?!

[John MH]

I usually collect the keys from the civvy car park attendant at the dockyard car park, he doesn't ask to see my CDL. We don't have an MT Secton it's been privatised.