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

Walking to a shoot, even walking through town to a Gunshop from the car park, no issue, you have your lawful authority/reasonable excuse. Having it over you shoulder in case of assault, then no you don’t have lawful authority.

If, on the other hand you were walking to the Gunshop with it for sale and fame upon a situation where you believed reasonable in the circumstances to use the gun, then that would be lawful.

Sim G, surely the judge/jury would also need to believe the circumstances were reasonable?

Pete

Sim G wrote:Walking to a shoot, even walking through town to a Gunshop from the car park, no issue, you have your lawful authority/reasonable excuse. Having it over you shoulder in case of assault, then no you don’t have lawful authority.

If, on the other hand you were walking to the Gunshop with it for sale and fame upon a situation where you believed reasonable in the circumstances to use the gun, then that would be lawful.

What would be the situation if, as an example, someone was driving back from the range and stopped in a carpark and found there was a person in the carpark walking around randomly blasting people with a shotgun......would it be considered reasonable to take a rifle from the boot of the car, load it up and put an end to the killing or would you be expected to keep your head down and wait for the arrival of an armed response unit?.....

But my point is, for airguns and Sec1 firearms you need a lawful authority via a reasonable excuse, but under the various firearms acts there is no requirement to provide a reason for an unloaded Sec2 in a public place.

"Firearms Act 1968
1968 CHAPTER 27

19Carrying firearm in a public place
A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place a loaded shot gun or loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm."

And no.....I'm not planning on trying it out, but just thinking of this as an academic discussion


....just re-read, and it looks like we can break out the Webley Tempests as well!!!

Dark Skies wrote:
I live in a pretty small market town. Last year a friend was mugged for his phone and whatever money he had left from a night in the pub. To get his old 'smart' phone and chump change they gave him a bloody good kicking and a boot to the head when he was down.
That latter spiteful kick could have killed him.
They just don't care any more. You only have to look at the rise in knife crime to see that.
A regular person in the street is easy meat to a couple of thugs with no restraint. They wander among us without much fear of getting caught - and rightly so given the cuts in policing resources. Sentencing isn't much of a deterrent either - chopped in half to accommodate logistical problems with overcrowded prisons.

Using this experience as an example.... The result was being battered and bruised, and missing a phone and a few quid.

Now lets assume, in a world where guns where readily available, the same situation arises. Your friend pulls out their gun, the mugger pulls out their gun, both panic and get a couple of shots off before a fatal shot is fired. Now one (or more likely both) people involved in the situation are dead.

The situation escalated rather quickly from a few injuries to multiple deaths. On the very remote chance that the mugger, with our current laws, had managed to get hold of a gun then the chances are it would have been used to intimidate to carry out the mugging and your friend (although maybe traumatised) probably would have been saved a kicking!

Fedaykin wrote:Frankly your argument is paranoid, normal people going about their lives shouldn't need to spend their time preparing for a 'what-if' scenario.

You wont need a fire extinguisher then.
Nor a a seat belt.
Nor car insurance.
Nor life insurance.

Pete wrote:Surely if everyone has a right to carry, then the muggers aren't going to walk around with a knife or a bit of gas pipe, they'll be tooled up, same as everybody else.
It won't be a case of "have they or haven't they", it'll be BANG (or more likely phut), get his/her wallet and leg it...............
And I still think my comments about people being likely to want guns to impress, or make a personal statement, is valid.
Our current laws do at least make a gesture towards keeping a lid on mayhem, although the application is sometimes wanting...............

Pete

The evidence does not support that.

Quite the opposite !

breacher wrote:

Fedaykin wrote:Frankly your argument is paranoid, normal people going about their lives shouldn't need to spend their time preparing for a 'what-if' scenario.

You wont need a fire extinguisher then.
Nor a a seat belt. We live in a
Nor car insurance.
Nor life insurance.

Not a fair comparison, Fire Extinguishers and seat belts are established safety tools that are legally required they are not intended to be able to take a life. Car insurance has mutual societal and personal benefit. Life insurance is a choice but not necessary, having it or not does not cause harm.

The reality is this is an absurd debate there is ZERO chance of Parliament ever legislating to allow concealed carry, there are some very vague circumstances where a gun could be used for self defence but you are risking plenty trying to find the edge of where the law sits on that especially when it comes to the concept of 'intent'.

Fedaykin wrote:there are some very vague circumstances where a gun could be used for self defence but you are risking plenty trying to find the edge of where the law sits on that especially when it comes to the concept of 'intent'.

Well said.... Frankly if you ever found yourself in the situation where a mad man is gunning down school children and you happened to be there and happened to have your gun on you legally (on your way to a shoot or something...) then chances are you would probably take out your gun and shoot him. But you would have to do so well within the knowledge that you are breaking the law and are likely to be, at the very least, relieved of your FAC and guns, and possibly have more serious legal repercussions.

snayperskaya wrote:

Sim G wrote:Walking to a shoot, even walking through town to a Gunshop from the car park, no issue, you have your lawful authority/reasonable excuse. Having it over you shoulder in case of assault, then no you don’t have lawful authority.

If, on the other hand you were walking to the Gunshop with it for sale and fame upon a situation where you believed reasonable in the circumstances to use the gun, then that would be lawful.

What would be the situation if, as an example, someone was driving back from the range and stopped in a carpark and found there was a person in the carpark walking around randomly blasting people with a shotgun......would it be considered reasonable to take a rifle from the boot of the car, load it up and put an end to the killing or would you be expected to keep your head down and wait for the arrival of an armed response unit?.....

The situation seems pretty clear to me.
Wait until you are shot and hope you don't bleed out.
Slot the bugger and take your chances with a jury of your peers.
In any event the latter choice permits you to continue living. It's unlikely you would be convicted under the above circumstances. The cynic in me says it would help your case to allow at least one 'collateral damage' before opening fire. It would highlight the urgency of the situation at the time. I'm only half saying that tongue in cheek.

I would have had zero issue in topping Michael Ryan under the very well known circumstances of his killing spree.
I occasionally wonder if, in a rural town such as Hungerford, such a person had been able to drop him but chose not to for fear of legal repercussions.