From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<Firstly, this all kicked off with your statement that 5% of
> people who have FAC's are unpleasant, objectionable and
> potentially dangerous. It had nothing to do with those who
> had applied and been refused or have in your view applied
> for "spurious variations". etc etc>>
>
> I repeat. You only see what you want to see. A small number of people.
Do I? This is what you originally posted
"Having worked with licensing for some years, I now
realise the amount of
unpleasant, potentially dangerous and thoroughly
objectionable people that
own firearms certificates. Before I hear the howls of
protest, let me state
that these form about 5% of the total in the area that I
work."
This quite clearly states that 5% of the FAC holders in
your area are "unpleasant, potentially dangerous and
thoroughly objectionable people". Your words, not a case
of me reading anything that isn't actually there.
> I make NO aplology for being outspoken.
Neither do I.
> Look at the responses yourself. One moment you are slagging the government
> off for everything, the next you are saying that the laws should be applied.
If the Laws were applied properly the Government
wouldn't need to introduce new ones to persecute
shooters with.
> You dont really know what side of the fence you want to sit on.
I do, quite clearly.
> I stand by the fact that 5% of the people I deal with are unpleasant,
> objectionable or potentially dangerous. Often all 3.
But you didn't say 5% of the people you deal with, you
said 5% of FAC holders, thats not the same thing.
The law requires me to
> make a judgement. Like it or not, that is the way of things in this country.
> Accepted, there is total freedom for people to be objectionable and
> unpleasant and still own a firearm. Not so for the potentially dangerous.
> The point is this. Numbers do not matter.
But numbers *do* matter, 0.2% is a world away from 5%
There are people who should not,
> in any circumstances, be allowed near a firearm.
Agreed!
> I do my job and try to ensure that this is the case. I make no apologies for
> doing so. After all, even Steve tells me that this is the job of the police,
> so I don't expect any criticism for ensuring the safety of the public. The
> law requires evidence before a revocation is made. Not merely 3rd hand
> hearsay. It is very difficult to get that evidence.
I thought that appeals against revocation or renewal or
grant could indeed take into account hearsay?
> Does anyone know any person who has justifiably had a cert revoked?
As I have pointed out, Yes.
I wager
> that no one will admit it here! (as it seems the overiding view is that
> anyone should be able to carry anything they want at any time and at any
> place.)
No it isn't, you are being overly dramatic here.
Jonathan Laws.
--
Section 44 appeals can take into account hearsay and the police
in my appeals used a hell of a lot of it. Judges aren't too
impressed when they do though. In fact, the police don't
even have to tell you why your certificate was revoked, and
you can turn up to court not having the vaguest idea what
is going on.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
