Significant incident Plymouth

Troezar said:
You do realise they are only 2 shot? Hence no preban revolvers or pistols were "transferred".
Click to expand...

That's not at all true mate. Depends on the force - some will require the mags limited, others won't. The law doesn't stipulate one way or the other.
 
Troezar said:
You're not getting one in the UK, excluding NI. I used to have a Model 23C Glock, zero possibility of owning one now. It was absolutely reliable though, great in competitions despite being a "plastic" gun :cry:
Click to expand...

Well this was about ten years ago and the guy 100% has a Glock automatic variant. I asked him once if I could see and he was stood behind a counter at the time, he took the gun out of the holster and removed the magazine and the chambered round then showed me up close. I didn't bother asking to hold it as it was clear as day he wasn't comfortable showing me. I've never seen a hand gun before so I was curious.
 
robfosters said:
So under these sections, is there any way at all a member of the public could own something like a fully functional Desert Eagle?
Click to expand...
Feek said:
No.
Click to expand...
Clum said:
They are generally granted with restricted magazines (although not exclusively, force dependent) and highly unlikely you'd be given an unnecessarily large calibre, more than is sufficient for the intended purpose. Really not all that much more difficult to obtain than section 1, if you can demonstrate the need for one.
Click to expand...
In your dreams.

Acrotomophilia said:
What FAC licence would you need to own a hand gun? Because I thought that was impossible!
Click to expand...
You won't get one, it's as simple as that.

Acrotomophilia said:
I belonged to a gun club years ago and the owner had a Glock 17 9mm which he carried around in a holster. He had a long career in the military in the Parachute Regiment as a sniper and some other stuff which he wouldn't divulge in.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's a bloke in my local pub like that. He often alludes to the stuff he's 'not allowed to talk about' and like 20,000 other people, he was first into the Embassy.
 
Feek said:
In your dreams.


You won't get one, it's as simple as that.


Yeah, there's a bloke in my local pub like that. He often alludes to the stuff he's 'not allowed to talk about' and like 20,000 other people, he was first into the Embassy.
Click to expand...

There are photos of him in his regiment all over his office wall and tours he did during his time as a para, he certainly wasn't full of **** and didn't run his mouth telling wild stories etc. I just wanted to know how he would be able to have a hand gun that was all.
 
Acrotomophilia said:
I just wanted to know how he would be able to have a hand gun that was all.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any regulations that allow an ex squaddie or a civilian to carry a holstered handgun around with them. I recall seeing quite a few cases of ex-forces members being prosecuted for having unlicensed firearms so it's not a case of the laws not applying to them.

On the range, it's a different matter. If he's the range owner and his range is approved for Section 5 use, he might well have some weapons there.

I think that Leicester Shooting Centre is one of the few ranges approved for Section 5.
 
robfosters said:
Don’t start blaming this on the government. The police have plenty enough resources to make the decision that someone who’s a sandwich short of a picnic should not have a gun licence.
Click to expand...

His weapons were taken away because of an allegation of an assault. They were given back, presumably, because that didn’t go anywhere. How were police to know he was a fruitcake?
 
Feek said:
Yeah, there's a bloke in my local pub like that. He often alludes to the stuff he's 'not allowed to talk about' and like 20,000 other people, he was first into the Embassy.
Click to expand...

haha!

gotta agree with Feek on this one, there’s no way he’d be getting away with that, ex para or not.
 
hurfdurf said:
His weapons were taken away because of an allegation of an assault. They were given back, presumably, because that didn’t go anywhere. How were police to know he was a fruitcake?
Click to expand...
No, it was given back because he had attended an anger management course.

if someone needs an anger management course, they are not a suitable person to own a pump action shotgun ffs

And to top it off, his own family had been pleadingly the NHS and the police for him to receive mental health care. This had **** all to do with the government, it’s a failure of the system and pure negligence.
 
robfosters said:
No, it was given back because he had attended an anger management course.

if someone needs an anger management course, they are not a suitable person to own a pump action shotgun ffs

And to top it off, his own family has been pleadingly the NHS and the police for him to receive mental health care. This had **** all to do with the government, it’s a failure of the system and pure negligence.
Click to expand...
100%
 
And another thing, his own father had contacted police to tell them he didn’t think he was a fit person to own a gun.
 
Last edited:
Acrotomophilia said:
@Feek-Admin What FAC licence would you need to own a hand gun? Because I thought that was impossible! I belonged to a gun club years ago and the owner had a Glock 17 9mm which he carried around in a holster. He had a long career in the military in the Parachute Regiment as a sniper and some other stuff which he wouldn't divulge in.
Click to expand...

Lets just say the very few people (civilian with a military/intelligence background) who were, or are (not sure if it is still the case), permitted to carry handguns in this country do so for security reasons which mean they wouldn't be showing those weapons off as their (and/or other peoples') security depends on being incognito. In a previous job I worked on the development of special requirement equipment related to this so I have a vague idea but don't know details.

(Mostly it was stuff like this https://corporate.pittards.com/pittards-makes-a-stitch-in-time-for-local-olympian/ ).

Aside from that the only people who'd realistically be licensed for stuff like that would be weapon dealers or developers/manufacturers, some very limited movie use and stuff like that and they wouldn't be permitted to just carry them on them.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
haha!

gotta agree with Feek on this one, there’s no way he’d be getting away with that, ex para or not.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure he was more than just a para and had it for reprisals or something along those lines. As I I have posted above he wasn't full of **** and didn't tell stories! The gun was the real deal and he showed me across a counter top about two feet from me. The club had a huge walk in armoury to house the usual rifles, shotguns and ammunition which was alarmed to the local police station so all was above board so I wouldn't have thought he obtained it illegally.
 
robfosters said:
No, it was given back because he had attended an anger management course.

if someone needs an anger management course, they are not a suitable person to own a pump action shotgun ffs

And to top it off, his own family had been pleadingly the NHS and the police for him to receive mental health care. This had **** all to do with the government, it’s a failure of the system and pure negligence.
Click to expand...

Im ACAB through and through, but so many times initial reports are full of absolute rubbish. So let’s wait to find out who did what.

I’m very very sceptical police will have documented reports from concerned parties that he shouldn’t have a shot gun, but ignored it and granted the licence back anyway. We shall see, shocking if that is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom