From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<You said that George Harrison could have used (ie had the right to use)
a legally held shotgun for self defence and no jury would convict.
Possibly true, but you failed to answer my question on whether he would
continue to be a certificate holder after the acquittal.>>
I apologise for not answering your point, I must have missed it by accident.
If a person was placed in such a position whereby he saved his own or
anothers life by using a legally held firearm, and did so under
circumstances that fell within the law, i.e. as much force as reasonably
necessary, etc. then there would not be the slightest problem with that
person retaining their firearm or shotgun certificate.
Dont forget, there is always a right of appeal to crown court. How could
such an appeal be defended by the police?
My own licensing department would examine all the circumstances and if the
person was either aquitted or not charged with any offence, then the status
quo would be retained.
Not that I expect many people to believe me.
IG
--
No I don't, well, at least in the general sense, because Section 27
says the person must not pose a threat to "public safety or the
peace", and while your licensing dept may not revoke their
certificate, I'm pretty sure there are plenty out there who would
revoke it on the basis that it violated the peace. (The cynic
inside of me wants to say, the peace of sitting at their desk
undisturbed).
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
