From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Snip-
>Unless shooting/detaining burglars is covered by <some other purpose
>connected with its use> from the said paragraph (b), then it may be assumed
>that if said firearms are not locked away, then I am not keeping them to
the
>conditions of the certificate.
>Tim
Tim,
I've had some interesting conversations with Richard Worth on this one. I
pointed out to him that my certificate must be lawful authority to possess
as without one I would be comitting an offence.
That being so, how could I then be prosecuted for carrying a firearm in a
public place
because if I had such authority, I could not possibly commit the offence.
(Debates in the 1967 Criminal Justice Act confirm that a certificate is
lawful authority by the way)
I understood his reply to mean that you have authority to possess but thats
all. The inference was that whenever you carried your firearms in a public
place you could be committing an offence. Which is why shooters have been
prosecuted (persecuted) in every conceiveable way when carrying firearms.
Do what I did. Learn the law, learn your rights and then let no bast**d take
them away from you.
They cannot do it openly, only by stealth.
Regards,
Mike Burke.
P.S. Section 'b' would cover not having the gun in a
safe when you were at home because it would be in use under "for some other
purpose connected with its use".
Even Mr Worth was stumped on that one<G>
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
