Originally Posted by
HCM
I was referring to use of shotguns by Police - it was explained to me the use of shotguns by police was frowned on because they are considered hunting weapons intended for use on animals and therefore using them on people was inhumane and degrading.
I get it, but I still want to say...complaining about being hung with a new rope.
Although, I can imagine the grabbers manufacturing a similar reaction if circumstances led to a US police officer taking out a bad guy with a really nice pre-64 Winchester that he (or she) usually uses for elk. Diane Feinstein has already talked about it being "legal to hunt humans."
I'll be honest, I thought it was kinda weird to see a pair of foot patrol officers in dress uniform walk past the restaurant with SMGs when I was in Italy.
RE ammo limits in the UK: There is a section starting on p. 27 of the linked document banning expanding ammo except for specific purposes, which include hunting deer and rabbits. You have to convince the local CLEO that one of the specifically allowed purposes applies to your situation, and then your permission slip will include quantity limits.
The bulk purchase of ammunition for the purpose of economy is not acceptable as good
reason for possession. Possession of 250 rounds for deer stalking, and possession of 750
rounds for vermin control should generally be regarded as reasonable (but see paragraph
4.7 and Chapter 13).
13.24 Those involved in shooting vermin will normally be authorised to possess up to 750
rounds. Expanding ammunition may be authorised for this purpose. However, larger
allocations may be required in some circumstances, perhaps for individuals who are
responsible for pest control over large areas of land or where there are serious infestations,
for example of rabbits. In such cases, it may be appropriate to authorise the individual to
possess up to 1,500 rounds. These amounts are only guides and should not be seen as
absolute limits to be applied in all cases. An applicant who is responsible for a lot of pest
control may reasonably want two rifles firing the same, or a closely allied cartridge.
Fox
13.25 [...]
Those involved in shooting foxes will normally be authorised to possess up to 250 rounds,
but consideration should be given to each shooter’s individual circumstances, particularly
where re-loaders are acquiring missiles. See also paragraph 13.9 on allowing the applicant
flexibility to reasonably shoot other species on named land.
Deer
13.30 [...]
Deer stalkers will normally be authorised to possess up to 250 rounds of ammunition but
account should be taken of individual circumstances, for example where re-loaders are
acquiring missiles or where the shooter is a professional deer stalker.
They're a bit more reasonable for competition:
13.54 Chief officers of police should also consider the “good reason” for possession of
ammunition quantities for target shooting. Allocations of 1,000 rounds, to possess,
purchase or acquire, are not unreasonable for most regular shooters. A serious target
shooter (for example in a county or national squad) may reasonably wish to possess up
to 6,000 rounds to ensure consistency in performance between batches. In exceptional
circumstances greater amounts may be required. These figures should be used as guides
only and should not be interpreted as absolute limits. This is normally applicable to .22RF
rather than full-bore target shooting. Economy of purchase (‘bulk buying’) is not considered
satisfactory as “good reason”.
Here's the big question:
Firearms for personal protection
13.80 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicant’s, or another’s, protection,
or that of premises, should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an acceptable
means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the view of successive Governments for
many years that the private possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is
likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle should be maintained in the
case of applications from representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large
quantities of money, or from private security guards and bodyguards. *The exception to
this would be armed guards on UK flagged ships, the justification being the unique threat
posed by piracy to cargo and passenger ships in specific high risk geographical areas.
*I added the bold.
Reply With Quote
