Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2009

Tackleberry.

Sec 3 D (1)(G) act2009

I've been looking and can find it... Well at least what my super is referring it too.. "designed for use" trying to figure out that this also applied to centre fire firearms issued in 2008..don't think it does myself, but can't find the act..

Sparks

3D(1) only goes as far as (c) Tackleberry, there is no (g).

Restriction on licensing of short firearms.
3D.— (1) As and from the date of commencement of this section, no application for a firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm shall be considered by an issuing person other than for—

(a) a device capable of discharging blank ammunition and to be used as a starting gun or blank firing gun;

(b) a short firearm of a type specified at paragraph 4(2)(e) of the Fire-arms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 (S.I. No. 21 of 2008) and designed for use as so specified;

(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

(2) Any firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm, other than one to which paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) relates, granted between 19 November 2008 and the date of commencement of this section and in force shall stand revoked.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “short fire arm” means a firearm either with a barrel not longer than 30 centimetres or whose overall length (excluding the length of any detachable component) does not exceed 60 centimetres.

Inserted by the 2009 Act, never modified thereafter.

In fact, there are only six lists in the entire Act (as amended) that go as far as a (g). You sure it's not a typo for a (c) ?

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

3D(1) only goes as far as (c) Tackleberry, there is no (g).



Inserted by the 2009 Act, never modified thereafter.

In fact, there are only six lists in the entire Act (as amended) that go as far as a (g). You sure it's not a typo for a (c) ?

Must be a typo on his part, thx for posting it Sparks👍

Cass

Out of curiosity what was it about?

Tackleberry.

I am reapplying for my S&W 357 after a refusal last May...

Cass

Ah. If i'm being nosy tell me to feck off.

Did he refuse based on the design as per your first post? IOW its not suitable for target shooting?

Or was there another reason?

Tackleberry.

Design was his issue and storage. Hopefully this new application will go better.

turismo2142

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Design was his issue and storage. Hopefully this new application will go better.

I'm curious.

What was his issue with storage? And I'm at a loss to understand how the second application can alter his "design" concern?

It'll be off to the DC ultimately I'm afraid by the sounds of it.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Design was his issue ..............

Love how they can decide it's not suitable without ever firing one or knowing about it other than pictures on the net.

.............. and storage.

Home or transporting?

Tackleberry.

Cass wrote: »

Love how they can decide it's not suitable without ever firing one or knowing about it other than pictures on the net.

Home or transporting?

Just need to put a better application together to tackle the design issue.
I've the storage sorted just a upgrade in security.