onetimecypher wrote: »

No. No written refusal and my 3mths up in Jan and 30days to appeal up before end Feb. (New chief super anti gun)

This is a slightly different scenario as being refused, and getting such a refusal in writing.

As you noted from the other thread this is not an uncommon thing. Now bear with me on this.

Under section 3(9) and 3(10) you are entitled to be notified of a refusal in the form of a written refusal if unsuccessful on an application or renewal. The commissioner's guidelines says that under section 15 of the 1925 act as amended by section 43 of the 2006 act, any person not receiving notification within 3 months is deemed refused. This has long being thought of as "if you don't get a refusal after three months, you're refused". However i dispute that interpretation because the same section contradicts itself.

Section 15 of the principal act deals with persons in possession of a firearm intent on doing harm to another. Section 43 of the 2006 act, which amends section 15, gives your options if such a refusal takes place.

In section 43(2) of the 2006 act it says:

(2) An appeal shall be made within 30 days of receipt of notice of the decision concerned.

So even though you have received no notification of a decision the section says you must lodge an appeal within 30 days of being notified.

Then section 43(5)(b)&(c) says if the 3 months go by and you have received NO notification then this is your notification and section 3(10) of the principal act is void.

IOW they don't have to inform you.

The updated commissioner's guidelines says:

Where an application is refused, the issuing person shall inform the applicant in writing of the refusal and the reason(s) for it. In recent years, the Courts have consistently stressed the importance of an issuing superintendent or chief superintendent to clearly provide a refused applicant with a REASONED decision for a refusal, thus affording the person the opportunity to challenge the decision by way of appeal to the District Court.

In simple terms, a refused applicant should be left in no doubt as to why his/her application has been refused and a mere recital of the legislation in the refusal letter is not deemed sufficient. A refused person should also be informed of his/her right, within 30 days of receipt of the refusal letter, to appeal the decision to refuse to the District Court

This is to cut down on the number of appeals and court cases being taken when no refusal was intended or given and it was just a case of the 3 months expiring before a decision was given on the renewal/application.

You might be saying to yourself what the feck has that to do with me. I know it all, and i'm still legally refused as the 3 months have expired. You're right, legally speaking.

Have you contacted the station to ask if the application was refused, and if so for what reason? If not i'd start there. Inform the FO that you, legally, have been refused as the 3 months are up and you have less than 21 days left to lodge an appeal, however you don't want to do so unless it's an actual refusal and not just a case of the application taking longer than the allotted time.

You can do this while still lodging the appeal, which if you talk to Grizzly_45, doesn't seem to be that hard a thing to do or even expensive. If the AGS come back saying it wasn't refused, just took longer, then you can cancel the appeal. If it is a refusal then you have the case lodged anyway.

TL:DR - Ring the station, talk to the FO, and confirm the refusal while simultaneously lodging the appeal or intent to appeal in your district court.

I've had two restricted renewals in the last month or so. I found them, how can i put this, harder than normal to renew than before.

Way more details asked for, more information, more "proof" of need/use. I was able to supply it all, but a mate went through the same process and due to few (less than 5) visits to the range in the last 18 months due to family/health issues, he was initially refused but managed to convince the CS to issue the renewal on the basis more visits to the range or as it was told to me as told to him, "more visible usage of the weapon" is shown at the next renewal.

I'm always open to a good conspiracy, but i genuinely think there is a concerted effort to reduce numbers of restricted firearms that won't be banned with any new legislation. IOW when they introduce any new legislation that will ban all firearms after the 2008 and 2015 Dail statements, the grandfathered firearms will either be gone already or almost there.

Without going off topic, combine this with the increasing number of issues people are facing regarding straight forward, unrestricted, renewals and its not a stretch to think a "cull" is on.