Anyone had a visit yet from the police?

[Scully]

I comply with the relevant laws and always secure my guns properly. I have had jump through many hoops to get my certificates and the police have had to satisfy themselves I am a fit and proper person and not a risk before they were granted. If they think this has changed then they should have the courage of their convictions, sieze my guns and revoke my certificates. If not then they should leave me the **** alone to go about my lawful business.

 

this is intrusive, disproportionate and unnecessary and seriously pushes IMO the concept of policing by consent. Because I do not give my consent.

 

I have nothing to hide and always secure my guns properly, but that is not the point. If this ever happens (and I accept there is a good chance it may never) then I will lose a massive amount of respect and goodwill towards the police. If there is a problem with gun theft and/or terrorism, then target the thieves and terrorists not the easy target you have already established as law abiding, in a cynical attempt to be seen to be doing something.

 

 

 

Cracking post; couldn't have put it better myself.

[Davyo]

Personally I don't think we will see visits on the scale they state.I think its a publicity stunt to try and gain public faith . Basically they lie like MP's just to take the heat off their incompatance, where are they going to get the man power when they can't even hit their targets with renewal and application time scales.The licencing authority is in a mess and just won't admit it.

I would like to see BASC work with other shooting organisations to contact all licence holders to contact them when a visit takes place.I will bet money that when the police or politicians release figures on visits,they wont tally with BASCS.

Can we not set up a counter on here so when a PW member gets a visit( not an appliction or renewal visit).I have no issues with a visit what so ever,in fact I think its a good think.What I wouldn't be happy about is if like I suspect, its a public relations stunt.I bet they aren't keen on telling the public their stats for not hitting targets.

 

COME ON MODS GIVE US A COUNTER BUTTON OF SOME SORT

Edited October 21, 2014 by Davyo

[mossberg-operator]

Personally I don't think we will see visits on the scale they state.I think its a publicity stunt to try and gain public faith . Basically they lie like MP's just to take the heat off their incompatance, where are they going to get the man power when they can't even hit their targets with renewal and application time scales.The licencing authority is in a mess and just won't admit it.

I would like to see BASC work with other shooting organisations to contact all licence holders to contact them when a visit takes place.I will bet money that when the police or politicians release figures on visits,they wont tally with BASCS.

Can we not set up a counter on here so when a PW member gets a visit( not an appliction or renewal visit).I have no issues with a visit what so ever,in fact I think its a good think.What I wouldn't be happy about is if like I suspect, its a public relations stunt.I bet they aren't keen on telling the public their stats for not hitting targets.

COME ON MODS GIVE US A COUNTER BUTTON OF SOME SORT

This is why I've started these treads!

[Dekers]

 

 

 

 

 

Come on Scully, what do you mean no one can answer your question?

 

I am struggling to understand what more of an answer you want, which part of #32 isn't clear ....if they had reason to enter before without a warrant they still can, if they didn't before then they still can't.

 

Which part of that isn't clear, please also refer to the bold section in #33 as featured in Sporting Shooter,...FYI. reprinted below.

No new powers of entry have been conferred on the police or police staff and there is no automatic statutory right to entry.

 

 

So if nothing has changed then why the need for a 'new initiative'?

As I've said, I understand perfectly, and have never denied, that if the rozzers come a knocking and say a neighbour has spotted me running around my garden with a shotgun dressed in nothing more than matching DPM g-string and turban then they have a good reason I couldn't understandably deny, but still no one can tell me that if the rozzers call unannounced stating that they would like to check my security, I can say, sorry, but it isn't convenient right now. I could do this in the past, but despite claiming nothing has changed, no one can tell me if I can still do this. Not even you, despite being adamant 'nothing has changed'.

 

I have said it numerous times, the new initiative is largely BS in my opinion designed for PUBLIC consumption to make them think the police are doing more!

 

Which part of my post above does not answer your question?

[Scully]

 

 

 

I have said it numerous times, the new initiative is largely BS in my opinion designed for PUBLIC consumption to make them think the police are doing more! We all know it's bulldoodah. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

 

Which part of my post above does not answer your question? None of it. You can claim 'nothing has changed 'til the cows come home, but you STILL can't answer my question.

[Dekers]

 

I can see no problem if they wish to call on me anytime, Neither can I if it's convenient.

if I am home they are welcome to check.Ditto, if it's convenient.

as for making an appointment well that is just daft. I disagree. They have always made appointments with me in the past. Despite having vetted me and checked I am ok to be trusted with firearms, they now announce that I am deemed untrustworthy to the extent they think an unannounced visit may catch me out.

can you make sure your guns are secured on Thursday at 1900 hrs so we can check. I have never been asked this at anytime, have you?

i would say that as a license holder you are bound to follow the rules for which they were granted and all they are doing is checking to see if you are complying with what has been the rules for many years now. You're correct, as a license holder I am undoubtedly bound to comply to the rules for which they were granted, and as a mature, law-abiding adult I resent the fact I am now suspected of not complying. What possible reason could I have for not complying?

f you had applied for say another calibre on your fac and the fao just stopped by as he was in the area anyway to discuss your needs would you tell him to go away and make an appointment. No, I wouldn't tell him to go away, but if it wasn't convenient I would ask him if he could call at another time, and make him a coffee just like last time.

no you would bend over backwards if you thought you were getting what you want. Sorry, not with you there.

lets be adult Couldn't agree more. I am an adult, I want to be treated as such.

 

 

Scully

 

Just who has announced you are deemed untrustworthy and who has suggested you are not complying?

 

I am at a total loss as to just what you are talking about, nobody is making any suggestion that genuine law abiding FAC/SGC holders will get a visit, are terrorists, not to be trusted or will have their lives interrupted in any way...

 

the initiate says

 

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.”

 

 

Now, if you fall into that category then you should perhaps be concerned, otherwise what is your issue?

 

...........and whilst this is being touted about as a NEW initiative are you really trying to suggest this is something new and in the circumstances above the police have never visited a FAC holder historically!?

Edited October 22, 2014 by Dekers

[Dekers]

 

 

 

 

I have said it numerous times, the new initiative is largely BS in my opinion designed for PUBLIC consumption to make them think the police are doing more! We all know it's bulldoodah. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

 

Which part of my post above does not answer your question? None of it. You can claim 'nothing has changed 'til the cows come home, but you STILL can't answer my question.

 

 

Scully, which part of your question is not answered?

[Scully]

 

Scully, which part of your question is not answered?

Ye gods, the part I've been banging on about for pages now! Tell me if I can still say 'no, it isn't convenient' if or when I get the knock and two coppers are stood there announcing they've come to inspect my security. It's not a difficult question, but no one seems to able to tell me.

[Dekers]

Ye gods, the part I've been banging on about for pages now! Tell me if I can still say 'no, it isn't convenient' if or when I get the knock and two coppers are stood there announcing they've come to inspect my security. It's not a difficult question, but no one seems to able to tell me.

 

I am struggling to understand what more of an answer you want, which part of #32 isn't clear ....if they had reason to enter before without a warrant they still can, if they didn't before then they still can't.

 

Which part of that isn't clear, please also refer to the bold section in #33 as featured in Sporting Shooter,...FYI. reprinted below.

No new powers of entry have been conferred on the police or police staff and there is no automatic statutory right to entry.

 

If that isn't clear enough what more do you want?

[Davyo]

Ding ding, round 2.

[Scully]

 

Scully

 

Just who has announced you are deemed untrustworthy and who has suggested you are not complying? ACPO have made it plain in talks to HO ministers that they deem it necessary for a 'new initiative', part of which includes 'unannounced' security checks ( I can't believe you've missed this bit) The authorities obviously don't think we are complying or otherwise why do they feel the need to announce 'new initiatives' ?

 

nobody is making any suggestion that genuine law abiding FAC/SGC holders will get a visit, are terrorists, not to be trusted or will have their lives interrupted in any way...Then TELL ME WHY some of our shooting organisations have posted links for their members to lobby their MP's regarding this issue.

 

the initiate says

 

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.”

I know what the above says, I've read it a few times now.

 

 

Now, if you fall into that category then you should perhaps be concerned, otherwise what is your issue? I've told you, I don't fit into that category, but that doesn't exclude me from the 'new initiative'.Why?

 

...........and whilst this is being touted about as a NEW initiative are you really trying to suggest this is something new and in the circumstances above the police have never visited a FAC holder historically!?So again, if it isn't a 'new initiative, then why have ACPO announced it and the HO issued guidelines to it, and why are some of our shooting org's less than happy about it?

I'm off to Lancaster for a few hours now to show some numptie joiners how to fit a Velux in a Tradis panel, but will be back later.

[Dekers]

 

 

Scully

 

Just who has announced you are deemed untrustworthy and who has suggested you are not complying? ACPO have made it plain in talks to HO ministers that they deem it necessary for a 'new initiative', part of which includes 'unannounced' security checks ( I can't believe you've missed this bit) The authorities obviously don't think we are complying or otherwise why do they feel the need to announce 'new initiatives' ?

 

nobody is making any suggestion that genuine law abiding FAC/SGC holders will get a visit, are terrorists, not to be trusted or will have their lives interrupted in any way...Then TELL ME WHY some of our shooting organisations have posted links for their members to lobby their MP's regarding this issue.

 

the initiate says

 

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.”

I know what the above says, I've read it a few times now.

 

 

Now, if you fall into that category then you should perhaps be concerned, otherwise what is your issue? I've told you, I don't fit into that category, but that doesn't exclude me from the 'new initiative'.Why?

 

...........and whilst this is being touted about as a NEW initiative are you really trying to suggest this is something new and in the circumstances above the police have never visited a FAC holder historically!?So again, if it isn't a 'new initiative, then why have ACPO announced it and the HO issued guidelines to it, and why are some of our shooting org's less than happy about it?

I'm off to Lancaster for a few hours now to show some numptie joiners how to fit a Velux in a Tradis panel, but will be back later.

 

 

Nobody has deemed you untrustworthy or suggested you are not complying? the initiative says........

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.”

 

You have said it yourself Scully, your words........ We all know it's bulldoodah. It's propaganda, pure and simple............ my feelings as well, it is media BS designed for the public consumption, and the shooting organisations will have to answer your questions themselves, but basically I see them agreeing and suggesting FAC holders do comply anyway and are simply standing up for their members pointing this out, but are a tad annoyed about a hotline!

 

BASC’s chief executive, Richard Ali, said: “BASC supports the police in their efforts to help firearms certificate holders maintain the excellent record of safety and security in England and Wales. Where there is specific intelligence of threat, risk or harm, the police should act. This guidance provides that framework and ensures that police give a clear and reasoned explanation at the time of the visit.”

 

However, BASC described the new Crimestoppers hotline to encourage members of the shooting community and general public to report concerns about legally held firearms as “unnecessary and inappropriate.”

One shooter, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed concern that the new legislation would provide an open season for antis to cause trouble by reporting or falsely accusing lawful shooters with impunity. “By mentioning terrorism and extremism, the police are preying on very real public fears but the evidence of a link between lawful UK shooters and extremist behaviour just does not exist.”

 

The Countryside Alliance director of campaigns, Tim Bonner, while reiterating the CA’s support for checks where there is specific intelligence of risk, described the campaign as a “knee-jerk reaction to an unrelated problem. It is unjustified and ill-judged and will serve only to waste police resources and alienate a large and law-abiding section of the community.” He went on to suggest that the Crimestoppers hotline “will encourage malicious complaints.”

 

You were not excluded from anything before this initiative, if they had any cause to visit you unannounced then they could, that has not changed!

 

I suspect many are bored with me repeating the same things time and time again, and I'm getting bored saying it, but I just don't get what all the fuss is about, it seems to me too many people are reading too much into this, rise above it and forget it!

 

If you don't fall into the new initiative parameters mentioned above the odds are pretty strong you will never get a visit.

 

If you do fall in that category, you were just as likely to get a visit before this new initiative as after, the police are just shouting about it now!

 

Forget it, come back with a review in 3-6 months!

 

Edit

Re the Hotline

The Hotline can only be viewed as pandering to the public/media, what a joke, do the public have a problem remembering 999 if they saw a nut with a gun, do you seriously think Joe Public will say to themselves, there's a bloke with a gun, now then, wasn't there a Hotline I can call, where do I find the number..............how many know/will remember what the hotline number is?

Edited October 22, 2014 by Dekers

[KFC]

CrimeStoppers is a charity and ACPO is a Company Limited by Guarantee. It is an election year. There's been much talk about raising the license fee and every part of government will be clamouring to be noticed to ensure they can get the most funding possible so they must highlight the work they do.

Headlines are all important and Child Protection and Terrorism are the topics that can ensure unopposed support.

 

Be interesting to see an annual report from G4S on their management of Lincs Firearms.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-chief-mass-police-privatisation

Edited October 22, 2014 by KFC

[CharlieT]

CrimeStoppers is a charity and ACPO is a Company Limited by Guarantee. It is an election year. There's been much talk about raising the license fee and every part of government will be clamouring to be noticed to ensure they can get the most funding possible so they must highlight the work they do.

Headlines are all important and Child Protection and Terrorism are the topics that can ensure unopposed support.

 

Be interesting to see an annual report from G4S on their management of Lincs Firearms.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-chief-mass-police-privatisation

 

Well, at least someone has grasped the true reason behind this initiative.

[bostonmick]

Maybe those on here who believe that because they were vetted and passed some time ago to be deemed fit to possess firearms and do not believe they should in anyway be checked further should look on another thread on this forum about the numbers of firearms lost or stolen.one where a farmer left his rifle against a fence post and another leaning against his car and drove off.both of these people were passed as fit to possess.but now it is likely that these two guns are now in the hands of criminals or at very least being held by some idiot unlawfully.instances like this may go someway to showing why the authorities could feel justified in doing random checks.it. Appears that people are not infallible. Atb

[Scully]

 

 

Maybe those on here who believe that because they were vetted and passed some time ago to be deemed fit to possess firearms and do not believe they should in anyway be checked further should look on another thread on this forum about the numbers of firearms lost or stolen.one where a farmer left his rifle against a fence post and another leaning against his car and drove off.both of these people were passed as fit to possess.but now it is likely that these two guns are now in the hands of criminals or at very least being held by some idiot unlawfully.instances like this may go someway to showing why the authorities could feel justified in doing random checks.it. Appears that people are not infallible. Atb

Sorry but there is no logic to this. If a farmer left his rifle against a fence post and another against his car and drove off, what purpose would a random check serve? On arriving at his house and checking his actual firearms against his certificate they said, 'There's one missing' and the farmer replied, 'oh aye. I meant to mention that some time ago' !

Are you suggesting the farmers in question on arriving home realised they'd lost their guns and simply said 'ah well' and did nothing more about it, such as informing licensing? Wouldn't any of us contact the police immediately.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Scully

[wymberley]

Maybe those on here who believe that because they were vetted and passed some time ago to be deemed fit to possess firearms and do not believe they should in anyway be checked further should look on another thread on this forum about the numbers of firearms lost or stolen.one where a farmer left his rifle against a fence post and another leaning against his car and drove off.both of these people were passed as fit to possess.but now it is likely that these two guns are now in the hands of criminals or at very least being held by some idiot unlawfully.instances like this may go someway to showing why the authorities could feel justified in doing random checks.it. Appears that people are not infallible. Atb

To err is human. To steal by finding is a criminal offence. So, stuff the forgiveness, they're out to make us as guilty as the thief.

[bostonmick]

 

Sorry but there is no logic to this. If a farmer left his rifle against a fence post and another against his car and drove off, what purpose would a random check serve? On arriving at his house and checking his actual firearms against his certificate they said, 'There's one missing' and the farmer replied, 'oh aye. I meant to mention that some time ago' !

Are you suggesting the farmers in question on arriving home realised they'd lost their guns and simply said 'ah well' and did nothing more about it, such as informing licensing? Wouldn't any of us contact the police immediately.

It just shows that security of guns is not always uppermost in our minds.if people can treat guns in such a flippant manner when out in public areas why would it not be possible that they are equally as careless at home.

[Scully]

 

Nobody has deemed you untrustworthy or suggested you are not complying? the initiative says........

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.”

 

You have said it yourself Scully, your words........ We all know it's bulldoodah. It's propaganda, pure and simple............ my feelings as well, it is media BS designed for the public consumption, and the shooting organisations will have to answer your questions themselves, but basically I see them agreeing and suggesting FAC holders do comply anyway and are simply standing up for their members pointing this out, but are a tad annoyed about a hotline!

 

BASC’s chief executive, Richard Ali, said: “BASC supports the police in their efforts to help firearms certificate holders maintain the excellent record of safety and security in England and Wales. Where there is specific intelligence of threat, risk or harm, the police should act. This guidance provides that framework and ensures that police give a clear and reasoned explanation at the time of the visit.”

 

However, BASC described the new Crimestoppers hotline to encourage members of the shooting community and general public to report concerns about legally held firearms as “unnecessary and inappropriate.”

One shooter, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed concern that the new legislation would provide an open season for antis to cause trouble by reporting or falsely accusing lawful shooters with impunity. “By mentioning terrorism and extremism, the police are preying on very real public fears but the evidence of a link between lawful UK shooters and extremist behaviour just does not exist.”

 

The Countryside Alliance director of campaigns, Tim Bonner, while reiterating the CA’s support for checks where there is specific intelligence of risk, described the campaign as a “knee-jerk reaction to an unrelated problem. It is unjustified and ill-judged and will serve only to waste police resources and alienate a large and law-abiding section of the community.” He went on to suggest that the Crimestoppers hotline “will encourage malicious complaints.”

 

You were not excluded from anything before this initiative, if they had any cause to visit you unannounced then they could, that has not changed!

 

I suspect many are bored with me repeating the same things time and time again, and I'm getting bored saying it, but I just don't get what all the fuss is about, it seems to me too many people are reading too much into this, rise above it and forget it!

 

If you don't fall into the new initiative parameters mentioned above the odds are pretty strong you will never get a visit.

 

If you do fall in that category, you were just as likely to get a visit before this new initiative as after, the police are just shouting about it now!

 

Forget it, come back with a review in 3-6 months!

 

Edit

Re the Hotline

The Hotline can only be viewed as pandering to the public/media, what a joke, do the public have a problem remembering 999 if they saw a nut with a gun, do you seriously think Joe Public will say to themselves, there's a bloke with a gun, now then, wasn't there a Hotline I can call, where do I find the number..............how many know/will remember what the hotline number is?

I am well aware of why this latest initiative has been introduced, believe me, and it matters not how many times you quote the official press releases by the various shooting organisations; I've read them all.

What I have wanted form the very start is someone to tell me unequivocally that I can still say 'no, sorry, it isn't convenient right now' if or when the knock comes and two coppers say they are here to check my security. Despite being quoted at incessantly, no one has been willing to simply tell me, despite saying 'nothing has changed' then why has no one been willing to tell me in plain English?

Anyhow, the NGO have got back to me, and the reply is on behalf of George Wallace, who has always been very quick to get back to me in the short time I've been a member. I asked the same question I have been asking on here, but instead of quoting a press release or HO guidelines I got this:

Tell ******* (that's me ) he can certainly say 'no' to any police officers who have called to inspect his security, and can also ask them to call back after making an appointment. Thankyou George, the only person who has been willing to use the 'no' word.

Also, I will find a good deal of info' on the subject in the sporting press shortly, and also in the next issue of the NGO magazine.

Now I know there will be some (or rather one) who will now be shouting 'told you so', but he didn't, and couldn't; all he dared was quote press releases.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2014 by Scully

[Scully]

It just shows that security of guns is not always uppermost in our minds. I must admit it is in mine as they are cherished items to me

if people can treat guns in such a flippant manner when out in public areas why would it not be possible that they are equally as careless at home.Fair enough; can't argue with that.

[Breastman]

Fao came round a week last Friday to do an unannounced visit, but as i wasn't in at the time he asked my gran who was a few questions (if she knew where i kept the keys etc). Then called me to arrange a better time, so he nipped back on Tuesday dinner. All seemed to go well checked my cabinet and guns. Took no longer than 10 min then off he went, didn't even stay for the standard cuppa!

Bearing in mind THIS:

 

The new Home Office guidance states: “Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.”

 

Did you ask them what threat or risk you pose, or what security concern their intelligence lead them to your door? We have been told over and over by the shepherds and their sheep that this is NOT a random dipping exercise

Edited October 22, 2014 by Breastman

[Dekers]

 

I am struggling to understand what more of an answer you want, which part of #32 isn't clear ....if they had reason to enter before without a warrant they still can, if they didn't before then they still can't.

 

Which part of that isn't clear, please also refer to the bold section in #33 as featured in Sporting Shooter,...FYI. reprinted below.

No new powers of entry have been conferred on the police or police staff and there is no automatic statutory right to entry.

 

If that isn't clear enough what more do you want?

 

 

I am well aware of why this latest initiative has been introduced, believe me, and it matters not how many times you quote the official press releases by the various shooting organisations; I've read them all.

What I have wanted form the very start is someone to tell me unequivocally that I can still say 'no, sorry, it isn't convenient right now' if or when the knock comes and two coppers say they are here to check my security. Despite being quoted at incessantly, no one has been willing to simply tell me, despite saying 'nothing has changed' then why has no one been willing to tell me in plain English?

Anyhow, the NGO have got back to me, and the reply is on behalf of George Wallace, who has always been very quick to get back to me in the short time I've been a member. I asked the same question I have been asking on here, but instead of quoting a press release or HO guidelines I got this:

Tell ******* (that's me ) he can certainly say 'no' to any police officers who have called to inspect his security, and can also ask them to call back after making an appointment. Thankyou George, the only person who has been willing to use the 'no' word.

Also, I will find a good deal of info' on the subject in the sporting press shortly, and also in the next issue of the NGO magazine.

Now I know there will be some (or rather one) who will now be shouting 'told you so', but he didn't, and couldn't; all he dared was quote press releases.

 

 

 

 

 

Which part of my post didn't you understand, Nothing has changed,....if they had reason to enter before without a warrant they still can, if they didn't before then they still can't....... if you were in a position to say no before you still are.....

No new powers of entry have been conferred on the police or police staff and there is no automatic statutory right to entry, did you miss the bit that said no before?

 

Just in case you are still confused, you can say no if they don't have a search warrant and are not responding to an immediate, known or perceived threat, just like they could before, Nothing has changed over their right of entry.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Dekers

[Scully]

I comply with the relevant laws and always secure my guns properly. I have had jump through many hoops to get my certificates and the police have had to satisfy themselves I am a fit and proper person and not a risk before they were granted. If they think this has changed then they should have the courage of their convictions, sieze my guns and revoke my certificates. If not then they should leave me the **** alone to go about my lawful business.

 

I am generally pro police, but this is intrusive, disproportionate and unnecessary and seriously pushes IMO the concept of policing by consent. Because I do not give my consent.

 

I have nothing to hide and always secure my guns properly, but that is not the point. If this ever happens (and I accept there is a good chance it may never) then I will lose a massive amount of respect and goodwill towards the police. If there is a problem with gun theft and/or terrorism, then target the thieves and terrorists not the easy target you have already established as law abiding, in a cynical attempt to be seen to be doing something.

 

 

Apologies for re-quoting this, but this is in my opinion the best post in this thread, and sums up more or less how I feel about this issue.

I would add that I am under no illusion as to why ACPO have instigated this 'new initiative', it is just the latest in a long line of anti gun rhetoric based on a not well hidden agenda, and whilst I doubt any law-abiding firearms holders have anything to fear, it is the insinuations released to the media and the general public at large from ACPO, concerning those of us who have firearms that is simply outrageous.

I can only refer to the first paragraph in the post of Blunderbuss above. This paragraph should be sent in capital letters via our shooting organisations to ACPO and all chief officers of police nationwide. One can dream.

I'm done now. Thank **** for that I hear you cry.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Scully

[Scully]

 

 

 

 

Which part of my post didn't you understand, Nothing has changed,....if they had reason to enter before without a warrant they still can, if they didn't before then they still can't....... if you were in a position to say no before you still are.....

No new powers of entry have been conferred on the police or police staff and there is no automatic statutory right to entry, did you miss the bit that said no before?

 

Just in case you are still confused, you can say no if they don't have a search warrant and are not responding to an immediate, known or perceived threat, just like they could before, Nothing has changed over their right of entry.

Believe me, I was never confused. It doesn't matter how BIG you spell it, it's not your opinion but merely a quote, again. All sorted now thanks.

[Dekers]

Believe me, I was never confused. It doesn't matter how BIG you spell it, it's not your opinion but merely a quote, again. All sorted now thanks.

 

Just why do you need my opinion, or anyone's, the Quote refers to the Legal position, what has anyone's opinion got to do with this?

 

I think everyone else got the idea 20+ posts ago, but now the NGO have confirmed the legal position, with their opinion, you are happy!

 

Glad that's sorted then!

Edited October 22, 2014 by Dekers