chrispti Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 Well quite frankly I don't care if you lose sleep over this or not, or whether you end up imprisoned because your certificate ran out. You are breaking the law, that is unquestionable. If they know you're breaking the law the police must investigate, and when it goes to CPS they have no reason not to tell the police to charge you. Also, the letter you feel is a get out of jail free card usually doesn't even come from a police officer, but a civilian in the firearms department. Nothing whatsoever to do with the police who would have to charge you with this offence. My feo is a serving police officer. Hampshire police have right infront of them, a very long list, 100s, possibly 1000s of renewals that have expired. Mine being one of them. Why have none of us been arrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 Why have none of us been arrested? They might have a backlog of them as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) They might have a backlog of them as well If the speed of the renewals is anything to go by, I should be doing my stint inside when I'm well into my 80s........ Edited December 9, 2012 by chrispti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Remember the police do not have the authority to allow you to break the law, they can't tell you it's OK. Only the government can make laws, the police telling you it's OK has no more meaning than if I told you it's OK. They may be in trouble for telling you it's OK, a judge may not punish you, but that would be purely down to the judge, you could just as easily be sent to prison. Not exactly, as I posted previously the precedent set is that the judge can stay the prosecution on the ground that the integrity of the criminal justice system would be compromised by allowing the state to punish someone whom the state itself has caused to transgress. The letter is from an agent of the state so the state cannot then prosecute you for something that it has told you to do even though you are breaking the law. It would never go to court because of this but if by some chance it did the only thing you would have to prove to the judge is that the state caused you to break the law, the letter clearly proves this. If the letter was from you or even a barrister/ law firm you would have no defence under the precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 you would have no defence under the precedence. If this has never been tested in a court of law, there is NO precedent. If there is one, please name names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 And the main thing is its not happened yet and many thousands have been in the situation, it suggests the pw barrack room lawyer is erring on the side of fantasy with his ideas on process Just because it hasn't happened (that we know of) doesn't mean to say that it can't, especially if it suits someones purpose. As I've mentioned erarlier on this thread; can you even begin to imagone what would have happened had Atherton at Horden been in possession of his guns when his certs had expired? All hell would have broken loose in the media and heads would have rolled at the licensing department. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Police arrest you for what? They don't go straight to cps for advice, you get interviewed first. Show them the letter stating the police will not take further action if your ticket expires whilst its in for renewal, the arresting officer would more than likely seek advice from the duty sargeant who will then call the firearms department to varify the lettter (if they didn't already know about it) pretty sure the police are not in the habbit of dropping themselves in the ****? The police will do whatever they think will suit them best and so wil the CPS. The reiterate for the billionth time - the police cannot allow you to break the law! If you think they can then how about taking it to it's logical conclusion and tell us all what else they are allowed to tell you to do that isn't legal. Can they let you drive without a licence or insurance? Can they tell you its fine to own a machinegun and incendiary ammunition?If they can tell you its ok to possess firearms without a valid certificate then what is even the point in issuing them in the first place? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 If I'm out with my gun then I carry the letter with me. I very much doubt the police will make a case against themselves then seek cps advise on it.... Against the law, yes, police descresion plays a big part in it, I suppose if you were pulled over for speeding or forgot to put your seatbelt on, you wouldn't want a telling off but insist on points and a fine? Are you intentionally ignoring what people are telling you? The police CANNOT tell you do break the law! If the cops who arrest you want to charge you then they will - they won't care about which other branch of the police get hauled over the coals. They had no qualms about prosecuting two of their own for theft because they were selling police property and it was absolutely certain that the police knew it was going on. They still got done though. The fact that you tell them that the firearms department told you it was ok is actually such a fantastic story that they might not even believe you. The traffic department cannot tell you it's ok to speed or drive without insurance; the vice squad cannot tell you it's ok to traffic under age prossies; CID cannot tell you its ok to glass people and the murder squad cannot tell you its ok to kill people. Believe me, sooner or later someone is going to get charged if this situation continues. When it happens it is going to be very, very bad indeed - even more so because it is, when you think about it, police corruption. There is very little difference in telling cert holders that its ok to keep their guns on an expired cert and telling people its ok to deal drugs because its too much bother trying to arrest drug dealers. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 The police will do whatever they think will suit them best and so wil the CPS. The reiterate for the billionth time - the police cannot allow you to break the law! If you think they can then how about taking it to it's logical conclusion and tell us all what else they are allowed to tell you to do that isn't legal. Can they let you drive without a licence or insurance? Can they tell you its fine to own a machinegun and incendiary ammunition?If they can tell you its ok to possess firearms without a valid certificate then what is even the point in issuing them in the first place? J. It's a renewal, iv been vetted, its not a first time issue. They have put in a temporary measure to catch up with a backlog which they are responsible for causing. Its got nothing to do with machineguns and incendiary amo !! Like I said previously, if you were stopped for speeding would you insist on the copper complying with the law rather than just giving you a telling off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Not exactly, as I posted previously the precedent set is that the judge can stay the prosecution on the ground that the integrity of the criminal justice system would be compromised by allowing the state to punish someone whom the state itself has caused to transgress. The letter is from an agent of the state so the state cannot then prosecute you for something that it has told you to do even though you are breaking the law. It would never go to court because of this but if by some chance it did the only thing you would have to prove to the judge is that the state caused you to break the law, the letter clearly proves this. If the letter was from you or even a barrister/ law firm you would have no defence under the precedence. So, for the avoidance of doubt, you are saying that if the police were to give you a letter saying that you could go around randomly stabbing people you could not be prosecuted? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 It's a renewal, iv been vetted, its not a first time issue. They have put in a temporary measure to catch up with a backlog which they are responsible for causing. Its got nothing to do with machineguns and incendiary amo !! Like I said previously, if you were stopped for speeding would you insist on the copper complying with the law rather than just giving you a telling off? Try answering the question, please. What else can the police tell you to do which is illegal? Driving without insurance, speeding, hitting people for no reason, owning machine guns? If they did say any of this would you actually believe them? Your last sentence shows that you aren't understanding the issue. It's not about the police always prosecuting you, it's about the fact that they can do. You are in illegal possession - end of story. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Are you intentionally ignoring what people are telling you? The police CANNOT tell you do break the law! If the cops who arrest you want to charge you then they will - they won't care about which other branch of the police get hauled over the coals. They had no qualms about prosecuting two of their own for theft because they were selling police property and it was absolutely certain that the police knew it was going on. They still got done though. The fact that you tell them that the firearms department told you it was ok is actually such a fantastic story that they might not even believe you. The traffic department cannot tell you it's ok to speed or drive without insurance; the vice squad cannot tell you it's ok to traffic under age prossies; CID cannot tell you its ok to glass people and the murder squad cannot tell you its ok to kill people. Believe me, sooner or later someone is going to get charged if this situation continues. When it happens it is going to be very, very bad indeed - even more so because it is, when you think about it, police corruption. There is very little difference in telling cert holders that its ok to keep their guns on an expired cert and telling people its ok to deal drugs because its too much bother trying to arrest drug dealers. And for the billionth time, why has or is, non of the hundreds possibly thousands of people who's tickets have expired, being prosecuted? I even shoot with a few serving officers who's tickets are in for renewal, Id lay money there are legal types who live in Hampshire, who's tickets are also in the back log...... Edited December 10, 2012 by chrispti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 They aren't though Jonathan they are producing a letter to say you had your renewal paperwork in in plenty of time and they haven't got the staff to process it before renewal, so they are saying its their fault and carry on and they will sort the problem and not prosecute you. Its a common sense approach and one the Chief Constable must be aware of and approved, the court scenario would be laughed out of court were it ever to get there which it won't. Still I'm sure as a RFD you know better than the author of the letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Try answering the question, please. What else can the police tell you to do which is illegal? Driving without insurance, speeding, hitting people for no reason, owning machine guns? If they did say any of this would you actually believe them? Your last sentence shows that you aren't understanding the issue. It's not about the police always prosecuting you, it's about the fact that they can do. You are in illegal possession - end of story. J. We are talking about a shotgun renewal, and a temporary measure they have in place to resolve a back log. Why would the police permit any of your childish ideas in the first place? They would all potentially cause harm or see others inconvenienced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 And for the billionth time, why has or is, non of the hundreds possibly thousands of people who's tickets have expired, being prosecuted? I even shoot with a few serving officers who's tickets are in for renewal, Is lay money there are legal types who live in Hampshire, who's tickets are also in the back log...... And for the billionth time, why has or is, non of the hundreds possibly thousands of people who's tickets have expired, being prosecuted? I even shoot with a few serving officers who's tickets are in for renewal, Is lay money there are legal types who live in Hampshire, who's tickets are also in the back log...... Because, presumably, it hasn't been in anyones interest to or on anyones radar. If it becomes an opportune thing to do (for some aspiring high-flyer on a fast track to the CC's office) then someone will do it. The two cops in Durham were selling property for years and years and at least two forces knew all about it. To all intents and purposes they had been given tacit approval to do it. A gun got stolen at a farm and the cops who investigated the matter noticed that it had been purchased from a cop at a police station. Then all hell boke loose! They had been allowed to break the law because it suited everyones purposes. As soon as it suited someone elses purpose they were done. Are you totaly and utterly, 100% confident now that you will not be prosecuted? What happens if your house gets burgled and your illegally possessed guns get stolen? If it suits someones purpose to do you then you will get done. The police will have a 'purge' and the CC will be on the TV telling everyone how reprehensible it was that the licensing department weere telling people to break the law and that that sort of thing will never happen gain. Sure you won't get done? Totally? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 there is no correlation between the two cases at all that I can see, one involved selling police property the other is the date on a piece of paper the police can't produce in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 They aren't though Jonathan they are producing a letter to say you had your renewal paperwork in in plenty of time and they haven't got the staff to process it before renewal, so they are saying its their fault and carry on and they will sort the problem and not prosecute you. Its a common sense approach and one the Chief Constable must be aware of and approved, the court scenario would be laughed out of court were it ever to get there which it won't. Still I'm sure as a RFD you know better than the author of the letter I know for an absolute fact that no state official can give you immunity from prosecution or tell that its ok to break the law. Anyone fancy actually answering the question as to what other laws the police can tell you to ignore because it suits them? Perhaps the CC does know, perhaps not? Have you asked him? Why don't you? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 that kind of letter would never go out without his authorisation, we are talking a technicality because the new certificate is back dated so there never was an offence as far as they are concerned. Same as people here getting theirs a month early it runs from date of expiry of the last one, though you can't get your head round it fortunately you have nothing whatsoever to do with the procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 We are talking about a shotgun renewal, and a temporary measure they have in place to resolve a back log. Why would the police permit any of your childish ideas in the first place? They would all potentially cause harm or see others inconvenienced Please stop avoiding the question. What else can the police tell you to do that isn't legal? Surely if it's such a good idea then it must apply to other things too? It doesn't matter how 'temporary' it is - it still isn't legal. You are breaking the law. As I've said - the police in Durham prosecuted two of their own serving officers for doing something they knew all along they were doing. They did because it got to the point at which it couldn't be stopped. To be honest, it's actually a bit worrying that seemingly intelligent people on here think that it's ok to break the law (a serious law) just because the police say its ok. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Because, presumably, it hasn't been in anyones interest to or on anyones radar. If it becomes an opportune thing to do (for some aspiring high-flyer on a fast track to the CC's office) then someone will do it. The two cops in Durham were selling property for years and years and at least two forces knew all about it. To all intents and purposes they had been given tacit approval to do it. A gun got stolen at a farm and the cops who investigated the matter noticed that it had been purchased from a cop at a police station. Then all hell boke loose! They had been allowed to break the law because it suited everyones purposes. As soon as it suited someone elses purpose they were done. Are you totaly and utterly, 100% confident now that you will not be prosecuted? What happens if your house gets burgled and your illegally possessed guns get stolen? If it suits someones purpose to do you then you will get done. The police will have a 'purge' and the CC will be on the TV telling everyone how reprehensible it was that the licensing department weere telling people to break the law and that that sort of thing will never happen gain. Sure you won't get done? Totally? J. 100% The guns are locked in my cabinet. If they get stolen, they get stolen, having a valid licence won't stop them. In that scenario, Iv done everything the police have asked of me, and I expect when my feo comes round he will have my new ticket in his hand, back dated, so there was no point in time I was unlicenced you honour. Edited December 10, 2012 by chrispti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 just because the police say its ok now remind me whose job it is to enforce laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 there is no correlation between the two cases at all that I can see, one involved selling police property the other is the date on a piece of paper the police can't produce in time. They corelate very nicely. It doesn't matter about the specific illegal activity. The legal point being made is that the police cannot give you immunity from being prosecuted. They cannot allow you to sell stolen property and they cannot allow you to be in illegal possession of firearms. If they want to prosecute then they will do. Even if they don't want to it can very rapidly get to the point at which it cannot be stopped just like when the gun was stolen from the farm and the trail led back to the two cops selling off police property. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Please stop avoiding the question. What else can the police tell you to do that isn't legal? Surely if it's such a good idea then it must apply to other things too? It doesn't matter how 'temporary' it is - it still isn't legal. You are breaking the law. As I've said - the police in Durham prosecuted two of their own serving officers for doing something they knew all along they were doing. They did because it got to the point at which it couldn't be stopped. To be honest, it's actually a bit worrying that seemingly intelligent people on here think that it's ok to break the law (a serious law) just because the police say its ok. J. I'm not avoiding any question, why would the police even consider one of your silly points, please give an example? Also, answer this please... If you were pulled over for speeding or you forgot to put on your seatbelt, and the officer gave you a warning, would you accept his word or would you go into one about how he can't decide on what's law, and demand he do his job properly and issue you with points and a fine? Edited December 10, 2012 by chrispti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 that kind of letter would never go out without his authorisation, we are talking a technicality because the new certificate is back dated so there never was an offence as far as they are concerned. Same as people here getting theirs a month early it runs from date of expiry of the last one, though you can't get your head round it fortunately you have nothing whatsoever to do with the procedure. Why don't you ask him? You have noting to lose as he'll already know about it. Shall I email and ask? We are going over old ground here; yes, the new cert is back dated but that doesn't avoid that fact that until they print it you are in illegal possession. In fact you could still be done regardless of what date they put on it because during that time you were in illegal possession. BASC are saying that this is not legal. Someone a while back even linked to an article written by a solicitor who specialises in firearms law who said it shouldn't be happening and that no one should be relying on what they police are telling them! People who do this professionally do not agree with you - what makes you think they you're right and they are wrong? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 100% The guns are locked in my cabinet. If they get stolen, they get stolen, having a valid licence won't stop them. In that scenario, Iv done everything the police have asked of me, and I expect when my feo comes round he will have my new ticket in his hand, back dated, so there was no point in time I was in licenced you honour. No, it won't but it will come to the attention of a different set of cops that you don't have a cert, just like the stolen gun in the case of the two Durham cops. You are completely wrong about not being unlicensed. You have an expired cert so you are in unlawful possession. The fact that the police back-date the cert doesn't legalise your illegal possession, it just give the apperarance that you were never in illegal possession. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts