chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) 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. They can offer a degree of immunity, by not prosecuting in the first place. If one person got prosecuted, then the 100s or possibly 1000s of others caught up in the backlog would also be prosecuted!! Would the prosecution be successful considering the circumstances.......... Highly unlikely. It won't happen. Edited December 10, 2012 by chrispti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 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. You have nothing to loose, email him and please post up the reply. If your 100% sure ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 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. There is only one completely safe route and one which cannot be wrong which is why our shooting organisations have to say it, however there is the practical approach where you work with your dept and cut them a little slack and believe what they say. If everyone in Chrispti's situation insisted on a section 7 the workload would effectively double and they would go further backwards, the police know that hence the letter. As it has no relevance to me I won't be writing to the chief constable and wasting his time but you can feel free as I suspect it is something you have plenty of time and inclination to do. If I was him I would suggest minding your own business but guess he can't really tell you where to poke your enquiry, this situation has been going on for years I know it was 6 years ago I had a slight delay and I can safely say I wasn't arrested even the once, my guns weren't seized I wasn't put in the local stocks and looking at the dates on my certificates it never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 They can offer a degree of immunity, by not prosecuting in the first place. If one person got prosecuted, then the 100s or possibly 1000s of others caught up in the backlog would also be prosecuted!! It won't happen. You do not know that. You might think you do but you simply do not. They probably won't prosecute. They might do though as these things have a tendency to get out of control. Are you totally, 100% certain that there will never be a situation where it gets out of hand before the police can contain it, like with the two cops in Durham? Do you really think that every single police officer is quite willing not to take a case of illegal possession of firearms any further? There are many who would charge you in the blink of an eye abd would willingly take the licensing staff down with you. People who think that there can never be any repercussions from this are being unbelievebly naive. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You have nothing to loose, email him and please post up the reply. If your 100% sure ........ Yeah, OK. Hampshire I think you said you lived in? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 People who think that there can never be any repercussions from this are being unbelievebly naive. or they think on the numbers basis there is more chance of winning the lottery as people have actually won that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) or they think on the numbers basis there is more chance of winning the lottery as people have actually won that Well, there's the post which gets the award for the most pointless one of the week - and it's only Monday! It's only unlikely untill it happens and it only takes one incident. When something happens everyone with an expired cert will be rampaging to their local RFD begging to have their guns taken off them. To once again ask a question that everyone has conveniently ignored; do you really think that we'd be having this discussion if Athertons's certs had expired at the time he murdered his family with his illegal guns? And another one which has been avoided; what other laws are the police allowed to tell you not to bother adhering to? Or is the one about not having illegal firearms the only one? J. Edited December 10, 2012 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yeah, OK. Hampshire I think you said you lived in? J. Correct. Will you also post up a copy of your e-mail that you send to them please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL 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? The courts! J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Well, there's the post which gets the award for the most pointless one of the week - and it's only Monday! It's only unlikely untill it happens and it only takes one incident. When something happens everyone with an expired cert will be rampaging to their local RFD begging to have their guns taken off them. To once again ask a question that everyone has conveniently ignored; do you really think that we'd be having this discussion if Athertons's certs had expired at the time he murdered his family with his illegal guns? And another one which has been avoided; what other laws are the police allowed to tell you not to bother adhering to? Or is the one about not having illegal firearms the only one? J. or was that the post that shot down your "I think" or I just want to argue for the sake of it, the facts stand no one has been prosecuted people have won the lottery. Now if someone was prosecuted it would be a good thing and I would imagine our shooting organisations would actually like it to happen. The reasoning being is it would give a proper kick up the backside to the licensing authorities the case would get thrown out but that is beside the point no one is arguing whether it could happen they are saying the likelihood of it happening is somewhat less than winning the lottery. now if someone went a bit fruit loop without one it wouldn't be law abiding shooters who would bear the brunt of it, it would be the chief constables head on the block for allowing it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Well, there's the post which gets the award for the most pointless one of the week - and it's only Monday! It's only unlikely untill it happens and it only takes one incident. When something happens everyone with an expired cert will be rampaging to their local RFD begging to have their guns taken off them. To once again ask a question that everyone has conveniently ignored; do you really think that we'd be having this discussion if Athertons's certs had expired at the time he murdered his family with his illegal guns? And another one which has been avoided; what other laws are the police allowed to tell you not to bother adhering to? Or is the one about not having illegal firearms the only one? J. Are you going to answer my question ? would you accept a telling off from the police or would you insist they enforced the law to the letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 The courts! J. Iv never seen a judge pounding the streets carrying out law enforcement?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Now if someone was prosecuted it would be a good thing and I would imagine our shooting organisations would actually like it to happen. The reasoning being is it would give a proper kick up the backside to the licensing authorities the case would get thrown out but that is beside the point no one is arguing whether it could happen they are saying the likelihood of it happening is somewhat less than winning the lottery. now if someone went a bit fruit loop without one it wouldn't be law abiding shooters who would bear the brunt of it, it would be the chief constables head on the block for allowing it to happen. There you go again making statements you cannot back up. You do not know that the case would be thrown out. Not in the slightest It is most certainly not definite that any case would be thrwn out. You are breaking the law, there is no getting away from that fact. Please stop giving legal 'advice' to people when you simply do not know if its correct. If you think that shooters wouldn't be affected then you are living in a fantasy world. The very fact that the police have done it will be used as an argument against legal gun ownership. If the police can't, or won't, do it properly then people shouldn't be allwed to own them. Anything will be used against us and you know damn fine it would. Have you learned nothing at all in how ever many years you have been shooting? And if you think that a CC's head is going to be on the block before everyone else in the force, let alone gun owning plebs, you really are off on one. CC's are not just cops they are politicians and PR managers as well. Moreover, they look after them selves first. A CC isn't going to take the rap for something he almost certainly doesn't know is going on and will turn it into a PR stunt to improve their image. I'm not labouring this point because I feel like having an argument - well, not entirely. I'm doing it because this is serious stuff. When the wheel comes off, which it will sooner or later, it's going to have bad repercussions for shooters. Can no one see that? The police are happily telling people to be in possession of illegal firearms - that's a very bad thing. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Are you going to answer my question ? would you accept a telling off from the police or would you insist they enforced the law to the letter? The question isn't relevant because it's got nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. It's an after the fact situation not a before the fact situation. A police officer who doesn't give you a tiket in that situation is coming to that decision after you have comitted the offence. No offence is automatically prosecuted because there is always discretion in whether to bring charges. If the police were telling people that they would not be prosecuted before they comitted the offence then, yes, my opinion would be the same because they cannot do it, it is illegal, unprofessional and dangerous! If you don't even properly understand the points of law at hand (and the question you posed shows that you don't) then why are you contributing to the discussion? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Iv never seen a judge pounding the streets carrying out law enforcement?? Again, displaying your ignorance. The police do not enforce the law - it is a common misconception that they do but they don't. The courts enforce the law. The police keep the peace and bring alleged offenders before the courts but they do not decide points of law or sentence people. So - what other laws can the police tell you to ignore? J. Edited December 10, 2012 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 The question isn't relevant because it's got nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. J. Much like you questions then, " what other laws can the police tell you to break," completely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I will wait to read your reply from Hampshire's cc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Much like you questions then, " what other laws can the police tell you to break," completely irrelevant. It's directly relevant. The police are telling you that you can contravene parts of the Firearms Act and that you cannot be prosecuted for it. If they can do it for that Act then what others can they do it with? Road Traffic Act? Misuse of Drugs Act? Are there any others? If not, why not? Surely you aren't suggesting that the Firearms Act is the only one? Can they tell you that you can drive without a licence? If they did then would you be happy to do it if they promised not to prosecute? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Are you totaly and utterly, 100% confident now that you will not be prosecuted? Yes but that's what happens when you go shooting with the Chief Constable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yes but that's what happens when you go shooting with the Chief Constable. Ah, right. Your boss lets you break the law because he's your shooting buddy? We're delving deeper and deeper into what is essentially police corruption. Actually, to be honest, I think you're full of ****. You just make this stuff up as you go along. I can't berlieve that any serving police officer would be stupid enough to publish the fact that he's allowed to break the law by his CC on a public forum. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Where did I say buddy? Where did I say I break the law? Where did I say it was condoned? You have a habit of making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) 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. This is absolute nonsense. The police do not have any authority to allow you to break the law, so by holding firearms without a certificate you are breaking the law. You would have to be found guilty in court, and the best you could hope for would be to be let off without a punishment - which may happen. That's putting your future in the hands of a judge, and especially when you know full well your breaking the law yet take a chance that you'll get off because the police would be in trouble, this would be utter stupidity. 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? If they give you a temporary certificate then there is nothing wrong as your not breaking the law - though it's still far from perfect. If they haven't issued a temporary certificate then it makes no difference whether you've been vetted for a certificate previously. This doesn't guarantee you're still fit to be entrusted with firearms (the whole point of renewing them), and it doesn't make your possession of firearms without a certificate any less illegal. 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 You don't think that allowing people to illegally possess firearms could cause harm? What if Derrick Bird or Michael Atherton didn't hold a valid certificate - it could be argued that when reviewed they wouldn't have be renewed, yet by allowing them to possess their firearms illegally it may have allowed a massacre to happen? This situation has the potential to be serious - for all we know, someone could go on a rampage tonight with a gun that's no longer legal because their certificate has expired, do you really think this wouldn't have a negative impact on shooters? 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. Backdating a certificate means nothing. All that happens is that, looking back, it appears you never broke the law - but until that certificate is actually issued, regardless of the date they end up printing on it, you don't have one. Can you imagine if something happens - e.g your guns get stolen, someone goes on a rampage etc - and the police haven't yet renewed the certificate. Do you really think they'll stick it to the top of the pile, check the security of the gun storage, check the person was fit to hold firearms and then issue a certificate backdated in lightning speed so that person didn't appear to have been breaking the law? All in time for the police investigation, and before the press get involved? Much like you questions then, " what other laws can the police tell you to break," completely irrelevant. No, it's actually your best chance of showing that you aren't talking a load of rubbish. If the police have the authority to permit laws to be broken, I'm sure it doesn't happen to be for one single section of the Firearms Act 1968. Out of all the numerous laws in this country, which others can they permit you to break? Edited December 10, 2012 by bedwards1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I find it astounding how many on here, who are considered fit to be entrusted with firearms, are so stupid and naive that they honestly believe that it's acceptable to commit a serious criminal offence because someone with no authority has told them it's fine to break the law. You also believe that you know better than qualified lawyers who specialize in firearms law. Are you really fit to hold certificates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Where did I say buddy? Where did I say I break the law? Where did I say it was condoned? You have a habit of making things up. I asked whether someone were totally confident that they would never be prosecuted for illegal possession. You replied that you were because you shot with the CC. That implies that he is a mate because he is giving you special dispensation from prosecuting. If you have a firearm without the relevant authority then you are breakign the law and the whole point of question at hand is about law breaking. If the CC. I didn't use the word 'condoned' anywhere. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Are you totaly and utterly, 100% confident now that you will not be prosecuted? Yes but that's what happens when you go shooting with the Chief Constable. Ah, right. Your boss lets you break the law because he's your shooting buddy? We're delving deeper and deeper into what is essentially police corruption. Actually, to be honest, I think you're full of ****. You just make this stuff up as you go along. I can't berlieve that any serving police officer would be stupid enough to publish the fact that he's allowed to break the law by his CC on a public forum. J. Where did I say buddy? Where did I say I break the law? Where did I say it was condoned? You have a habit of making things up. You didn't say buddy, you didn't say break the law, and you didn't say condoned. But, given the context it was posted in, your post suggests that you shoot with the Chief Constable, where he knows you break the law, and as a result you can be certain that you won't be prosecuted. If I (and obviously JonathanL) have read your post in the obvious way, but not as you intended, would you please tell me what you actually meant when you said: Yes but that's what happens when you go shooting with the Chief Constable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts