The Police are making me break the law

[Dirty Harry]

If the good people on this forum choose to believe everything you and Jonathan spout out then good luck to them.

 

If they want a proper answer then I suggest they phone the licensing department or ask a policeman.

 

Harry

[al4x]

You're all bent though dh and don't know what you're doing

[Dirty Harry]

You're all bent though dh and don't know what you're doing

 

Bent! I'm a married man don't you know.

[poontang]

I would think the police will have cleared it with the CPS so no criminal prosecutions would follow.

 

Strictly speaking it's illegal, so as has been said it could cause problems with insurance/accidents.

[SakoQuad]

No question its illegal to be in possession of guns and not be in possession of a current certificate. Not much question that the police are NOT going to start arresting folk where that is caused by their delay in getting paperwork out (where a renewal application was lodged in good time).

 

I don't think that there is a real and actual risk therefore in simply having the guns in the cabinet (I accept absolutely that some people will nevertheless feel real concern about being put in that position).

 

The kicker for me is the risk involved in using the gun(s) during such a period when I suspect a person might find they are not insured in the event of an accident.

 

I personally think insurance companies are rather more likely to take 2 swift steps backwards in the event of a claim involving a shooter who doesn't hold a current certificate for his gun, than the police are to suddenly decide they are going to prosecute you.

[Bazooka Joe]

I had the same interview this year when my renewal was due with Durham.

 

I also asked for a Section 7 to be told it will be OK you dont need one to which I replied " I do as I am breaking the law"..

 

My certs landed in the post a few days later !!

 

 

You were lucky then F1...out of interest how long in total did you have to wait.?

[Dekers]

I don't think you need any form of qualifications or expertise to be an rfd but I could be wrong (see I admit when I'm not 100% sure).

 

All you need is £150 and a bloody good Padlock!

[JonathanL]

It's the same process in every force. The police go to jobs. They decide if they are going to submit a file. If its a **** job and going nowhere they won't put a file in. You clearly don't understand the process.

 

We used to have someone from the CPS on duty during office hours for the whole force. Now they are only contactable by phone.

They don't even have access to our computers so can't see what jobs are coming in.

You need to grasp the fact that they only know about jobs that the police take to them.

 

Im not asking for you to prove what qualifications you have im just asking. i dont need photo id or certificates!

 

Nice one, you managed to snip out the most important question I asked you in that post. I'll re-state it for you;

 

The two cops in Durham got done after such an incident; a gun was stolen and it was discovered that the guy who owned it had bought it from these two. It had then gone too far to stop. If an FAC holder gets burgled or mugged for their gun are you still 100% confident that no one will get done?

 

This is the whole point of the issue. The police may nave no interest in prosecuting you after they have told you to break the law but what happens when the CPS finds out independantly? They aren't going to perjure themselves on behalf of people they have never even met so once they find out then the licensing department and potentially all the shooters in illegal possession are well and truly ******.

 

On a more personal note; I think it's getting close to the point where you should probably keep your mouth shut. Your posts seem to be drifting towards a manual of how the police hide stuff from the CPS.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

He said in post 117 he is an rfd.

 

How much is it to store your guns at an rfd these days ..............

 

Have no interest in storing guns as it's a total pain in the backside. Far too much work than it's worth.

 

Strange as it sounds, the only reason I'm saying all this stuff is because when the **** hits the fan (which it will do) it will be unbelievably bad for shooters. A point I've made previously - which has gone utterly and completely ignored - is the one about what would have happened had Atherton in Horden been in possession of his guns on lapsed certificates when he muredered his family. Does no one on here appreciate what an utter **** storm would have insued for us had that been the case? Seriously, has anyone ever actually considered it?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

If the good people on this forum choose to believe everything you and Jonathan spout out then good luck to them.

 

If they want a proper answer then I suggest they phone the licensing department or ask a policeman.

 

Harry

 

The licensing department who are telling you to break the law in the first place.

 

Ok, ask a policeman. Ask a policeman if the police can authorise you to break the law. Go on, ask the chief constable in writing, shall I do it for you?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

I would think the police will have cleared it with the CPS so no criminal prosecutions would follow.

 

Strictly speaking it's illegal, so as has been said it could cause problems with insurance/accidents.

 

Seriously - does no one actually read what's been written here? No one can 'clear' anyone else to break the law and no one can give an assurance that no prosecution will be brought for breaking the law. How many times does it have to be repeated?

 

J.

[Scully]

As has been stated millions of times on this thread; the police do not initiate prosecutions and the licensing department have even less to do with it.

It matters not who does or doesn't do what as it isn't gong to happen.

You are probably correct that the force concerned wouldn't do this but what happens when you get stopped in another force area?

I wont get stopped in another force area.

What happens when you get stopped at night and the licensing department is closed and you get nicked? If I'm in illegal possession of even my own guns,it wont matter whether licensing is open or not.You get interviewed about all these illegal guns you have (which they are) and you spout off this fantastical story about how it's ok because the licensing department said it's fine to break the law for a few months because they're a bit behind.I have experience of such situations and wont be saying anything,but it aint going to happen. Do you have any conception at all how that is going to sound to some young ambitious copper who's wet dreams involve being head of Internal Investigations and who then kicks up a stink about it?I have experience of young ambitious cops and they don't impress me,but it aint going to happen. The licensing department will all get suspended and sacked for telling people to break the law.They better had be;I'd be implicating them if they weren't!But it aint gonna happen.

Think about it. Just imagine for a minute that you have never had anything to do with firearms in your life so you have never heard of this matter before. One day you wake up to the headlines 'SOUTHSHIRE POLICE TURN BLIND EYE TO MASS ILLEGAL GUN POSSESSION: Hundreds of people in Southshire allowed to keep UNLICENSED DEADLY WEAPONS with no checks due to overworked gun licensing department.

Now there's a headline I'd pay good money to see.

A few days later (after all hell has broken loose) the headline will be 'REVEALED: POLICE TOLD GUN OWNERS TO HOLD DEALDY ILLEGAL WEAPONS'.- Southshire Journal investigation relveals that licensing chiefs shockingly told hundreds of gun owners to hold on to illegal guns to cover up their poor performance.

Isn't likely as it is licensing which tell gun owners they 'will be fine',not the police.As far as I'm aware licensing staff are civilians.

Stuff like this has a habbit of getting drasticaly out of control and is soon way beyond the reach of anyone who can stop it escallating. Believe me, you really don't want to be one of those caught up in it.Believe me Jonathan,I've been caught up in worse(and am still a license holder)You have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn.

 

J.

This is a highly dramatical post Jonathan;not above the realms of possibility I'll admit,but if it was going to happen I rather think it would have by now,don't you?All it would take is one little word to a susceptible media(from an anti maybe?)and bobs your uncle;fanny's your aunt',the proverbial hits the fan and everyone is busy with an **** covering exercise.After all,it's hardly a secret is it,anyone could have picked up last weeks ST and read all about the practise.It's been going on for years;and by now thousands of us could have been arrested.Our shooting organisations have had plenty of time and opportunity to seek a solution,and so have we,but no-one has bothered to take the trouble.There can only be one reason for this,and that has to be because it just really isn't an issue.

[Bloggs]

You can only imagine what a decent brief would make of a delay in the licensing department causing them to put in writing that it was fine to keep guns and then you getting arrested. We're talking serious compensation but an event that is never going to happen as even the CPS at their most silly wouldn't entertain the notion of winning that one. Thats why it has never happened the whole essence of firearms licensing is stopping naughty people having guns the facts are you are complying with their requirements in having and renewing a certificate so when the department in question are reasonable and say the delay is their fault carry on as you are you can assume they have also put in place the notification to officers on the ground to not arrest people with renewals under way. Many moons ago I had a similar instance and took the advice and went with it no problems my FEO claimed there was as much effort in a temporary cert as a renewal so all it does is adds to the workload and make matters worse.

 

The main thing is you getting your ticket back in time, I would suggest those being told to lodge them and possibly seeing the big stick wielded are those who didn't get a completed application in in good time

 

A very sensible post IMHO

[chrispti]

 

 

Nice one, you managed to snip out the most important question I asked you in that post. I'll re-state it for you;

 

The two cops in Durham got done after such an incident; a gun was stolen and it was discovered that the guy who owned it had bought it from these two. It had then gone too far to stop. If an FAC holder gets burgled or mugged for their gun are you still 100% confident that no one will get done?

 

This is the whole point of the issue. The police may nave no interest in prosecuting you after they have told you to break the law but what happens when the CPS finds out independantly? They aren't going to perjure themselves on behalf of people they have never even met so once they find out then the licensing department and potentially all the shooters in illegal possession are well and truly ******.

 

On a more personal note; I think it's getting close to the point where you should probably keep your mouth shut. Your posts seem to be drifting towards a manual of how the police hide stuff from the CPS.

 

J.

 

And how do know the police did not talk to the cps on the matter, and this is the their agreed temporary solution until the back log issue is resolved?

[chrispti]

 

 

Have no interest in storing guns as it's a total pain in the backside. Far too much work than it's worth.

 

Strange as it sounds, the only reason I'm saying all this stuff is because when the **** hits the fan (which it will do) it will be unbelievably bad for shooters. A point I've made previously - which has gone utterly and completely ignored - is the one about what would have happened had Atherton in Horden been in possession of his guns on lapsed certificates when he muredered his family. Does no one on here appreciate what an utter **** storm would have insued for us had that been the case? Seriously, has anyone ever actually considered it?

 

J.

 

You previously said you were stepping over massive piles of them in your store room because of delayed certificates .

 

You tell your customers they might get prosecuted and charge them to store their guns ........nice little earner..... How much do you charge?

Edited November 16, 2012 by chrispti

[poontang]

Seriously - does no one actually read what's been written here? No one can 'clear' anyone else to break the law and no one can give an assurance that no prosecution will be brought for breaking the law. How many times does it have to be repeated?

 

J.

 

Plenty of police officers break the law everyday with immunity from prosecution. Someone must give them that assurance.

[al4x]

And how do know the police did not talk to the cps on the matter, and this is the their agreed temporary solution until the back log issue is resolved?

 

with the kind of letter you received there is no way a lone FEO issued that without it being passed by the top man and CPS. Its a head on the block kind of letter otherwise, there is a large element of prosecution that relies on it being in the public interest. Taking someone who has had an application delayed due to cutbacks to court is just not going to happen when ultimately its the chief constables fault.

 

I do wonder whether they see your club firearms differently Jonathan if only used for target shooting being a range secretary and RFD at a nearby shop in sunderland possibly you see a different side of people who have more reason to keep guns at home

Edited November 16, 2012 by al4x

[timps]

It isn't quite the same as the entrapment cases you posted though, although it is similar. Entrapment is the intentional coercing of someone to break the law specifically so that you can prosecute them. In the case we are discussing all that is happening is that the police are telling you it's ok to break the law because it makes their lives easier. In fact I think that the argument could reasonably be made that rather than being entrapped, you are actually guilty of conspiracy to possess firearms contrary to Sections 1 & 2 of the Act, possibly even section 5 in the case of empanding ammo and humane dispatch pistols.

 

J.

 

I understand what you are saying about entrapment but I think you are taking it too literally. 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”.

 

This in my opinion doesn't mean the judge can only do this only if it was the Firearms department sole intention to entrap you in the first place, (but this is in essence what the firearms department have done whether it was their intention or not) so the precedent still stands.

 

If the letter was from a lawyer / solicitor then you have mitigating circumstances but ultimately you have broken the law on bad advice from private individuals so no defence only a separate civil case against the bad advice.

 

The letter here was from the state, the court would not expect you to seek further legal advice or clarification so could not then prosecute you for what it (the state) has told you to do.

 

It is also reasonable to take the stance you did not conspire as all you did was to send off your renewal and received a letter back. You would not in all honesty expect the letter to be wrong so have not conspired with the Police at all, as all you have done is what it has told you to do.

 

The courts, Firearms department, police and CPS are all agents of the state and there is no Judge around that is going to allow the state to prosecute someone who has done exactly what the state has told them to do. The above precedent in the wording given will protect you from that.

 

The mistake is of the states making not the individual concerned.

Edited November 16, 2012 by timps

[JonathanL]

This is a highly dramatical post Jonathan;not above the realms of possibility I'll admit,but if it was going to happen I rather think it would have by now,don't you?All it would take is one little word to a susceptible media(from an anti maybe?)and bobs your uncle;fanny's your aunt',the proverbial hits the fan and everyone is busy with an **** covering exercise.After all,it's hardly a secret is it,anyone could have picked up last weeks ST and read all about the practise.It's been going on for years;and by now thousands of us could have been arrested.Our shooting organisations have had plenty of time and opportunity to seek a solution,and so have we,but no-one has bothered to take the trouble.There can only be one reason for this,and that has to be because it just really isn't an issue.

 

I know all this. You are missing the point though. The media don't run stories unless it sells papers. The story on its own probably isn't significant enough. The point I was making was what happens when it comes to light as part of something much bigger - such as someone like Atherton or Bird? It will be horrendously bad for us which is something we can all very much do without.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

And how do know the police did not talk to the cps on the matter, and this is the their agreed temporary solution until the back log issue is resolved?

 

I have no proof, obviously, but I can guarantee they didn't. Think about it - the police and the CPS getting together to suspend the application of law because its too much work to do properly and they want to hit performance targets? People go to prison for that sort of thing.

 

There is even less reason for them to do this as the answer is simple and avoids any nasty repercussions; they just make cert holders store their guns.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

You previously said you were stepping over massive piles of them in your store room because of delayed certificates .

 

You tell your customers they might get prosecuted and charge them to store their guns ........nice little earner..... How much do you charge?

 

The fact that we had them all over the place is the very reason as to why its more trouble than its worth. For the record, we told none of these people anything of the sort. They were all in the position that the police had told them to store their guns or they would come and take them away.

 

Earlier in the year the police here phones around every RFD over several counties to find out what sort of storage capacity they had available as they were having probelems getting renewals done and so would be telling lots of people to put stuff into storage. I think the plan was to makesome space available at headquarters if RFD couldn't cope. At least they planned that bit to a certain degree so good on them.

 

Storing guns is more trouble than its worth unless you are chrging a lot of money which RFD's don't.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Plenty of police officers break the law everyday with immunity from prosecution. Someone must give them that assurance.

 

Only because they don't get caught. No one can give anyone immunity from prosceution or can tell someone that the law does not apply to them.

 

J.

[al4x]

How about police cars on blue lights running speed cameras?

Edited November 16, 2012 by al4x

[JonathanL]

with the kind of letter you received there is no way a lone FEO issued that without it being passed by the top man and CPS. Its a head on the block kind of letter otherwise, there is a large element of prosecution that relies on it being in the public interest. Taking someone who has had an application delayed due to cutbacks to court is just not going to happen when ultimately its the chief constables fault.

 

Like I said - rubbish. There is no way the CPS would have agreed to that and I can guarantee they know nothing about it. Why don't you ask them if you think they do?

 

I do wonder whether they see your club firearms differently Jonathan if only used for target shooting being a range secretary and RFD at a nearby shop in sunderland possibly you see a different side of people who have more reason to keep guns at home

 

The thing is though that they are telling everyone the same thing, regardless of why they possess firearms. Actually, I think you possibly make a valid point about people who possess guns for target shooting. If you are member of a club then the law allows you to be in possession of firearms for the purpose of target shooting. So, if your FAC expires you might have an argument that you are not actually in illegal possession as your possession is made lawful by being a member of a home office approved club. I'm not too keen to test the point though.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

How about police cars on blue lights running speed cameras?

 

They don't break the law in doing any of that so the issue of being given permission, immunity, etc, doesn't arise.

 

J.