JonathanL Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Providing they fit the criteria. Section 5 public order offences for gobbling off at the police will soon move you into the not suitable bracket. There is no entitlement to fac that's granted on purpose of need as I'm sure you know. Sorry but you are wrong. As CharlieT has pointed out, the Act quite spcifically uses the word "SHALL". That is an instruction, an order, if you like, by Parliament to the chief officer telling him that he must grant the certificate to anyone who meets the criteria contained in the Act. In addition, "need" does not come into it. The Home Office state quite clearly that just because you have a need for an FAC it does not mean that you will get one. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 The simple solution is carry your certificate whenever you have your guns with you , that way you can show said dibble that you are sensible and entitled to hold the guns before he goes anywhere near them , should he wish to examine them he is safe In The knowledge that you aren't going to turn on him As he already knows you are deemed competent and have the relevant paperwork , I cant see what is to be gained from behaving differently TBH ? If I were a policeman I would be wary of any random persons with guns in the car who couldn't produce the relevant paperwork for them when asked, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastiebap Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 I am curious - surely same rules apply for them in that they should have a firearms licence to be able to inspect and seize a gun. What makes them so special that they do not have to abide by the law - surely a firearms officer would have to be called if they were to remove the gun? The exemptions written into the firearms order, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Yrs, feo can remove them, civi or not, they are designated persons under pace and have similar powers, in fact the same powers as police when on duty and carrying out their job. Like traffic wardens and uniformed police beingthe oonly people to be able to stop a moving car under the road traffic act, now pcso's can as they are designated and carry the same power. Confusing in some ways but mindlessly simple in others. Can I just clarify, are you saying that PCSOs have the same powers as a pc or a traffic warden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) Yrs, feo can remove them, civi or not, they are designated persons under pace and have similar powers, in fact the same powers as police when on duty and carrying out their job. Like traffic wardens and uniformed police beingthe oonly people to be able to stop a moving car under the road traffic act, now pcso's can as they are designated and carry the same power. Confusing in some ways but mindlessly simple in others. Ok, a bit late but only just noticed this...what has changed recently as a year or two back a PCSO cannot go anywhere near your gun, even if they think you are a bank robber or about to commit murder, they have to call the police. They have no more authority in this area than Joe Public, but like I say, has something changed recently? Edited July 23, 2013 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Don't know if this is totally up to date, but might help. http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Careers/A-Career-With-Us/PCSOs/PCSO-Powers.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Don't know if this is totally up to date, but might help. http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Careers/A-Career-With-Us/PCSOs/PCSO-Powers.aspx Thanks Welsh, that was broadly my understanding too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Sorry but you are wrong. As CharlieT has pointed out, the Act quite spcifically uses the word "SHALL". That is an instruction, an order, if you like, by Parliament to the chief officer telling him that he must grant the certificate to anyone who meets the criteria contained in the Act. In addition, "need" does not come into it. The Home Office state quite clearly that just because you have a need for an FAC it does not mean that you will get one. J. I always understood it that broadly speaking, the police have to give you good reason not to grant a SGC and you have to prove good reason to acquire an FAC. I do stress "broadly" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) Why would anyone want or even think about obstructing an officer? Be polite show them your papers ect.I find it worrying that one post refers to his guns as sniper rifles Edited July 23, 2013 by Davyo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Read the up dated pace guidance and not the news papers, u will see that in certain circumstances they have the power of warrantedbconstables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Read the up dated pace guidance and not the news papers, u will see that in certain circumstances they have the power of warrantedbconstables. They have CERTAIN powers of PC's in certain circumstances,the list I linked to is from a police force not a newspaper,and I am fairly certain they do not have the power of a PC to take your weapons if so requested. Think about it,if they had all the powers of a PC what would be the point of a PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 That's exactly what I posted, in certain circumstances. As they are designated the chief officer can confer powers to them as he likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 I have no issues with allowing a PC to check my guns after I have shown them my certificate but im afraid I wouldn't extend that courtesy to any PCSO unless they could show me written confirmation that it was in their remit to do so , in fact I probably wouldn't tell a PCSO I had my guns with me for fear of scaring the poor little darlings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 its no wonder the police are as they are, it seems to me some on here are just so anti police , why ? , let them do their job and as said they are only human, just because they have a uniform on doesn,t mean you have to be awkward with them. if you get a pull then just comply with what they ask, why make a mountain out of a molehill, let them do their job and then if all is legal you will be on your way, being an awkward sod is just going to upset everyone just my opinion mind, if you are legal and have nothing to hide why create all the fuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Ok, a bit late but only just noticed this...what has changed recently as a year or two back a PCSO cannot go anywhere near your gun, even if they think you are a bank robber or about to commit murder, they have to call the police. They have no more authority in this area than Joe Public, but like I say, has something changed recently? Which means they most certainly can take the gun away. You or I could if someone were about to do either of those things. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 I always understood it that broadly speaking, the police have to give you good reason not to grant a SGC and you have to prove good reason to acquire an FAC. I do stress "broadly" Almost. In the case of a SGC the police have to show that you do not have good reason to have the SGC (which is slightly different from them having to give good reason as to why you should not have it). Yes, you have to demonstrate 'good reason' (one of the criteria laid down in the Act) for an FAC but as long as you can do that they must issue the cert. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 They have CERTAIN powers of PC's in certain circumstances,the list I linked to is from a police force not a newspaper,and I am fairly certain they do not have the power of a PC to take your weapons if so requested. Think about it,if they had all the powers of a PC what would be the point of a PC. I think you are right here. However, contrary to what someone else mentioned, they would still be able to in a case where you were about to commit a serious crime with a firearm in the same way anyone would be. Their possession may be technically illegal (as would that of Joe Bloggs in the same situation) but if it were in order to prevent a threat of serious injury or to life then the defence of necessity would be available to them. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the crowman Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 its no wonder the police are as they are, it seems to me some on here are just so anti police , why ? , let them do their job and as said they are only human, just because they have a uniform on doesn,t mean you have to be awkward with them. if you get a pull then just comply with what they ask, why make a mountain out of a molehill, let them do their job and then if all is legal you will be on your way, being an awkward sod is just going to upset everyone just my opinion mind, if you are legal and have nothing to hide why create all the fuss +1 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 its no wonder the police are as they are, it seems to me some on here are just so anti police , why ? , let them do their job and as said they are only human, just because they have a uniform on doesn,t mean you have to be awkward with them. if you get a pull then just comply with what they ask, why make a mountain out of a molehill, let them do their job and then if all is legal you will be on your way, being an awkward sod is just going to upset everyone just my opinion mind, if you are legal and have nothing to hide why create all the fuss It does work both ways,i have met some right idiots in uniform over the years who seem to be on one big ego trip,some police officers do themselves no favours in the politeness stakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Which means they most certainly can take the gun away. You or I could if someone were about to do either of those things. J. No they can't, unless something has changed recently as I said, they are specifically issued with instruction NOT to. This is specifically covered in the Training at Sulhampstead Police College for PCSO, their training on Firearms is simple, you are NOT trained, don't challenge anyone, stay away, call the police. All they are allowed to do is retreat, observe the situation as best as possible from a safe distance and wait for the police. As with so many things in life, I suspect if they waded in and all worked out they would be lauded by all (including the Police) as hero's, if it went wrong they would be hung out to dry by the force for acting outside their training and instruction. Edited July 25, 2013 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoogey Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) late in but, sinario... copper stops you and you say 'cant do me copper get lost'.... if i was the copper i'd get the strip search gloves out and find something to do you for, plus, i can only sumise on this one, you'd be on a stop later list under the not nice list. has any one mensioned the 'let you off with a causion' thing yet? just incase its not, dont accept it unless you were illigal with your gun of course. (it means you accept guilt and later could still be procecuted...and yu lose the gun). there was reports on it in derby or some where. Edited July 25, 2013 by stoogey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 No they can't, unless something has changed recently as I said, they are specifically issued with instruction NOT to. This is specifically covered in the Training at Sulhampstead Police College for PCSO, their training on Firearms is simple, you are NOT trained, don't challenge anyone, stay away, call the police. All they are allowed to do is retreat, observe the situation as best as possible from a safe distance and wait for the police. As with so many things in life, I suspect if they waded in and all worked out they would be lauded by all (including the Police) as hero's, if it went wrong they would be hung out to dry by the force for acting outside their training and instruction. The discussion here though was in the sense of "they can't do it because they would commit a possession offence" whereas a police officer would not. It may be a disciplinary/operational procedure matter internally but a PCSO who removed a firearm from someone who was about to commit a serious crime with it (especially one involving thread to life or of serious injury) is in the same position, legally, as any other non-police officer. If Joe Bloggs took a gun away from someone who was trying to shoot another person then although his possession of it would be technically illegal he would never be convicted as he would have the defence of necessity available to him. A PCSO would too. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 late in but, sinario... copper stops you and you say 'cant do me copper get lost'.... if i was the copper i'd get the strip search gloves out and find something to do you for, plus, i can only sumise on this one, you'd be on a stop later list under the not nice list. has any one mensioned the 'let you off with a causion' thing yet? just incase its not, dont accept it unless you were illigal with your gun of course. (it means you accept guilt and later could still be procecuted...and yu lose the gun). there was reports on it in derby or some where. You cannot be prosecuted for the offence if you have accepted a caution. The whole point of the caution is that it is way of disposing of the matter without involving the courts. I do agree that you shouldn't accept one without having taken proper legal advice though. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 After reading some of the posts on here its really made me wonder what on Earth I should do, if I ever get " pulled over" by the police. I'm torn between:- 1 diving on the floor arms and legs stretch out shouting " I SURRENDER" 2 Telling plod to clear off "I'm avin a bad day" 3 Asking them to produce there FAC and cycling proficiency badge if they ask to see my weapon 4 Putting my foot down and try and loose them. Or just be polite and cooperative Mmmmmmm now what should I do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedster Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Make sure you kick some doors in, if you ever get released back home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts