what do you do if pulled by the police?

[byjovecarruthers]

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.

A caution is still a conviction and is held on record for a specific time period is it not?

 

 

Cancel my last:

 

" Although a caution is not a conviction, it forms a part of a person's criminal record and can be used as evidence of bad character if a person goes to court for another crime, and in Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for certain types of employment.[2] A caution might cause some countries not to allow visits to, or residence in, that country."

 

From Wikipedia but sounds right to me.

Edited July 25, 2013 by byjovecarruthers

[GingerCat]

This has all got rather boring now

[stoogey]

hmm so not for up to five year ahh yes..can be used to prosicute, so not the cation but the fact it was issued...ff lol.

 

dodgey int it..best not being there i think .

[JonathanL]

A caution is still a conviction and is held on record for a specific time period is it not?

 

 

Cancel my last:

 

" Although a caution is not a conviction, it forms a part of a person's criminal record and can be used as evidence of bad character if a person goes to court for another crime, and in Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for certain types of employment.[2] A caution might cause some countries not to allow visits to, or residence in, that country."

 

From Wikipedia but sounds right to me.

 

The Wikipedia infor is correct. Been done to death here before. A caution is not a conviction. Neither is a fixed penalty.

 

I'm not sure how much faith we should put in cautions. I'm firmly convinced that there are people out there who have accepted cautions for things which aren't even offences. As an example, I know a chap who was done many years back for some offences, one of which was possession of shotgun cartridges without a shotgun certificate. As we all know that isn't even an offence but it got as far as the court before anyone would listen to the defence side of things; the judge kicked that one in to touch pretty sharpley. Now, if it can get as far as court then it's reasonable to think that he may have been offered a caution to make it go away.

 

If you look on the BASC website they have the drafts of the proposed new application forms that the HO have produced. The question about convictions has been expanded to ask whether you have any fixed penalties. It's note worthy that they haven't seen fit to ask whether you have any cautions. I wonder why - perhaps because they have little faith in their accuracy?

 

J.

[Gordon R]

It's note worthy that they haven't seen fit to ask whether you have any cautions. I wonder why - perhaps because they have little faith in their accuracy?

 

J.

 

They make it clear that these versions are not the full form. They appear to be minus any notes expanding on what must be declared.

 

To suggest that fixed penalty records are more accurate than records of cautions is bizarre. I presume you have evidence to fully substantiate this, as you have said that you can't post something as fact, without backing it up.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Gordon R

[happypig]

On the matter of fixed penalties.... It is more likely they refer to

Penalty notices for disorder.

 

The ones issues to first time shoplifters, or for disorderly behaviour

[JonathanL]

 

They make it clear that these versions are not the full form. They appear to be minus any notes expanding on what must be declared.

 

To suggest that fixed penalty records are more accurate than records of cautions is bizarre. I presume you have evidence to fully substantiate this, as you have said that you can't post something as fact, without backing it up.

 

I realise that they aren't the final version. However, the drafts that the HO have published seem to be more about the format and layout of the form rather than the specific wording. Perhaps cautions will be mentioned in the final version but I suspect not. If they aren't then it suggests that there is probably some truth in what I say.

 

Fixed penalties are specific to particular offences and can only be offered under certain statutory conditions relating to the commission of the offence. A caution can be offered for pretty much anything. Like I say, a chap I know was accused of possesing section 2 ammunition without the relevant certificate whic is not an offence. It got all the way to the court before the judge knocked it in to touch. The guy concerned knew it that wasn't an offence so was quite happy to let it continue as he knew the outcome would make the prosecution look ridiculous. Lots of people who didn't know that it wasn't an offence would have simply accepted a caution in that situation to make everything go away. Hence, it is reasonable conclusion to draw that there will be people out there with cautions for 'offences' which do not exist.

 

J.

On the matter of fixed penalties.... It is more likely they refer to

Penalty notices for disorder.

 

The ones issues to first time shoplifters, or for disorderly behaviour

 

It says 'fixed penalties' on the draft form.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

To suggest that fixed penalty records are more accurate than records of cautions is bizarre. I presume you have evidence to fully substantiate this, as you have said that you can't post something as fact, without backing it up.

 

 

Jonathan - any chance of a response, rather than the "I knew a chap etc."?

[JonathanL]

 

Jonathan - any chance of a response, rather than the "I knew a chap etc."?

 

I already did. First two sentences of the second paragraph of my response.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

Jonathan - as responses go, that is a non-event. You seem to be deliberately evading the question.

 

Where is the proof that fixed penalty records are more accurate than records of cautions? That is simple enough for anyone.

[goodo123]

Should we carry the operating manual what came with the guns? After all like has already been mentioned their is no testing procedure or course for us to handle firearms. Yes their is certification but that only allows us to own etc it doesn't mention anything about being competent. If I was stopped and asked I would just say it how it is, if they want to inspect then fine, if they drop it or damage it in anyway then sue for damages, the same if they crashed into you etc. If they lie about the damage etc then get a good solicitor...

[JonathanL]

Jonathan - as responses go, that is a non-event. You seem to be deliberately evading the question.

 

Where is the proof that fixed penalty records are more accurate than records of cautions? That is simple enough for anyone.

You are attributing things to me that I haven't said. Re-read what I posted and point out where I said that please.

 

I suggested that perhaps the authorities may not have much faith in their accuracy because they don't mention them on the draft of the new form. I also gave an example of someone I know personally who was accused of something which isn't wven an offence.

 

People can draw their own conclusions from that. Including wheter they believe what I'm saying or not.

 

J.

Edited July 30, 2013 by JonathanL

[mick miller]

In short, this happened to me recently. Having followed some of the bad advice on here I stopped carrying my cert. with me at all times. A stupid choice resulting in an hour round trip to go back, get my cert. and produce to have my rifle released back to me. All legal and above board, see section 48 of the 1968 Firearms Act...

 

(1)A constable may demand, from any person whom he believes to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or of a shot gun, the production of his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate.
[F138(1A)Where a person upon whom a demand has been made by a constable under subsection (1) above and whom the constable believes to be in possession of a firearm fails—
(a)to produce a firearm certificate or, as the case may be, a shot gun certificate;
(b)to show that he is a person who, by reason of his place of residence or any other circumstances, is not entitled to be issued with a document identifying that firearm under any of the provisions which in the other member States correspond to the provisions of this Act for the issue of European firearms passes; or
©to show that he is in possession of the firearm exclusively in connection with the carrying on of activities in respect of which, he or the person on whose behalf he has possession of the firearm, is recognised, for the purposes of the law of another member State relating to firearms, as a collector of firearms or a body concerned in the cultural or historical aspects of weapons,
the constable may demand from that person the production of a document which has been issued to that person in another member State under any such corresponding provisions, identifies that firearm as a firearm to which it relates and is for the time being valid.]
(2)If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate [F139or document] or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.
(3)If under this section a person is required to declare to a consta ble his name and address, it is an offence for him to refuse to declare it or to fail to give his true name and address.
[F140(4)It is an offence for a person who is in possession of a firearm to fail to comply with a demand under subsection (1A) above.]

 

If you lose your ticket whilst out the worst you'll get is a £10 bill to get a new one issued. No brainer really isn't it?

[Gordon R]

Jonathan - that is not really worthy of you.

 

You cast doubt on the accuracy of caution stats, with a simple anecdote. Where is the body of proof you previously seemed keen on others supplying?

[JonathanL]

If you lose your ticket whilst out the worst you'll get is a £10 bill to get a new one issued. No brainer really isn't it?

No, the worts that could happen is that your ticket gets found by some violent criminal who now knows your name, address, the details of all your guns and potential ammo - he even has a picture of you.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Jonathan - that is not really worthy of you.

 

You cast doubt on the accuracy of caution stats, with a simple anecdote. Where is the body of proof you previously seemed keen on others supplying?

Again, re-read what I posted. I explained it in the section of one my posts that I pointed out to you the first time you had trouble understanding.

 

I didn't 'cast doubt' on them. I said that perhaps their accuracy wasn't trusted by the HO and gave some reasons for why that may be the case. If you want to read more into that than I actually said then that's up to you.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

Jonathan - please stop trying to patronise me by telling me to re-read what you write. I don't have trouble understanding your rather limited style. It isn't often worth reading the first time round.

I didn't 'cast doubt' on them. I said that perhaps their accuracy wasn't trusted by the HO

 

 

 

Absolute classic.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Gordon R

[JonathanL]

Jonathan - please stop trying to patronise me by telling me to re-read what you write. I don't have trouble understanding your rather limited style. It isn't often worth reading the first time round.

 

 

Absolute classic.

If you don't have trouble understanding what I write then why are you asking me to 'prove' something that I didn't present as fact to begin with? Clearly you misunderstand something.

 

I suggested that perhaps the HO didn't have much faith in cautions and presented some reasons why that may be so. I may be right, I may be wrong, but people can use what I said to make their own minds up.

 

For some reason you seem to have some weird obsession with proving me wrong at all costs (even where there is nothing to prove, as in this case) that is clouding your judgement.

 

J.

[welsh1]

In short, this happened to me recently. Having followed some of the bad advice on here I stopped carrying my cert. with me at all times. A stupid choice resulting in an hour round trip to go back, get my cert. and produce to have my rifle released back to me. All legal and above board, see section 48 of the 1968 Firearms Act... (1)A constable may demand, from any person whom he believes to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or of a shot gun, the production of his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate.[F138(1A)Where a person upon whom a demand has been made by a constable under subsection (1) above and whom the constable believes to be in possession of a firearm fails(a)to produce a firearm certificate or, as the case may be, a shot gun certificate;(b)to show that he is a person who, by reason of his place of residence or any other circumstances, is not entitled to be issued with a document identifying that firearm under any of the provisions which in the other member States correspond to the provisions of this Act for the issue of European firearms passes; or©to show that he is in possession of the firearm exclusively in connection with the carrying on of activities in respect of which, he or the person on whose behalf he has possession of the firearm, is recognised, for the purposes of the law of another member State relating to firearms, as a collector of firearms or a body concerned in the cultural or historical aspects of weapons,the constable may demand from that person the production of a document which has been issued to that person in another member State under any such corresponding provisions, identifies that firearm as a firearm to which it relates and is for the time being valid.](2)If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate [F139or document] or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.(3)If under this section a person is required to declare to a consta ble his name and address, it is an offence for him to refuse to declare it or to fail to give his true name and address.[F140(4)It is an offence for a person who is in possession of a firearm to fail to comply with a demand under subsection (1A) above.] If you lose your ticket whilst out the worst you'll get is a £10 bill to get a new one issued. No brainer really isn't it?

 

 

So how did you get bad advice?you are not required to carry your certificates,and while it is correct that if you do not produce them the officer is entitled to seize your firearms,in most cases a check over the radio will immediately confirm you are entitled to hold.

I have been stopped twice, and once followed across fields by a firearms unit, none have ever taken my firearms,and all have confirmed I was a holder by checking me over the radio.

 

I have suggested that a picture of your certificate showing your face and address,firearms cert no will help the officer to verify who you are kept on your phone is a good idea,but I never carry my certificate when out shooting

[Gordon R]

Jonathan - you say the HO perhaps didn't have much faith in "cautions" - and give one anecdote to back this up. You clearly can't explain your rather bizarre comments and just waffle. It is embarrassing.

 

I don't need to prove you wrong - you do that all on your own - too often.

 

I will leave the thread at your mercy.

 

welsh1 - fair point.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Gordon R

[aris]

My FEO specifically told me I didn't need to carry it and even suggested I shouldn't. There are times when you may need it - like when going to a clay ground where they have a policy requiring it or purchasing ammo.

[JonathanL]

Jonathan - you say the HO perhaps didn't have much faith in "cautions" - and give one anecdote to back this up. You clearly can't explain your rather bizarre comments and just waffle. It is embarrassing.

 

I don't need to prove you wrong - you do that all on your own - too often.

 

I will leave the thread at your mercy.

 

welsh1 - fair point.

As well as the anecdote I gave I also pointed out that a caution can be handed out for pretty much anything whereas fixed penalties can only be offered under specific statutory conditions relating to specific offences. So, if a police officer mistakenly belives something to be an offence (like possessing section 2 ammo without a certificate) he could offer a caution. If you took that it would mean that you had accepted a caution for an offence not known to law. That cannot happen with a fixed penalty because they can only be offered in relation to specific offences. Hence, it is at least arguable that a caution may be given for an 'offence' which does not exist but a fixed penalty could never be.

 

As I have said; if you think my comments bizzare then fair enough, I personally don't really care. Everyone can arrive at their own conclusions on what I, and you, post.

 

J.

Edited July 30, 2013 by JonathanL

[deaquire]

When your weapon is in your vehicle, you're supposed to keep it covered - out of sight. Does it have to be in a gun slip, or will it suffice to be completely covered with a cloth? I know it sounds stupid, 'just put the rifle in the case', but I bet there's a hella lot of people out there who just cover it with a cloth 'cause they can't be bothered putting it away.

 

EDIT: Also, if you're vehicle has completely tinted rear windows, including the boot, to the point you can't see in even if you push your nose right up against the glass, then does it need to be covered at all? Providing you can't see the weapon through one of the front windows. I'm only being pedantic, I know. Just curious is all.

Edited July 31, 2013 by deaquire

[CharlieT]

When your weapon is in your vehicle, you're supposed to keep it covered - out of sight. Does it have to be in a gun slip, or will it suffice to be completely covered with a cloth? I know it sounds stupid, 'just put the rifle in the case', but I bet there's a hella lot of people out there who just cover it with a cloth 'cause they can't be bothered putting it away.

 

EDIT: Also, if you're vehicle has completely tinted rear windows, including the boot, to the point you can't see in even if you push your nose right up against the glass, then does it need to be covered at all? Providing you can't see the weapon through one of the front windows. I'm only being pedantic, I know. Just curious is all.

The Firearms Act makes no reference for the need to cover a firearm in a public place. Obviously, for many reasons, it is good practice to do so.

 

Therefore I can see no reason why you should not cover it with anything to hand.

 

Your main responsibility is the security of your gun so whilst traveling in a vehicle it would be prudent to both cover it and keep it secure.

[mick miller]

My FEO specifically told me I didn't need to carry it and even suggested I shouldn't. There are times when you may need it - like when going to a clay ground where they have a policy requiring it or purchasing ammo.

Best of luck if you get stopped on the way shooting and they ask to see it then. The pnc check may reveal that you are a shotgun or firearm certificate holder but will give little more information than that, no serial numbers, or in the case of firearms, no information on the calibres held. An average Bobby also won't have access to the national firearms database.

 

So, say that there has been a recent break-in where a shotgun has been stolen, we now have you with a shotgun and no way to link you to the serial number on the item or any proof that you are entitled to carry a shotgun.

 

Police officers have to be accountable for everytime they access the system to do a check, that probably means more paperwork. Far easier to have your certificate, or if you're terrified that if you lose it you'll get a visit from violent thugs, a copy of your certificate with the address blanked out.

 

This was all explained, in detail, by the head of firearms licensing to me after I made a complaint. To me it made perfect sense and, rather than relying on bad advice to never carry it, I will now carry a copy at all times.

 

Bad advice because it cost me an hour round trip, diesel and was an utterly unnecessary inconvenience when I could have simply said 'yes officer, Here's my certificate'.

 

Rural beat officers may be more familiar with people carrying guns but don't assume they all are, or that they all know the best procedure to follow, or that they will all react in the same measured way. Get into urban areas and you can be pretty confident that you will be regarded with more suspicion, so much easier to just show some paper and be on your way don't you think?

Edited August 1, 2013 by mick miller