CharlieT Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Lets not all get too carried away. Did he have his cert or not? If he did not there is nothing unlawful about the seizure. Questionable application of law perhaps. Perhaps the full facts would be useful before talk of IPCC, MP et al. But we are not getting carried away. The complaint is that the lad was told he could not walk to his shoot carrying his gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Lets not all get too carried away. Did he have his cert or not? If he did not there is nothing unlawful about the seizure. Questionable application of law perhaps. Perhaps the full facts would be useful before talk of IPCC, MP et al. The clue is in the name POLICE they are there to police the law, not make it up as they see fit or think it it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Right. I'm not sure if that is worse or better. You don't think that writing to an MP, IPCC, Police Authority (good luck with that non-existent entity) etc is a bit of an overreaction about what is some incorrect advice? The clue is in the name POLICE they are there to police the law, not make it up as they see fit or think it it should be. What do you think they are making up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 It would appear that an offence has not been committed but it would have been prudent to avoid the situation. The son of a friend of mine was in a similar situation a couple of years ago when he collected his repaired shotgun from the repairer in the middle of town. He was stopped by the police as he was waiting at the bus stop on his journey home. Nothing wrong in what he did but if his dad had taken him in the car there wouldn't have been a problem. He was in the local nick for a few hours, not a pleasant situation but an avoidable one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 What do you think they are making up? By reading the op's original post i would have thought it was obvious,but here it is again just in case you missed it. "they sent him home & have told him he has to be driven to the land in future as you cant walk the streets with a shotgun in a bag" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul T Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Police know the lad has a cert, so they could easily have driven round to the house to view it . Irrespective of that, it is not illegal to have an unloaded shotgun in a public place, so again the lad has done nothing wrong here either. Yes, you need reasonable excuse for a loaded one as the law says. The police are wrong and definitely need educating on the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. I reckon they just saw a young lad with a gun and thought he would roll over if challenged - OP where in Donny are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Not really very obvious as there was the walking/driving issue and replies about the seizure of his shotgun. If that is word for word then as I stated it is incorrect advice. It's not like he got nicked for walking to a permission. Seems to be a lot of overly sensitive people on here sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 It would appear that an offence has not been committed but it would have been prudent to avoid the situation. The son of a friend of mine was in a similar situation a couple of years ago when he collected his repaired shotgun from the repairer in the middle of town. He was stopped by the police as he was waiting at the bus stop on his journey home. Nothing wrong in what he did but if his dad had taken him in the car there wouldn't have been a problem. He was in the local nick for a few hours, not a pleasant situation but an avoidable one. Was a complaint made?, so the police could learn from their mistake, or was nothing said so they will continue to do it and it becomes the norm.The law is there in black and white.(with a few grey areas thrown in for good measure to keep everyone on their toes ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Not really very obvious as there was the walking/driving issue and replies about the seizure of his shotgun. If that is word for word then as I stated it is incorrect advice. It's not like he got nicked for walking to a permission. Seems to be a lot of overly sensitive people on here sometimes. Please read the op's original post it is all in there,he was walking to a permission, he was stopped and told he could not walk to a permission with a shotgun in a slip and he would have to be driven to his permission . It does annoy me when people do not read the first post of a thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Please read the op's original post it is all in there,he was walking to a permission, he was stopped and told he could not walk to a permission with a shotgun in a slip and he would have to be driven to his permission . It does annoy me when people do not read the first post of a thread. I read it. Stopped - not arrested. Read the replies you're quoting. It's really annoying when someone argues for the sake of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Was a complaint made?, so the police could learn from their mistake, or was nothing said so they will continue to do it and it becomes the norm.The law is there in black and white.(with a few grey areas thrown in for good measure to keep everyone on their toes ) There was a complaint and BASC were involved but the outcome was not satisfactory, my point is why take a chance ( although perfectly legal) to be seen in public with a gun when it can be avoided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 I read it. Stopped - not arrested. Read the replies you're quoting. It's really annoying when someone argues for the sake of it. So he was stopped and his shotgun taken off him, two more officers arrived confirmed he had a licence and stopped him carrying on his lawful way to his permission and told him he could no longer carry out a lawful act and he should travel in a vehicle.So he was denied his lawful right to proceed to carry out a lawful past time to which he had a legal right to persue Read my posts,i have never mentioned arrest, only the wrong decision by a police officer,the officer should have checked the law before making it up,it is not an argument for the sake of it,it is upholding the law of the land correctly and fairly, not making it up to suit your agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 There was a complaint and BASC were involved but the outcome was not satisfactory, my point is why take a chance ( although perfectly legal) to be seen in public with a gun when it can be avoided Sorry there wasn't a satisfactory outcome,but all points in this vein should be challenged other wise precedence will be set and before you know it another part of our shooting rights will be stripped away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 All very well but you don't have anywhere near to all the facts. Therefore your assertion that everything he wanted to do was his lawful right just might not be correct. As I said at the beginning it sounds like ill-informed advice. While not especially helpful why on earth there is so much upset about it is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 All very well but you don't have anywhere near to all the facts. Therefore your assertion that everything he wanted to do was his lawful right just might not be correct. As I said at the beginning it sounds like ill-informed advice. While not especially helpful why on earth there is so much upset about it is beyond me. You are now the one perpetuating an argument,i have based all my statements on the op as i have no reason to doubt he is telling the truth,if you do not understand the ramifications of a police officer making it up as he goes along then more fool you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utectok Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Where does the law say it has to be covered ? +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 You are now the one perpetuating an argument,i have based all my statements on the op as i have no reason to doubt he is telling the truth,if you do not understand the ramifications of a police officer making it up as he goes along then more fool you. No one has said they doubt what the OP has said but the account is far from complete. The point you are missing/ignoring is that there were/are no ramifications from whatever advice was given to the OP's son about having to use a vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Firearm conditions are bad enough but basic stuff being misinterpreted is unforgivable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 No one has said they doubt what the OP has said but the account is far from complete. The point you are missing/ignoring is that there were/are no ramifications from whatever advice was given to the OP's son about having to use a vehicle. The ramifications are that he can no longer walk to his permission according to the police, something which under current law he is perfectly entitled to do,the police are not law makers they uphold the law.again if you cannot see the ramifications more fool you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delburt0 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Looking forward to the outcome of this one!ill get the popcorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 I'll give up banging my head in a minute. It's not illegal so what do you expect to happen next time he walks perfectly legally to his permission and chances on a police officer? The police are not saying it is illegal by the way - one police officer has. That is a very different thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utectok Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Next time I'd politely decline the request to do what the officers suggest and carry on ur legal way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 I'll give up banging my head in a minute. It's not illegal so what do you expect to happen next time he walks perfectly legally to his permission and chances on a police officer? The police are not saying it is illegal by the way - one police officer has. That is a very different thing. Banging your head! 4 officers were there,so that's 4 that have made up the law,so he attempts to walk to his permission again and one of the 4 see him and decide he has broken their law,he is arrested and his fingerprints taken and dna swabbed,never to be removed from the database even when they admit it was a wrongful arrest. One police officer or 1000 police officers it makes no difference, the 1 police officer was making it up as he went along,again banging my head against the wall,if you cannot see the ramifications of this then more fool you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Next time I'd politely decline the request to do what the officers suggest and carry on ur legal way Finally someone gets it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 Next time I'd politely decline the request to do what the officers suggest and carry on ur legal way Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.