ChrisAsh Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 The police now and again do sensible meet the person and maybe check the guns are where they should be and what happens half the gun owners on the forum see this as a infringement to their liberty and want to start annoying and wasting police time in booking appointments or telling them where to get off, come on guys get real, they have enough reason fed into them to look for a fight without giving them reason Licence takes months to come why people being deliberately awkward with the police so more time in the field checking and less time available in the office to do the paperwork Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 A good, interesting thread this one! I'm on the point of applying for FAC/SGC after letting it lapse many years ago (30!) I can see both sides of the argument. Part of me says just comply with the police if they ask to do an inspection, the other side says tell them to make an appointment. Ok, but surely if you have everything done right and stored correctly on an unannounced visit they are more likely to leave you alone in future? If you refuse them entry they may think you have something to hide? In the last few years a landowner had his FAC and SGC revoked because police visited and a member of his staff let them into his house where various firearms/ammunition was left out of cabinets, clearly against the regulations. Much though we have rights and can refuse entry I feel that would cause more problems and maybe get an individual tagged as "bolshie" and unwilling to cooperate. You could then be on the radar as someone to watch. Regards Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 A good, interesting thread this one! I'm on the point of applying for FAC/SGC after letting it lapse many years ago (30!) I can see both sides of the argument. Part of me says just comply with the police if they ask to do an inspection, the other side says tell them to make an appointment. Ok, but surely if you have everything done right and stored correctly on an unannounced visit they are more likely to leave you alone in future? If you refuse them entry they may think you have something to hide? In the last few years a landowner had his FAC and SGC revoked because police visited and a member of his staff let them into his house where various firearms/ammunition was left out of cabinets, clearly against the regulations. Much though we have rights and can refuse entry I feel that would cause more problems and maybe get an individual tagged as "bolshie" and unwilling to cooperate. You could then be on the radar as someone to watch. Regards Tim There is nothing wrong with being right and expecting others to conform to the law, even the police. It should not matter that you expect respect as well as giving it and that includes the police suggesting there may be a terrorist threat linked with private firearms. The weapon of choice for terrorists is an automatic assault rifle - preferably 7.62 to defeat body armour. None of us have those weapons ergo we arent linked or a threat yet the police are content to maintain an untruth - that neither shows nor deserves respect. Anyone who does not follow the guidance to the letter whilst holding section 1 or 2 weapons should have them removed - simply, its the law and for that good reason there can be no excuse to be in breach. If all the firearms police knew all about the law and the service was above criticism, I suspect we wouldnt criticise, but it is variable and unreliable and often made-up. I would rather comply than not but if my file has 'bolshy' on it with the added phrase - "but always correct" - I'm happy with that. Some policemen I meet are **** bolshy, and many are ignorant of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 There is nothing wrong with being right and expecting others to conform to the law, even the police. It should not matter that you expect respect as well as giving it and that includes the police suggesting there may be a terrorist threat linked with private firearms. The weapon of choice for terrorists is an automatic assault rifle - preferably 7.62 to defeat body armour. None of us have those weapons ergo we arent linked or a threat yet the police are content to maintain an untruth - that neither shows nor deserves respect. Anyone who does not follow the guidance to the letter whilst holding section 1 or 2 weapons should have them removed - simply, its the law and for that good reason there can be no excuse to be in breach. If all the firearms police knew all about the law and the service was above criticism, I suspect we wouldnt criticise, but it is variable and unreliable and often made-up. I would rather comply than not but if my file has 'bolshy' on it with the added phrase - "but always correct" - I'm happy with that. Some policemen I meet are **** bolshy, and many are ignorant of the law. I agree, the problem may come with a "bolshie" copper who then decides to make your life a misery! Either way, at the moment I haven't got that problem so it doesn't affect me. In the case of my "local" landowner though, if he had been burgled then a number of weapons and ammunition could have got into the wrong hands, not for terrorism maybe but rifle ammo and sawn off shotguns can be used for other crimes. He was breaking the law and got caught so no excuse whatsoever in my eyes and I believe that all of us would think he got what he deserved for being so complacent in thinking he was above the law. His case justifies the police doing spotchecks, if every FAC/SGC owner obeyed the rules then spot checks wouldn't catch anyone out? I'm still sitting on the fence really, I wouldn't want a spotcheck but if I had nothing to hide and nothing to fear then all I lose is 30 minutes of my time. Regards Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I agree, the problem may come with a "bolshie" copper who then decides to make your life a misery! Either way, at the moment I haven't got that problem so it doesn't affect me. In the case of my "local" landowner though, if he had been burgled then a number of weapons and ammunition could have got into the wrong hands, not for terrorism maybe but rifle ammo and sawn off shotguns can be used for other crimes. He was breaking the law and got caught so no excuse whatsoever in my eyes and I believe that all of us would think he got what he deserved for being so complacent in thinking he was above the law. His case justifies the police doing spotchecks, if every FAC/SGC owner obeyed the rules then spot checks wouldn't catch anyone out? I'm still sitting on the fence really, I wouldn't want a spotcheck but if I had nothing to hide and nothing to fear then all I lose is 30 minutes of my time. Regards Tim I agree that it is the principle and not the practice. Sometimes, sadly one has to prevent the practice to reinforce the principle. Here its (for me) the suggestion of any link to terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 His case justifies the police doing spotchecks, if every FAC/SGC owner obeyed the rules then spot checks wouldn't catch anyone out? It doesn't IMO just because a few don't follow the rules, doesn't mean that all firearms owners should be suspect. They would be better concentrating on illegal firearms rather than ones owned by law abiding citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 It doesn't IMO just because a few don't follow the rules, doesn't mean that all firearms owners should be suspect. They would be better concentrating on illegal firearms rather than ones owned by law abiding citizens. I understand your point, but maybe the spotcheck on this individual prevented yet more illegal weapons being on the streets? Like I said, I'm in an inbetween place on this issue, if spotchecks catch out complacent owners then the police can justify what they're doing. If they don't catch anyone out then they will stop doing spotchecks surely? Not everyone obeys the law all the time, that's why the police have random breath tests as well and we don't complain about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Not everyone obeys the law all the time, that's why the police have random breath tests as well and we don't complain about that. I understand what you are saying the police are supposed to have a reason to breathalyse a person, not just random checks like they are doing regards firearms. I would complain if the police just decided to stop me and ask for a breath test for no reason. But they would just make up a reason if need be. Police Powers For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either: (a) committed a moving traffic offence, e.g. speeding, failing to observe a stop sign, having a defective light etc., (b) have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or © have given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, e.g. by draving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car. It is questionable whether the mere fact of having driven out of a pub car park constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I understand what you are saying the police are supposed to have a reason to breathalyse a person, not just random checks like they are doing regards firearms. I would complain if the police just decided to stop me and ask for a breath test for no reason. But they would just make up a reason if need be. True, but on recent spot checks they ask if you wouldn't mind blowing in the machine, if you refuse they then have reasonable suspicion! I'm still on the fence, I don't like the idea of being under suspicion or being checked up on but if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear. Look at it another way, if you got burgled and guns or ammo went missing would you call BASC first or the police? I am just playing devils advocate here because I can see both points of view and partially agree with both! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manton Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Having lived in N Ireland during the "troubles" I am fully aware of one fact, checks on legitimate certificate holders have no effect on the ability of terrorists to acquire weapons. Terrorists do not want shotguns, or .22 rifles, why would they when they can easily get a hold of Armalites, AK47s or even Barrett 50 calibre rifles as they did here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Having lived in N Ireland during the "troubles" I am fully aware of one fact, checks on legitimate certificate holders have no effect on the ability of terrorists to acquire weapons. Terrorists do not want shotguns, or .22 rifles, why would they when they can easily get a hold of Armalites, AK47s or even Barrett 50 calibre rifles as they did here Very true, I think the whole thing is the police trying to look like they are doing something, and an *** covering exercise. I live in Northern Ireland and have had firearms for 40 years. I have never had a unannounced check or heard of anyone else having one, trough the 40 years of terrorist activity here. I can only assume the police here did not see it as useful or necessary . Maybe the police in the rest of the UK should learn from experiences here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Very true, I think the whole thing is the police trying to look like they are doing something, and an *** covering exercise. I live in Northern Ireland and have had firearms for 40 years. I have never had a unannounced check or heard of anyone else having one, trough the 40 years of terrorist activity here. I can only assume the police here did not see it as useful or necessary . Maybe the police in the rest of the UK should learn from experiences here. A very good point and one which undermines any justification for random visits at the present time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 There is nothing wrong with being right and expecting others to conform to the law, even the police. It should not matter that you expect respect as well as giving it and that includes the police suggesting there may be a terrorist threat linked with private firearms. The weapon of choice for terrorists is an automatic assault rifle - preferably 7.62 to defeat body armour. None of us have those weapons ergo we arent linked or a threat yet the police are content to maintain an untruth - that neither shows nor deserves respect. Anyone who does not follow the guidance to the letter whilst holding section 1 or 2 weapons should have them removed - simply, its the law and for that good reason there can be no excuse to be in breach. If all the firearms police knew all about the law and the service was above criticism, I suspect we wouldnt criticise, but it is variable and unreliable and often made-up. I would rather comply than not but if my file has 'bolshy' on it with the added phrase - "but always correct" - I'm happy with that. Some policemen I meet are **** bolshy, and many are ignorant of the law. guidance is not law why should anyone lose there firearms if they have not broken the law are the police above the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 guidance is not law why should anyone lose there firearms if they have not broken the law are the police above the law Strictly speaking you may be right but please see attached for details https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf Specifically --- Under the Firearms Rules 1998, a prescribed safekeeping condition is attached to all firearm and shotgun certificates. It is an offence not to comply with these conditions. The maximum penalty for this offence can be up to 6 months in prison, or a fine, or both. The Firearms Rules do not prescribe how firearms must be kept securely, but the Home Office has issued guidance. Briefly this recommends that you store them in a locked gun cabinet or other similarly secure container. In some cases if you don’t have a gun cabinet, it may be acceptable to remove the firing mechanism from a firearm and store it in a........... I think we both have a point here. The Police arent above the law but we all know our obligations. We may have a right to own and use certain firearms but meeting storage conditions is common sense, even if not precisely specified how we do that in law. 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.