Police Advice required

[Westward]

 

I completely agree with the approach taken by the police, they have a duty of care to the general public and I am fully supportive of this.

 

To some extent I agree with you but it's a matter of interpretation of what that constitutes and my opinion is that the police have become far too controlling. But then I'm from a generation where we learned to take care of ourselves and the job of the police was to maintain law and order.

[ruraltownie]

Ruraltownie might be wise to join basc/other org before u submit ur application just incase u have any trouble u are already an existing member.

Possibly even ask them for advice before applying?

 

Good point scotslad, I will look into this before I submit my application.

[ordnance]

 

You really need to read between the lines before jumping in with highlighted text........

My post was to the OP, letting him know, that not declaring he was on medication what could happen...........which it did in my mates case.

Whether it was 1-2-3-4-5yrs ago is immaterial.

 

So if he had declared their would not have being a problem. ? Obviously you should declare if you surfer from any of the conditions listed on the application form.

Edited May 16, 2016 by ordnance

[Bazooka Joe]

So if he had declared their would not have being a problem. ?

 

 

I haven't a clue, obviously they thought there was, hence they revoked his FAC.

[Vince Green]

The police have to do what they have to do. There is no way after an allegation is made that guns are not confiscated. Nothing the OP said or didn't say would have made any difference, it was already decided before they left the police station.

 

The trouble is "the police had to confiscate his guns" can then resurface at another time and place in the divorce or child custody process as supporting evidence for some other allegations.

[ordnance]

The police have to do what they have to do. There is no way after an allegation is made that guns are not confiscated. Nothing the OP said or didn't say would have made any difference, it was already decided before they left the police station.

 

The trouble is "the police had to confiscate his guns" can then resurface at another time and place in the divorce or child custody process as supporting evidence for some other allegations.

So guilty until proven innocent, would the police confiscate someone's car a potentially deadly weapon if allegations were made.

[felly100]

A mate of mine got his FAC revoked after the police went through his medical record & found out he had been on Anti Dep 3-4yrs ago, was only on them for a month, but they still revoked his cert.

Therein lies his problem,he was only on them a month.

It takes that long to regulate the dose,look out for side effects etc,he wouldn't have been cured.

Perhaps he came off them against his GP's advice.

[kent]

You know the biggest amount of death created by legally held firearms by a long long way is suicide. My local rural practice deals with this and is concerned with this much more than the odd nutter that seems to occur in each decade or so now

I personally support gp tagging of fac sgc certs as although it's rough on some it could keep them alive long enough to recover from a dark period in thier life

 

Domestic violence and threat? Should just bar someone for life though there is no smoke without fire when it comes to that

[Muddy Funker]

So guilty until proven innocent, would the police confiscate someone's car a potentially deadly weapon if allegations were made.

 

It's a little melodramatic to say guilty until proven innocent. This has happened to mitigate a risk that no matter how small or unlikely to happen, might happen.

 

Do you honestly think any feo would put his/her head on the block and risk letting the guns stay in the house? Would you?

[keg]

You know the biggest amount of death created by legally held firearms by a long long way is suicide. My local rural practice deals with this and is concerned with this much more than the odd nutter that seems to occur in each decade or so now

I personally support gp tagging of fac sgc certs as although it's rough on some it could keep them alive long enough to recover from a dark period in thier life

 

Domestic violence and threat? Should just bar someone for life though there is no smoke without fire when it comes to that

If a person has been convicted for domestic violence, it should be an automatic life ban IMHO.

[Graham M]

If a person has been convicted for domestic violence, it should be an automatic life ban IMHO.

My grandson was almost convicted on a rape charge brought against him by an ex-girlfriend who he had broken up with. We spent almost 8 months trying to sort it out with the police, and it wasn't until one of her friends came forward to disclose that the "Ex" had been boasting about how she had set him up that the charges were finally dropped. They held onto his phone for almost a year and he still had to pay the contract. Why she wasn't done for bringing these false allegations and wasting police time is a mystery to me, but I wonder how often this happens, and how many men have been convicted for a violent act that never actually happened.

 

Ex "partners" (god I hate that expression) can be absolute nightmares,

 

 

G

[Westward]

You know the biggest amount of death created by legally held firearms by a long long way is suicide.

Yes, and I made the same point earlier, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with law enforcement. Suicide isn't illegal but dangerous dogs are and even though in the last 10 years far more people have been killed by dogs than legally held guns, the police do absolutely squat about iresponsible dog owners until after an attack has happened.

 

Of course I accept that it's right to have some predefined reasons to deny the issue of a certificate or to revoke one, but they should be set out in laws based on expert knowledge and not made up on the hoof by the police. IMO every police officer and especially the degree qualified fast trackers who rise to the top, should have to pass an exam based on the history of the police service, how it came into being, what it was required to do, to whom it was answerable and how it should operate in a democratic society.

[kent]

If a person has been convicted for domestic violence, it should be an automatic life ban IMHO.

 

Agreed there is just something inside some people not sure if it's nature or nurture but it's not good

[12gauge82]

Yes, and I made the same point earlier, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with law enforcement. Suicide isn't illegal but dangerous dogs are and even though in the last 10 years far more people have been killed by dogs than legally held guns, the police do absolutely squat about iresponsible dog owners until after an attack has happened.

 

Of course I accept that it's right to have some predefined reasons to deny the issue of a certificate or to revoke one, but they should be set out in laws based on expert knowledge and not made up on the hoof by the police. IMO every police officer and especially the degree qualified fast trackers who rise to the top, should have to pass an exam based on the history of the police service, how it came into being, what it was required to do, to whom it was answerable and how it should operate in a democratic society.

The problem is the police don't make the rules, they follow the laws that the politicians make who are obviously voted in by the majority of public people, hence why the police work by consent, like I said in an earlier post, they're dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Look at firearms licencing before hungerford, then dunblane and the ensuing political interference, its not the police that changed the rules.

[Westward]

Sorry but the problem right here in this thread is that the police do make the rules. For example, please show where in law it says that you have to have an "approved" steel cabinet to store shotguns. According to the list of 21 other random activities drawn up by the police as risk factors for your certicate, even a dispute with your neghbour can be a risk. Where exactly is that set out in law?

 

The police have gradually changed from a law enforcement force, answerable to the government and thus the people, into a remotely located response organisation with a high degree of autonomy and very little contact with the daily lives of ordinary citizens. This is not healthy in a democracy because no matter how well intentioned the Police Chiefs Council may be, they are beginning to forget that they are subject to the law and public scrutiny just like any any other Public Sector body and they must not be allowed to keep chipping away at our historic rights in a free society.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Westward

[phaedra1106]

Look at firearms licencing before hungerford, then dunblane and the ensuing political interference, its not the police that changed the rules.

Don't forget that both of those tragedies (and others) occurred because the Police didn't follow the rules, Ryan, Bird, Hamilton & Atherton were all known to the police and had had their clubs etc. telling them they were unsuitable to hold an FAC/SGC.

[Westward]

Don't forget that both of those tragedies (and others) occurred because the Police didn't follow the rules, Ryan, Bird, Hamilton & Atherton were all known to the police and had had their clubs etc. telling them they were unsuitable to hold an FAC/SGC.

Dead right. It was the police who campaigned hardest to change the guns laws after Dunblane and for a very specific reason. Ultimately they forced the changes through a brand new government, unwilling to flex it's muscles, resulting in pointless extra inconvenience to some of the most law abiding and upright citizens anywhere. The net effect being that legal gun owners had to jump through more hoops and pay more for the privilege, our Olympic medal winners found it near impossible to practice their discipline but not a single thing was changed to make another Dunblane any less likely.

 

The real beneficiaries, as intended, were the police themselves because it diverted attention away from the fact that they had failed to revoke Hamilton's cerificates despite having received a total of 7 complaints about his behaviour with guns from 4 separate sources.

[12gauge82]

That is my point exactly, now imagine the flack the police would take if someone shot themselves who had depression or shot their partner after having a prior complaint of domestic abuse or just threats and the police didn't take their guns while it was investigated, again the politicians would start wanting laws tightening and half the pigeon watch community would be saying 'ah but if the police had of acted correctly and taken their guns when they had a complaint/diagnosed with depression etc it wouldn't have happened, its the police's fault'. It's a tough one and they don't always get it right but like I said they're dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

[phaedra1106]

That is my point exactly, now imagine the flack the police would take if someone shot themselves who had depression or shot their partner after having a prior complaint of domestic abuse or just threats and the police didn't take their guns while it was investigated, again the politicians would start wanting laws tightening and half the pigeon watch community would be saying 'ah but if the police had of acted correctly and taken their guns when they had a complaint/diagnosed with depression etc it wouldn't have happened, its the police's fault'. It's a tough one and they don't always get it right but like I said they're dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

They already did, look up the Atherton shootings, Durham Constabulary had multiple chances to get it right and got it wrong every single time.

 

The iPCC report makes it perfectly clear Durham were to blame for multiple failings https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/103575967/Michael_Atherton_report.PDF

[Westward]

'ah but if the police had of acted correctly

That is all I want to see happen. If the police act correctly and adhere to the existing legislation and Home Office guidelines they cannot possibly be held accountable. As said, it was through failing in this relatively clear and simple process that allowed the perpetrators of the tragedies to retain their guns.

[12gauge82]

That is all I want to see happen. If the police act correctly and adhere to the existing legislation and Home Office guidelines they cannot possibly be held accountable. As said, it was through failing in this relatively clear and simple process that allowed the perpetrators of the tragedies to retain their guns.

Unfortunately the world does not work like that, there will always be gray areas and the police will never please everyone and of course they're only human and will occasionally make mistakes. Remember the majority of public would probably happily see private firearms banned outright, therefore the police (acting on behalf of the government/public) will always have to balance the rights of shooters vs people opposed to it/safety of the public, a very difficult job a feel.anyway last comment as now going off topic.

[Vince Green]

The police are always going to revert to the safest option. Look at it from their point of view, why would they not?

 

Option 1 - upset one person

option 2 - risk your job, your pension, your home. Possibility of untold amounts of grief for years to come. Inquests, newspapers, difficult meetings with your boss.

 

which would you choose?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Vince Green