Gun cabinet change

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well rather than possibly causing any friction, I would happily phone or email them, notifying the change and that would be the end of the matter. No need to give them any excuse to be difficult in the future.

 

I am currently required to have extra security measures in place due to the number of guns we hold, I happily comply because I can understand the rationale of the request.

 

If I was a wealthy man with the type of mind to challenge all of the poor application of the current Home Office Guidelines I may try to be difficult just to prove a point! But I am not that wealthy and not that pedantic.

[walshie]

2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Well rather than possibly causing any friction, I would happily phone or email them, notifying the change and that would be the end of the matter. No need to give them any excuse to be difficult in the future.

 

I am currently required to have extra security measures in place due to the number of guns we hold, I happily comply because I can understand the rationale of the request.

 

If I was a wealthy man with the type of mind to challenge all of the poor application of the current Home Office Guidelines I may try to be difficult just to prove a point! But I am not that wealthy and not that pedantic.

 Fair dos. If I can avoid writing or phoning about any subject, I do. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by walshie

[Dekers]

8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Well rather than possibly causing any friction, I would happily phone or email them, notifying the change and that would be the end of the matter. No need to give them any excuse to be difficult in the future.

 

I am currently required to have extra security measures in place due to the number of guns we hold, I happily comply because I can understand the rationale of the request.

 

If I was a wealthy man with the type of mind to challenge all of the poor application of the current Home Office Guidelines I may try to be difficult just to prove a point! But I am not that wealthy and not that pedantic.

This may help some people.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf

Extra measures of security are nothing to do with ramming more guns into your cabinet than the manufacturer may suggest they can hold.  I too am subject to this, simply because of the number of guns/pistols I hold, others may be subject to similar conditions with less guns because of the areas they live in etc!  That is logical and sensible and suggested in the Guidelines!

I see no mention of putting 4 guns in a 3 gun cabinet at all, let alone it being a problem!

 

 

[Ridgeway Redneck]

Thanks again guys for your comments.

i emailed my FAO back and told them that I have installed another cabinet and asked if they needed to see it, they replied this morning saying they made a note of my cabinet when they visited and just wanted to be sure I had made suitable arrangements now I had more guns.

They have also asked that I inform them if I change the cabinet again to a larger one.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Stevemitton said:

Thanks again guys for your comments.

i emailed my FAO back and told them that I have installed another cabinet and asked if they needed to see it, they replied this morning saying they made a note of my cabinet when they visited and just wanted to be sure I had made suitable arrangements now I had more guns.

They have also asked that I inform them if I change the cabinet again to a larger one.

Now, how easy was that?

[Ridgeway Redneck]

5 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Now, how easy was that?

I just didn’t realise that they needed this information or I would have contacted them in the first place.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, Stevemitton said:

I just didn’t realise that they needed this information or I would have contacted them in the first place.

Fair point hence the initial question, possibly something that FEO's could communicate to SGC holders then.

[Ridgeway Redneck]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Fair point hence the initial question, possibly something that FEO's could communicate to SGC holders then.

I agree.

Seems to be so much differing information about. It would help if all FEO’s sang from the same hymn sheet.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Stevemitton said:

I agree.

Seems to be so much differing information about. It would help if all FEO’s sang from the same hymn sheet.

Amen to that, I should also add that when that happens everyone will have their own money tree and personal harem.

[Ridgeway Redneck]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Amen to that, I should also add that when that happens everyone will have their own money tree and personal harem.

????

[Dekers]

 

1 hour ago, Stevemitton said:

I agree.

Seems to be so much differing information about. It would help if all FEO’s sang from the same hymn sheet.

Your FEO/Region are making it up as they go along, you are obviously at liberty to do as you like, but has it ever occurred to you to ask the simple question of WHY? 

As walshie so succinctly put it..... What are they going to do? Arrest you for locking your guns away securely and fully complying with the conditions on your ticket? 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Stevemitton said:

I just didn’t realise that they needed this information or I would have contacted them in the first place.

They don't need the information. I'm not looking for an argument here, and nor am I wealthy enough to challenge such insignificant and unnecessary and requirements by some FEO's; I just simply refuse to go along with such unnecessary, pedantic and illogical requirements. If that makes me pedantic also, then that's fair enough; I can live with that; but I think we shooters jump through far too many illogical hoops which are already required without agreeing to unnecessary ones just to satisfy some jobsworth or representatives thereof. 

I'm of the attitude that I'm doing all that is lawfully required of me as a shooter, so leave me the hell alone and get on with your own job.  

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Fair enough, I am a great fan of having an easy life!

[Jaymo]

I’m with TC on this one.

Whats a mins time to construct and email,  in order to mitigate future requests- just remember that next time your renewal is delayed it’s possibly down to some poor Licensing Team member chasing up/ checking out a Storage/Security request.

[Dekers]

10 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

I’m with TC on this one.

Whats a mins time to construct and email,  in order to mitigate future requests- just remember that next time your renewal is delayed it’s possibly down to some poor Licensing Team member chasing up/ checking out a Storage/Security request.

Which they absolutely DON'T need to do, so they should top wasting time doing this and spend more time on Grants/Renewals anyway!  If they spent more time doing what they were meant to do rather than inventing jobs they don't need to do then no doubt turn round times would improve!

[oowee]

38 minutes ago, Dekers said:

Which they absolutely DON'T need to do, so they should top wasting time doing this and spend more time on Grants/Renewals anyway!  If they spent more time doing what they were meant to do rather than inventing jobs they don't need to do then no doubt turn round times would improve!

This^^^ is so true. 

[timps]

57 minutes ago, Dekers said:

Which they absolutely DON'T need to do, so they should top wasting time doing this and spend more time on Grants/Renewals anyway!  If they spent more time doing what they were meant to do rather than inventing jobs they don't need to do then no doubt turn round times would improve!

Unfortunately, they do have to do it it’s covered in the Home office guidance on the firearms act, while security is the responsibility of the certificate holder the chief officer of police MUST be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm(s)/ammunition in their possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

Therefore, the FEO on the chief officer of police behalf must risk assess your security by law, that bit is in the firearms act and it is also mentioned in the home office guidance on it.  The Chief officer of police has no choice he/she is legally obliged under the firearms act to do it if they issue you a certificate.

Obviously how may guns your security arrangement can physically hold is a major part of that risk assessment. Someone somewhere has to put a figure on it and if the paperwork doesn’t match up then they will want to know why.

 If they feel the guns are at greater risk of not being secured due to you not bothering to cram them all in a 3 gun cabinet or that they feel you can’t cram them in they have to revoke or not grant a certificate by law. They wont charge you with any offence they will just revoke which requires no court or burden of proof just their opinion on the matter.

Remember risk assessment is not black and white so open to interpretation of the individual FEO, all they  have to do is show a greater degree of risk on the balance of probabilities  not that you have broken any law or intend to then it's bye bye certificate till you go to court. 

You can then certainly disagree with their findings on your security, I personally know someone who did and won based on a gun room. However, it is open to the legal interpretation of a judge as to who is correct and this is the sticking point it would have to go to court for a ruling.

Whilst waiting for your day in court they have to revoke your certificate by law. Bear in mind it would cost a small fortune as cost are not normally awarded in firearm’s licence revocation cases unless the police behaved unreasonably.

Unreasonably is at the discretion of the judge and even though my friend won the judge ruled it was reasonable for the police to ask the court for a ruling on his security and reading cost guidance on firearms licences cases the threshold for unreasonable is very high bar indeed.

As always, it’s your call but don’t think they are powerless to make you tow the line, my friend learnt the hard way, he won but was saddled with thousands in court costs.

 

 

[Dekers]

4 minutes ago, timps said:

Unfortunately, they do have to do it it’s covered in the Home office guidance on the firearms act, while security is the responsibility of the certificate holder the chief officer of police MUST be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm(s)/ammunition in their possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

Therefore, the FEO on the chief officer of police behalf must risk assess your security by law, that bit is in the firearms act and it is also mentioned in the home office guidance on it.  The Chief officer of police has no choice he/she is legally obliged under the firearms act to do it if they issue you a certificate.

Obviously how may guns your security arrangement can physically hold is a major part of that risk assessment. Someone somewhere has to put a figure on it and if the paperwork doesn’t match up then they will want to know why.

 If they feel the guns are at greater risk of not being secured due to you not bothering to cram them all in a 3 gun cabinet or that they feel you can’t cram them in they have to revoke or not grant a certificate by law. They wont charge you with any offence they will just revoke which requires no court or burden of proof just their opinion on the matter.

Remember risk assessment is not black and white so open to interpretation of the individual FEO, all they  have to do is show a greater degree of risk on the balance of probabilities  not that you have broken any law or intend to then it's bye bye certificate till you go to court. 

You can then certainly disagree with their findings on your security, I personally know someone who did and won based on a gun room. However, it is open to the legal interpretation of a judge as to who is correct and this is the sticking point it would have to go to court for a ruling.

Whilst waiting for your day in court they have to revoke your certificate by law. Bear in mind it would cost a small fortune as cost are not normally awarded in firearm’s licence revocation cases unless the police behaved unreasonably.

Unreasonably is at the discretion of the judge and even though my friend won the judge ruled it was reasonable for the police to ask the court for a ruling on his security and reading cost guidance on firearms licences cases the threshold for unreasonable is very high bar indeed.

As always, it’s your call but don’t think they are powerless to make you tow the line, my friend learnt the hard way, he won but was saddled with thousands in court costs.

 

 

As walshie so succinctly put it..... What are they going to do? Arrest you for locking your guns away securely and fully complying with the conditions on your ticket? 

[timps]

10 minutes ago, Dekers said:

As walshie so succinctly put it..... What are they going to do? Arrest you for locking your guns away securely and fully complying with the conditions on your ticket? 

No like I said and as they did with my friend revoke his certificate on a risk assessment, very easy for them to do. Then you will have to lodge your guns with someone else, for them it's problem solved.

Edited February 28, 2018 by timps

[Dekers]

7 minutes ago, timps said:

No like I said and as they did with my friend revoke his certificate on a risk assessment, very easy for them to do. Then you will have lodge your guns with someone else for them problem solved.

What risk assessment, WHY did they revoke his FAC??  Are you saying they revoked his FAC because he put an extra rifle/SGC in a Cabinet over and above what it was quoted at holding?

There is NOTHING in the guidance that says you can't put more guns in a cabinet than anyone says may fit, neither is there anything in the guidance that says you have to tell them if you buy/sell or fit other Cabinets, that's what we are talking about!!

Edited February 28, 2018 by Dekers

[Scully]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Fair enough, I am a great fan of having an easy life!

That's entirely fair enough; each to their own. I have an inbred hatred and resentment of authorities telling me what I can and can't do, and make life so difficult for myself at times. MY ex despaired at times. I would tell her that I'd asked the school for 'permission' to take our kids on holiday when in fact I had no intention of doing so. I think the final straw for the school was when my ex discovered I hadn't asked so made me phone and tell them that our two wouldn't be in school for the start of the new term as we were already in Turkey. The school weren't amused and told me that they would be taking action on our return and we could be liable for a fine. I told them they would have to get a court order before I paid it as my kids were very rarely absent and had good grades, and if that was the route they wanted to go down I'd be saving up next year for both the holiday and the fine as I'd be doing it again if it suited us. We didn't hear anymore about it.

I know it would be so much easier if I complied but I deeply and genuinely have resentment for any type of authority attempting to control me. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Oh you have been a naughty boy haven't you!

[timps]

1 hour ago, Dekers said:

What risk assessment, WHY did they revoke his FAC??  Are you saying they revoked his FAC because he put an extra rifle/SGC in a Cabinet over and above what it was quoted at holding?

There is NOTHING in the guidance that says you can't put more guns in a cabinet than anyone says may fit, neither is there anything in the guidance that says you have to tell them if you buy/sell or fit other Cabinets, that's what we are talking about!!

The guidance does mention number of guns per cabinet (location) depending on level of risk, for Level 2 “Mitigating the risk by dividing up the number of guns between several secure locations” i.e. not all in one cabinet. So yes, it is a factor in the guidance depending on risk assessment my whole point.

The guidance also quite clearly states the chief of police MUST risk assess your security, that risk assessment is entirely up to them and their opinion on it.

The guidance says “It may also be helpful to think of security in terms of broad “levels” to be applied according to the circumstances of each case. These are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide guidance on what might be considered proportionate in each case.”

If their risk assessment deems you need to tell them then you have to tell them until a judge says otherwise. The guidance is quite clear all sorts of factors are to be considered but it’s up to the force in question to do as they see fit. Simply put if they don’t think your cabinet can't hold more than 3 guns without added risk, e.g. you won’t bother cramming them in, the guns need to be split as you are considered level 2  or they THINK you can’t cram them in then that is their decision so no cert.   You can certainly disagree with them and win but as I have said this means a trip to court and the associated costs to get a judgement as to who is right.

My friend was slightly different in that his gun room was perfectly acceptable for years a new FEO then decided it needed to be entirely steel lined. There is also nothing in the guidance stating that gun rooms need to be steel lined however the new FEO insisted, he said no, he lost his cert then appealed and won but not costs awarded.

My point being they can insist and dig their heels in if you don’t play ball. If you are happy to go to court then fair play but don’t think they can’t revoke your cert based on a risk assessment on the number of guns in your cabinet, level 2 on the guidance clearly says they can.

Edited February 28, 2018 by timps

[Dekers]

37 minutes ago, timps said:

The guidance does mention number of guns per cabinet (location) depending on level of risk, for Level 2 “Mitigating the risk by dividing up the number of guns between several secure locations” i.e. not all in one cabinet. So yes, it is a factor in the guidance depending on risk assessment my whole point.

The guidance also quite clearly states the chief of police MUST risk assess your security, that risk assessment is entirely up to them and their opinion on it.

The guidance says “It may also be helpful to think of security in terms of broad “levels” to be applied according to the circumstances of each case. These are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide guidance on what might be considered proportionate in each case.”

If their risk assessment deems you need to tell them then you have to tell them until a judge says otherwise. The guidance is quite clear all sorts of factors are to be considered but it’s up to the force in question to do as they see fit. Simply put if they don’t think your cabinet can hold more than 3 guns without added risk, e.g. you won’t bother cramming them in, the guns need to be split as you are considered level 2  or they THINK you can’t cram them in then that is their decision so no cert.   You can certainly disagree with them and win but as I have said this means a trip to court and the associated costs to get a judgement as to who is right.

My friend was slightly different in that his gun room was perfectly acceptable for years a new FEO then decided it needed to be entirely steel lined. There is also nothing in the guidance stating that gun rooms need to be steel lined however the new FEO insisted, he said no, he lost his cert then appealed and won but not costs awarded.

My point being they can insist and dig their heels in if you don’t play ball. If you are happy to go to court then fair play but don’t think they can’t revoke your cert based on a risk assessment on the number of guns in your cabinet, level 2 on the guidance clearly says they can.

Levels of HIGHER security and dividing guns in cabinets is not what we are talking about!!!!   

So, I have a 3 gun cabinet and squeeze 4 into it, why is that less secure and a worse security risk than if I have a 5-6-7-8-9 etc gun cabinet and only put 4 in that?  And why are 9-10 and bigger gun Cabinets even made under your logic, why don't they stop at 3 or 4 and simply make you buy lots of smaller ones?

You are completely missing the point, you have no responsibility to advise the police if you buy/sell/exchange/install cabinets, neither are you restricted to only putting whatever number of guns a manufacturer may suggest into your cabinet. 

If the Police/region/FEO tells you to do that ask WHY?  Which part of that is difficult?  Of course you have to think of security, who said you don't?

If you wish to comply with every whim of some jobs worth who doesn't know the law that's up to you, and apparently a number of other people who simply don't have the balls to ask why?

There are plenty of us who deal with our own security as we are responsible for doing under the regulations, our regions/FEO are perfectly happy, by your comments you are suggestion they are being negligent in their duty.   If you have a 3 gun Cabinet and the region is concerned about that they should put a condition on your FAC/SGC saying you are restricted to 3 guns until you can show adequate security for more, how difficult is that, and FAR more secure than some whim about cabinet size! 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Dekers

[Scully]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Oh you have been a naughty boy haven't you!

? Not really recently. But my stubbornness has got me into serious trouble before. ?