Bobbies at your door..

[Salmo9]

Been watching the YouTube clips of Fieldsports Britain regarding police turning up unannounced and confiscating guns from startled and bewildered owners...

Where would we stand if they were intent on ‘collection’ and we thought prudent to succumb and ‘offered’ them the barrels only for a shottie or a bolt for a rifle say..? Keeping action, fore end, etc ‘safe’ in our cabinets till issues are resolved.? Maybe one for the shooting Orgs to consider and debate.

Handing over expensive, specialist goods to our boys in blue would concern me...

[scarecrow243]

they won't  accept a barrel or bolt they take every thing ammo included

[Newbie to this]

37 minutes ago, Salmo9 said:

Maybe one for the shooting Orgs to consider and debate.

You know this isn't the playpen, right?

The likes of The BASC, removed members only line of defence against such things and the police know it.

[PeterHenry]

56 minutes ago, Salmo9 said:

Been watching the YouTube clips of Fieldsports Britain regarding police turning up unannounced and confiscating guns from startled and bewildered owners...

Where would we stand if they were intent on ‘collection’ and we thought prudent to succumb and ‘offered’ them the barrels only for a shottie or a bolt for a rifle say..? Keeping action, fore end, etc ‘safe’ in our cabinets till issues are resolved.? Maybe one for the shooting Orgs to consider and debate.

Handing over expensive, specialist goods to our boys in blue would concern me...

If you are thinking about the same clip that I watched, it would depend entirely on if they were asking you to voluntarily surrender them, or if they were authorised to take them full stop.

If they are asking you to volunteer them, you can decline or volunteer any bit of the gun you see fit - and they can say no or yes as they see fit. Only keep in mind they might not be happy and then comeback with all the correct paperwork and a black mark to put against your name, so you might want to get your guns stored at your local RFD fairly sharpish.

That said, I hear Brabners (the law firm) have a department for these sort of things - so they might be worth a call depending how much you value your guns and the depth of your pockets.

[scarecrow243]

basc are not helping the shooting community they won't help when your guns are took and they did not help with any part of the lead ban they just are not any good anymore

[Walker570]

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

[DUNKS]

19 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

This.

[clangerman]

21 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

because once recorded it’s easier for the lazy and stupid to take gossip and rumour as true rather than get of their back side and check if it’s so 

[Tonka54]

18 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

I would hazard a guess that they thought you had transgressed the law in some way, omitted some info on one of their forms or your sgc had run out and you had guns in storage on your premises.  

[Walker570]

2 hours ago, clangerman said:

because once recorded it’s easier for the lazy and stupid to take gossip and rumour as true rather than get of their back side and check if it’s so 

Explain please

[London Best]

3 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

It is certainly not a scenario that I have ever been worried about.

[magman]

4 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

 

[bluesj]

I believe one person that has had it happen to them is a serving copper who is on an armed response team, had his sgc revoked but still on the armed response team. Go figure!

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

Explain please

it’s self explanatory as my firearms are still in the cabinet and tax payers thousands out of pocket thanks to the police acting on rumours 

[Walker570]

So, they don't act on a rumour but it is actual fact. What then?

[HantsRob]

5 hours ago, clangerman said:

because once recorded it’s easier for the lazy and stupid to take gossip and rumour as true rather than get of their back side and check if it’s so 

I get you are anti police but is there any reason to be rude?

If a serious offence has been alleged and the publics safety may be threatened, then taking firearms may be the right thing to do until a full investigation can conclude. That is them getting off their back sides and checking, and if there is any strength to an allegation then that's what happens.

Also calling the attending and investigating officers lazy or stupid following a risk assessment stating there's a potential immediate risk to life?..... Really?

Allegation. Rumour. Heresay. Until the weight of truth can be measured, how else do you deal with issues? If you get a caller stating there's a gunman on the roof of a building, would you be happy if people wrote it off as a rumour?

I get some of the actions can seem wrong, when we don't have all the intel, evidence, "rumours"/allegations, etc. I am sure the Police also get it wrong from time to time. But, ultimately it's about risk reduction during an investigation.

I'm not sure what bee you have in your bonnet, but being rude like that doesn't help the shooting community when scrutinised by the general public.

[Walker570]

My record will show I am the first to step forward and critisise the present policing in the UK because I saw it coming right back from 1974. BUT if there is a rumour or whatever then I would expect that to be investigated asap.  We have only had a half dozen incidents in the UK where things went badly wrong from Hungerford to Plymouth and if the job had been done properly in all of those cases at the outset, maybe people would not have died.

[clangerman]

53 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

I get you are anti police but is there any reason to be rude?

If a serious offence has been alleged and the publics safety may be threatened, then taking firearms may be the right thing to do until a full investigation can conclude. That is them getting off their back sides and checking, and if there is any strength to an allegation then that's what happens.

Also calling the attending and investigating officers lazy or stupid following a risk assessment stating there's a potential immediate risk to life?..... Really?

Allegation. Rumour. Heresay. Until the weight of truth can be measured, how else do you deal with issues? If you get a caller stating there's a gunman on the roof of a building, would you be happy if people wrote it off as a rumour?

I get some of the actions can seem wrong, when we don't have all the intel, evidence, "rumours"/allegations, etc. I am sure the Police also get it wrong from time to time. But, ultimately it's about risk reduction during an investigation.

I'm not sure what bee you have in your bonnet, but being rude like that doesn't help the shooting community when scrutinised by the general public.

let’s examine some FACTS three times these clowns showed up all three times at vast cost to tax payers not only did I prove it was all lies the feo manager ended up with a official reprimand as officers present had to restrain him to calm his aggression it’s only out of pity for tax payers footing the bill I settled for a apology when it comes to being rude those I catch giving a farmer confidential information while I listen in with his wife deserve no manners as do those who claim in writing someone was not detained under the mental health act when his custody record gives reason for arrest as mental health so don’t be calling anyone rude until you have the facts only thing I am anti is LIARS! 

[HantsRob]

Sounds like them turning up 3 times isn't particularly lazy. As for the stupid part, that is very subjective. 

As for a fact, the officers are already salaried and the portion of their year to visit is already paid and covered, so I doubt it's a vast cost.

Anyway, what really interests me is "someone was not detained under the mental health act when his custody record gives reason for arrest as mental health". You are detained or arrested. I assume you are using the vernacular of detention as meaning arrested for a moment as you then mention arrest reason, as when an officer detains someone it is typically for something preliminary such as as a drug search. I digress.... the reason for arrest? So now we are going into PACE code G. A reason, or necessity of arrest, falls into one of these:

a) Ascertain the persons name
b) Ascertain the persons address
c) Prevent physical harm to self or another or suffering physical injury
d) Prevent loss of or damage to property
e) Prevent an offence against public decency
f) Prevent an unlawful obstruction of the highway
g) Protect a child or vulnerable person
h) Prevent any prosecution being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question
i) Allow a prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question.

I assume from your words that we aren't talking about c), so if your written reason for necessity is mental health we can rule out s24 arrests. Also we can rule out statute law that has its own protected power of arrest, as this would be labelled as preserved power.

This can only lead us to s136 of the Mental Health Act. I don't know when this arrest took place but a police station should never be used as a place of safety unless there's either immediate risk to life or injury, or if there is no better option. It has been this way for a number of years, and if there is not a crisis suite that is equipped available, then A&E is the only place you'd be taken. Also this now makes the "detain" portion correct, as you are detained under 136 of MHA, but you aren't arrested so I don't follow how you could have a reason for arrest. Unless.... it's a proforma, then you need to fill boxes. Therefore detained 136 MHA, and reason for arrest would be mental health even though it wasn't an arrest.

 

Anyone that was showing signs of being that volatile they needed emergency powers under 136 MHA would say that there's some smoke to their fire, and that there's a lot more to this story. There's 3 versions of this truth. Your side, their side, and the actual full truth.

As for the FEO, from your words it sounds like he got angry and shouty, and needed officers to hold him back? So in essence you had a s5 public order act offence or maybe a s4a? I assume you didn't fear violence against you as officers held him back, so it's not affray. I would agree it would be a waste of taxpayers money for that to go to court for something getting a bit angry and sweary at you whilst not being able to come near you. I am glad you are happy with the apology and hopefully the FEO will learn to hold their temper.

 

Regardless. I hope whomever it was that was detained is feeling better, and has all the resources they require to either get back to full health or are already there.

I hope that helps clarify, and I can only go on the words you have written without taking a breath of punctuation. I hope I didn't misinterpret any of your written words. Keep safe.

[Vince Green]

On 29/01/2022 at 13:44, Walker570 said:

Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?

Usually a malicious allegation or if they find out you are getting divorced.

The number of medical conditions that could see your guns confiscated might surprise you.

 

[Walker570]

Hmmmmm. That is what the police ';service' is coming to is it.  Would not have happened in my day.

[discobob]

One word of warning - if you voluntarily surrender your shotguns/rifles etc then you have nothing to appeal against when they say they won't give them back to you (apparently) as you voluntarily gave them up. Whereas with the right paperwork it at least gives you a starting point

The other item is how they will be stored while in custody, I have heard stories of them being returned rusty, dented and broken.

[Walker570]

12 minutes ago, discobob said:

One word of warning - if you voluntarily surrender your shotguns/rifles etc then you have nothing to appeal against when they say they won't give them back to you (apparently) as you voluntarily gave them up. Whereas with the right paperwork it at least gives you a starting point

The other item is how they will be stored while in custody, I have heard stories of them being returned rusty, dented and broken.

Yep, in my time stuff just got thrown in a detained materials room.

[team tractor]

3 hours ago, discobob said:

One word of warning - if you voluntarily surrender your shotguns/rifles etc then you have nothing to appeal against when they say they won't give them back to you (apparently) as you voluntarily gave them up. Whereas with the right paperwork it at least gives you a starting point

The other item is how they will be stored while in custody, I have heard stories of them being returned rusty, dented and broken.

I surrendered mine and had them returned within 9 months . All came back in mint condition to be honest . 

On 04/02/2022 at 18:29, Vince Green said:

Usually a malicious allegation or if they find out you are getting divorced.

The number of medical conditions that could see your guns confiscated might surprise you.

 

Yup . That’s exactly what happened to me . The problem with allegations is normally you can’t prove your innocence.

[team tractor]

On 29/01/2022 at 17:21, London Best said:

It is certainly not a scenario that I have ever been worried about.

I never did until that one night it happened 

On 29/01/2022 at 13:29, scarecrow243 said:

basc are not helping the shooting community they won't help when your guns are took and they did not help with any part of the lead ban they just are not any good anymore

To be fair they were straight on the phone to firearms for me . The only problem is they’re have zero rights to alter their decision.

On 04/02/2022 at 19:20, Walker570 said:

Hmmmmm. That is what the police ';service' is coming to is it.  Would not have happened in my day.

All I can say is a big thank you to you and your better half for standing by me through all my problems I had .