WANTED - Fifteen minutes of your time - Home Office Firearms Consultation

[Downforce]

Over the last few weeks theres been talk about the "Home Office Firearms Consultation" which is hailed as the most important change in 35 years.

I would urge everyone to respond - I have just done it and it is very quick - its mostly yes/no questions with comment at the end. 10-15 mins max.

BASC do have a recommendation on their proposed answers but its up to each individual ( https://basc.org.uk/changing-rules-on-gun-ownership/ )

You can also go directly to the Home Office Firearms Consultation form from that link.

To give you an idea of why you should bother to do it...This is question one;

Q1) Do you consider that the police should be granted a specific power of entry (without a warrant issued by a magistrate or sheriff) to be able to seize shotguns, firearms and ammunition where there is a risk to public safety or the peace and the certificate holder does not cooperate with the police and agree to voluntary surrender?

Nothing unreasonable about that you might say (except giving a power of entry just because you're a firearms holder) until you watch the fly on the wall police series (Road Wars, Interceptors, Traffic Police) and think about how many times they arrest (or threaten to arrest) someone under "Section 5 Public Order" citing "Breach of the Peace" - I personally recall multiple occasions where the police have said (on camera remember) - if you swear one more time I'll arrest you.

Then when you consider the wording of Section 5 it says;

Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. 

I would suggest in nearly all of the cases I've seen the swearword is not used an any other way than a "filler" (similar to the popular word .... "like" - I was like walking down the street)

So the actual legislation requires the act to be "threatening, abusive or insulting" whereas the Police are fundamentally just saying - if you swear in any context I'll arrest you irrespective of it being "threatening, abusive or insulting" and "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" so the legal conditions to use the power are not met but they'll use it anyway as it makes them stronger - Public Order Act is a really important law that seems to be being abused on a daily basis.

If that's the way law is (mis)interpreted for the convenience of the Police should such a right of entry to confiscate firearms be considered??

Should the Police be put in the position of being able to make a determination??

Well that's only Q1 but there's a few others that raised my eyebrows.

D

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Downforce

[Scully]

Must admit this is the proposal which is of most concern to me.
The police already have enough of a mandate to enter the house of a firearms owner, and this step would provide too much scope for abuse in my opinion, especially in times of increasing civil unrest. 

[muncher]

Done it 

[GingerCat]

Police can enter to prevent a breach of the peace anyway. They don't need new laws to do so. Section 5 is not as simple as it looks and the circumstances are different each time, being abusive in public may constitute a breach, it may not, depends if its a busy high street or a deserted road for example, 2am in the morning when clubs are kicking out or lunch time outside a nice bistro with kids having lunch, and what actually was said. No one actually has to be offended either, just likely to be.  Can't remember the last time I saw a sec 5 in custody to be honest, it's been a while, nor a breach of the peace for that matter. 

My experience is if you don't voluntarily surrender it gets revoked remarkably quickly and then your in possession of firearms unlawfully. 

My issue with the survey is the biased questions herding you one way, almost like it's a tick box exercise for a decision already made by people it doesn't affect 

[Downforce]

5 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

Police can enter to prevent a breach of the peace anyway. They don't need new laws to do so. Section 5 is not as simple as it looks and the circumstances are different each time, being abusive in public may constitute a breach, it may not, depends if its a busy high street or a deserted road for example, 2am in the morning when clubs are kicking out or lunch time outside a nice bistro with kids having lunch, and what actually was said. No one actually has to be offended either, just likely to be.  Can't remember the last time I saw a sec 5 in custody to be honest, it's been a while, nor a breach of the peace for that matter. 

My experience is if you don't voluntarily surrender it gets revoked remarkably quickly and then your in possession of firearms unlawfully. 

My issue with the survey is the biased questions herding you one way, almost like it's a tick box exercise for a decision already made by people it doesn't affect 

Completely agree however if you don’t respond (and it’s everybody’s individual choice - I just want to make sure people are aware) then there’s zero opportunity to have any say even by commenting at the end

BTW I was talking about the instances I had seen where there’s a person and the police and they use Section 5 as the Swiss Army knife of arrest anyone any time threat. The point being can you really rely on all police officers to be held to high standards - obviously not with the raft of recently published activities of some albeit a small handful it’s the way it seems to have been widely ignored by other officers.

I've got nothing special against the police I just believe asking your average copper to make such decisions is going to lead to unfairness. 
 

You’ve also got to consider why they’re needing such a power it’s not like they’re driving down the street and suddenly decide person X might be about to do something so why wouldn’t there be the opportunity for due process of the warrant and or FAC revocation?

D

[old man]

Completed.

[GingerCat]

47 minutes ago, Downforce said:

Completely agree however if you don’t respond (and it’s everybody’s individual choice - I just want to make sure people are aware) then there’s zero opportunity to have any say even by commenting at the end

BTW I was talking about the instances I had seen where there’s a person and the police and they use Section 5 as the Swiss Army knife of arrest anyone any time threat. The point being can you really rely on all police officers to be held to high standards - obviously not with the raft of recently published activities of some albeit a small handful it’s the way it seems to have been widely ignored by other officers.

I've got nothing special against the police I just believe asking your average copper to make such decisions is going to lead to unfairness. 
 

You’ve also got to consider why they’re needing such a power it’s not like they’re driving down the street and suddenly decide person X might be about to do something so why wouldn’t there be the opportunity for due process of the warrant and or FAC revocation?

D

Agreed. They don't need the power, it already exists in the most part. Codifying firearms law would be nice, why have a .22 s/a rimfire but not a .17? Bit odd.  Statutory training and perhaps a licence for fao's is not a bad idea, many many aspects of policing have similar. Some hold multiple. The survey should be completed by all however I fear the decision is already made.

[HantsRob]

15 hours ago, GingerCat said:

Can't remember the last time I saw a sec 5 in custody to be honest, it's been a while, nor a breach of the peace for that matter. 

My experience is if you don't voluntarily surrender it gets revoked remarkably quickly and then your in possession of firearms unlawfully. 

My issue with the survey is the biased questions herding you one way, almost like it's a tick box exercise for a decision already made by people it doesn't affect 

Agreed around the word "likelihood" for S5 POA, and also Police cannot be offended. It's more than likely it'll be a S4a or S4 anyway as the model moves away from local custody suites to centralised, as the time and effort for a "simple S5" takes at least 1 if not 2 cops off a night shift and cripples the team that's left in some circumstances.

As for BOP, the power of arrest ceases once the likelihood of continuing or re-starting of the offence ceases. So often just driving them a mile towards their home in a blue light taxi resolves the issue and it should never really hit custody, again now that they are centralised by and large and not in the town where the offence is committed.

Yes it is a survey written to validate the requirements of changes they want to make.

Edited July 7, 2023 by HantsRob