BIG BRUSH WITH THE LAW WHILST SHOOTING TODAY

[DaveK]

That wouldn't be your dog,would it ,Dave?

 

Might have

[MM]

I have just read 11 ****in pages of this

 

EE, you had a duff deal, but the thing is im sure both partys are a bit more informed now. Dont let it get you down.

 

As for SOME other posters on here, WHAT A BUNCH OF TONKYS!!!

 

 

Saying your going to do this, and do that if you get stopped. Get real! If you value what you do, then shut the **** up, and do as you are told. I cant belive ive read some much tripe on here. Some of you should have your tickets revoked, and made to wear a dress.

[Evil Elvis]

that you have NOT committed an offence and therefore cannot be arrested.

 

That is what i thought, but the head feo at chelmsford told me that technically if the police involved wanted to they would have been more than in thier right to arrest me for failing to produce my licence when asked.....they dont often but they could have.......despite the fact that i offerred to drive one of them to my car and show them it!

[Guest]

"So you don't know then? But a long winded way of saying it.

 

All you have to go on is hearsay and one sided versions of things. I know a man who's brothers friends sisters uncles grandads mothers girlfriends aunties dog has had a run in with the police for shooting legally.

 

Irrelevant how it would have been handled in other countries. We're not in other countries."

 

Well if all these people that have wrote stories are correct then it wouldn't be considered hear say, more a recolection of evidence which would indicate that the Police doesn't know how to clearly deal with shooters. It might be hearsay or exaggeration if a guy rants about being treated unfairly by police but if there is more people saying the same thing you might have to sonsider this point as well.

 

I was comparing how other countries view guns compared to Britain if you compare it is usually good to have something to compare to. That is a fundamental principle.

[Guest]

"Saying your going to do this, and do that if you get stopped. Get real! If you value what you do, then shut the **** up, and do as you are told. I cant belive ive read some much tripe on here. Some of you should have your tickets revoked, and made to wear a dress. yes.gif"

 

Ja mein Fuhrer.

[MM]

"Saying your going to do this, and do that if you get stopped. Get real! If you value what you do, then shut the **** up, and do as you are told. I cant belive ive read some much tripe on here. Some of you should have your tickets revoked, and made to wear a dress. yes.gif"

 

Ja mein Fuhrer.

 

 

 

 

"HES A JARMAN!!! GET HIM!!!!"

 

Dude, go wash your socks, your feet smell!

[MerseaDavid]

I would have asked for their names and numbers and put in an official complaint about them saying what had happened.

 

They should not have done any of that. We have had cops come on our fields we were working on and shooting and they asked have you got a licince for them gun and do you have permission?

 

I answered Yes I have got a licince and I am the farmer and with that they walked away, luckily.

 

But I always do have my licince with me just incase something like what happened to you happens to me.

[Mr_Logic]

EE - could you ask your FEO to reference the relevant Act here? This is the first I've heard of this - I have been advised by my Firearms Department that you can shoot without a ticket no problem, e.g. when your ticket is in for variation.

 

My ARV chap as mentioned also said that while I don't HAVE to have the ticket on me, they could confiscate my firearms should I not have it with me. He made no mention of any potential offence, and this hasn't been mentioned by anyone else either.

 

if your FEO can reference the Act, then great - learned something. Otherwise I think he's wrong...

 

Right, edit!

 

the Firearms Act says:

 

48 Production of certificates

 

(1) A constable may demand, from any person whom he believes to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or of a shot gun, the production of his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate.

 

[ F1(1A) Where a person upon whom a demand has been made by a constable under subsection (1) above and whom the constable believes to be in possession of a firearm fails—

 

(a) to produce a firearm certificate or, as the case may be, a shot gun certificate;

 

( to show that he is a person who, by reason of his place of residence or any other circumstances, is not entitled to be issued with a document identifying that firearm under any of the provisions which in the other member States correspond to the provisions of this Act for the issue of European firearms passes; or

 

© to show that he is in possession of the firearm exclusively in connection with the carrying on of activities in respect of which, he or the person on whose behalf he has possession of the firearm, is recognised, for the purposes of the law of another member State relating to firearms, as a collector of firearms or a body concerned in the cultural or historical aspects of weapons,

 

the constable may demand from that person the production of a document which has been issued to that person in another member State under any such corresponding provisions, identifies that firearm as a firearm to which it relates and is for the time being valid.]

 

(2) If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate [F2or document] or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.

 

(3) If under this section a person is required to declare to a consta ble his name and address, it is an offence for him to refuse to declare it or to fail to give his true name and address.

 

[ F3(4) It is an offence for a person who is in possession of a firearm to fail to comply with a demand under subsection (1A) above.]

 

I read this as you need to be able to produce a certificate really. BUT the penalty for not so doing is that the Constable should (a) seize the firearms and ( take name & address.

 

It is NOT an offence to fail to produce your certificate, as the Act does not state this but it IS an offence not to give accurate name and address details to the Constable in question.

 

That, as they say, is that. Act of Parliament overrules everything else, except another Act of Parliament, but I can't see a section on Production of Certificates in another Act...

 

Section 48 has additional point is Section 50, Special Powers of Arrest:

 

(3) A constable may arrest without warrant a person who refuses to declare his name and address when required to do so under section 48(2) of this Act, or whom he in such a case suspects of giving a false name and address or of intending to abscond.

 

There is no mention of Arrest for having a potentially unlicensed firearm. Illegal use is covered by section 47:

 

47 Powers of constables to stop and search

 

(1) A constable may require any person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect—

 

(a) of having a firearm, with or without ammunition, with him in a public place; or

 

( to be committing or about to commit, elsewhere than in a public place, an offence relevant for the purposes of this section,

 

to hand over the firearm or any ammunition for examination by the constable.

 

(2) It is an offence for a person having a firearm or ammunition with him to fail to hand it over when required to do so by a constable under subsection (1) of this section.

 

(3) If a constable has reasonable cause to suspect a person of having a firearm with him in a public place, or to be committing or about to commit, elsewhere than in a public place, an offence relevant for the purposes of this section, the constable may search that person and may detain him for the purpose of doing so.

 

(4) If a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that there is a firearm in a vehicle in a public place, or that a vehicle is being or is about to be used in connection with the commission of an offence relevant for the purposes of this section elsewhere than in a public place, he may search the vehicle and for that purpose require the person driving or in control of it to stop it.

 

(5) For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by this section a constable may enter any place.

 

(6) The offences relevant for the purpose of this section are those under sections 18(1) and (2) and 20 of this Act.

 

Sections 18 and 20 refer to carrying a firearm in a public place, or with intent to commit an offence.

 

Therefore, given that you were not in a public place, not doing anything illegal, and were prepared to co-operate fully with the Officers, they had no power of arrest granted to them by the Firearms Act.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Mr_Logic

[Bagsy]

EE - could you ask your FEO to reference the relevant Act here? This is the first I've heard of this - I have been advised by my Firearms Department that you can shoot without a ticket no problem, e.g. when your ticket is in for variation.

 

My ARV chap as mentioned also said that while I don't HAVE to have the ticket on me, they could confiscate my firearms should I not have it with me. He made no mention of any potential offence, and this hasn't been mentioned by anyone else either.

 

if your FEO can reference the Act, then great - learned something. Otherwise I think he's wrong...

 

This is all well and good, but is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm?

 

Surely common sense comes into play at some stage, no matter what 'rights' we have?

[MC]

Well said Bagsy,

 

Us as shooters do not do ourselves nay favours do we? In todays shooting times there is an article where two seperate people are arrested for pigeon shooting. One alongside a road and while not technically illegal common sense needs to come into play. The other one was shooting while there were people in the same field. The people in the field were tresspassing to look at a crop circle but the guy carried on shooting.

 

Come on guys what is wrong with you?

[Mr_Logic]

What on Earth do you mean what is wrong with you?! (also, please see my edited post)

 

'while not technically illegal common sense needs to come into play'

 

***? Sorry mate but if something's not illegal then it's not illegal. Full stop, end of story! You are saying "Let's give the Police the right to make up laws" **** off mate. Police are the instruments of enforcement of Laws created by the Democratically Elected (hahaha) Government.

 

You want a Police State, go someplace else. I for one value freedom, what little we have left, and will argue the toss with anyone who would take it away.

 

The first example you mention - if the guy is facing into the field but standing more than 50 feet from the centre of the road, he is both legal and safe - why arrest him? In the event that one or both of these is not the case, then he's illegal (either closer than 50 feet to the centre of the road, or shooting in a public place) so arrest him.

 

In the second example - how big's the field? I have a field where I shoot which has a footpath on one edge. I tend to walk down the path as it's the easiest route, especially when lugging rifles about. If I shoot into the field, from the path, people are behind the line of fire and again no offence has been committed. WHy would you arrest a person doing that?

 

Bagsy you say: "is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm"

 

I don't think it's reasonable, no. Simply because, as stated in my edited post - if you are simply shooting on private land with a firearm for which you cannot at that time produce a certificate, you have committed no offence, but to protect everyone the Police may confiscate the firearms. Which is perfectly fair and reasonable, and with which I agree. Should you resist this or fail to co-operate, then you can be arrested anyway, and it would be fair and reasonable to do so.

 

Ergo, the co-operative, respectful shooter cannot be arrested. Anyone who's being a complete **** may be arrested. What is wrong with this law? We should never give Police more power than they absolutely NEED, and in this case they have sufficient power both to protect the public and uphold the law.

[al4x]

exactly some shooters don't help themselves at all, I had an occasion where I stopped in a layby on a road for a few moments to watch a couple of guys shooting about 100 yards away with a magnet. Got told to **** off if I didn't want to be shot now that is the worst case and had I been anti would actually have warranted a call to plod as it was out of order when on a public road.

[Mr_Logic]

Completely - any behaviour like that would be enough to be arrested. While that's a pain - what's wrong with common sense? Sure, we the community feel victimised as the law always goes after us, but it's a democracy (kinda) and telling members of the public to **** off doesn't do us much good! I make a point of being courteous to all when out shooting, even if the person is ranting at me and being abusive.

[MC]

What on Earth do you mean what is wrong with you?! (also, please see my edited post)

 

'while not technically illegal common sense needs to come into play'

 

***? Sorry mate but if something's not illegal then it's not illegal. Full stop, end of story! You are saying "Let's give the Police the right to make up laws" **** off mate. Police are the instruments of enforcement of Laws created by the Democratically Elected (hahaha) Government.

 

You want a Police State, go someplace else. I for one value freedom, what little we have left, and will argue the toss with anyone who would take it away.

 

The first example you mention - if the guy is facing into the field but standing more than 50 feet from the centre of the road, he is both legal and safe - why arrest him? In the event that one or both of these is not the case, then he's illegal (either closer than 50 feet to the centre of the road, or shooting in a public place) so arrest him.

 

In the second example - how big's the field? I have a field where I shoot which has a footpath on one edge. I tend to walk down the path as it's the easiest route, especially when lugging rifles about. If I shoot into the field, from the path, people are behind the line of fire and again no offence has been committed. WHy would you arrest a person doing that?

 

Bagsy you say: "is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm"

 

I don't think it's reasonable, no. Simply because, as stated in my edited post - if you are simply shooting on private land with a firearm for which you cannot at that time produce a certificate, you have committed no offence, but to protect everyone the Police may confiscate the firearms. Which is perfectly fair and reasonable, and with which I agree. Should you resist this or fail to co-operate, then you can be arrested anyway, and it would be fair and reasonable to do so.

 

Ergo, the co-operative, respectful shooter cannot be arrested. Anyone who's being a complete **** may be arrested. What is wrong with this law? We should never give Police more power than they absolutely NEED, and in this case they have sufficient power both to protect the public and uphold the law.

 

My god you really are a *****,

 

While shooting next to a road is technically not illegal you can be arrested if you cause offence, or interupt or injure a road user. So why take the chance? my moving 50 feet into a field there is nothing that can be done.

 

In the second example it is irelevant how big the field is, the fact remains that there were people in the field. Would you shoot into a field where there were people?

 

So you think it is unreasonable for the police to intervene if you are shooting on private land? Why not just carry your certificates and be done with it?

[Mr_Logic]

If you are on private land where you've permission to shoot, more than 50 feet from the centre of the road and are not shooting in the direction of the road, the fact remains that it is 100% legal. So I won't tolerate being arrested or harrassed by the Police if I do that.

 

The size of field is very, very relevant indeed. If I'm shooting on a 10 acre field and the people are downrange of me, that's bloody dangerous and someone needs to stop it (although, not 100% sure it's going to be criminal law, suspect it would civil law for negligence). If you're shooting a 300 acre field and someone is in that field but nowhere near where you're shooting, then there is no danger and no law being broken, so yes I would shoot there, and I would also sue for wrongful arrest if the police arrested me for so doing.

 

Do I think it unreasonable for the Police to intervene if I am shooting on Private Land... Hmmm... Yes, in the main. It is reasonable for the police to ask who I am and verify that I am not a threat to the Public; doing so is perfectly within their rights and is good protection of the public. However, I do NOT have to have my FAC with me, so it is unreasonable to be threatened or arrested for not having it, since the Law in question gives no power for so doing. The law provides a perfectly reasonable response for the Police in that situation, so if the Police are following that law they are Reasonable. If they exceed the power granted by it, then they are Unreasonable.

 

I stand for freedom, and I am against persecution. I ask that the Police enforce the letter of the Law, and that we shooters obey that Law. I fail to see how this is anything other than reasonable.

 

If people have a problem with the existing legislation, then the place to fix it is Parliament via your MP, not by getting irate with shooters and/or the Police.

[MJN]

so you are young black and driving a ferarri, what are the chances of being pulled over. !!

or Shooting in a field no matter how legally ! if someone has it there mind.... or a complaint you are suspect........

have it out in court, if you can adfford it. or M. Clifford

[MC]

Mr Logic,

 

You carry on doing what you want to do and I will keep using my common sense. When you put a post saying how you have had a brush with the law and how heavy handed police are when firearms are involved and I will wait my time and be the first to say "I told you so"

[Guest]

"I stand for freedom, and I am against persecution. I ask that the Police enforce the letter of the Law, and that we shooters obey that Law. I fail to see how this is anything other than reasonable."

 

Give a cookie to that man.

[Evil Elvis]

Mr Logic. I am not going to challenge the head feo is thats what he said then i believe him, hes not the type to give or take any bull ****!!! I am well over it, I have copied and laminated both licences and am in the process of elabourating our permission slips. I am not going to annoy the head feo as at the moment he is MY feo and dont want to **** him off before i get a chance to know him!!!!

[Mr_Logic]

I can't argue with that one, makes no sense to stir the **** storm unnecessarily - my points are meant as a clarification in case some bobby decides that he really will arrest you unlawfully For the record, he is wrong though.

[Bagsy]

Bagsy you say: "is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm"

 

I don't think it's reasonable, no. Simply because, as stated in my edited post - if you are simply shooting on private land with a firearm for which you cannot at that time produce a certificate, you have committed no offence, but to protect everyone the Police may confiscate the firearms. Which is perfectly fair and reasonable, and with which I agree. Should you resist this or fail to co-operate, then you can be arrested anyway, and it would be fair and reasonable to do so.

 

Ergo, the co-operative, respectful shooter cannot be arrested. Anyone who's being a complete **** may be arrested. What is wrong with this law? We should never give Police more power than they absolutely NEED, and in this case they have sufficient power both to protect the public and uphold the law.

 

Mr Logic, you are not making sense. First you say it's not reasonable, then quote scenarios whereby it would be reasonable.

 

Is this not what I said when saying "is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm"?

 

Here's the scenario:

 

Mr Logic is pigeon shooting legally in a field and a neighbour, unaware the farmer has given anyone permission, calls the police claiming someone is trespassing with a firearm.

 

Mr Policeman "hello sir, would you please put your gun down and show me your licence?"

 

Mr Logic "err....no....I don't have to carry it while shooting"

 

Mr Policeman "can you prove you have permission to shoot here"

 

Mr Logic "no, the farmer's on holiday"

 

Mr Policeman "ok, please hand me your gun and accompany me to my car so we can deal with the matter further there"

 

Mr Logic "err, no, I won't. I'm conducting a legal activity, I don't have to carry my licence and I have a right to be here, therefore you have no right to stop me"

 

Mr Policeman (still unaware of who Mr Logic is, whether or not he's a legal gun owner, or indeed whether he's trespassing or not) "in that case I'm arresting you.....blah blah blah............"

 

Reasonable or unreasonable given the circumstances the policeman is presented with?

 

Right or wrong, I'm on the side of the copper. He's not making up laws, he's dealing with the situation and protecting the public until the matter's resolved properly.

[Mr_Logic]

Mr Logic, you are not making sense. First you say it's not reasonable, then quote scenarios whereby it would be reasonable.

 

Is this not what I said when saying "is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm"?

 

Here's the scenario:

 

Mr Logic is pigeon shooting legally in a field and a neighbour, unaware the farmer has given anyone permission, calls the police claiming someone is trespassing with a firearm.

 

Mr Policeman "hello sir, would you please put your gun down and show me your licence?"

 

Mr Logic "err....no....I don't have to carry it while shooting"

 

Mr Policeman "can you prove you have permission to shoot here"

 

Mr Logic "no, the farmer's on holiday"

 

Mr Policeman "ok, please hand me your gun and accompany me to my car so we can deal with the matter further there"

 

Mr Logic "err, no, I won't. I'm conducting a legal activity, I don't have to carry my licence and I have a right to be here, therefore you have no right to stop me"

 

Mr Policeman (still unaware of who Mr Logic is, whether or not he's a legal gun owner, or indeed whether he's trespassing or not) "in that case I'm arresting you.....blah blah blah............"

 

Reasonable or unreasonable given the circumstances the policeman is presented with?

 

Right or wrong, I'm on the side of the copper. He's not making up laws, he's dealing with the situation and protecting the public until the matter's resolved properly.

Key point here is: Mr Logic "err, no, I won't. I'm conducting a legal activity, I don't have to carry my licence and I have a right to be here, therefore you have no right to stop me"

 

You are resisting the officer, so he can can arrest you on suspicion of absconding - you've given him grounds for this because you've failed to co-operate.

 

Couple of points - in the scenario you describe, the Policeman is being perfectly reasonable, so it would be unreasonable of me not to be co-operative and courteous back.

 

Where the police officer tries to basically arrest you just for shooting, or he believes you are in the wrong, THAT is unreasonable. As I've said, no problem with the Police doing their job but I DO have a problem with threats of arrest where I'm being lawful.

 

In the scenario you describe, I allegedly couldn't prove permission to shoot there - I CAN be arrested for armed trespass. Not applicable, since for all but one of my shoots I have written permission, and on the other one I have the landowner and 3 neighbours who all know I have permission to shoot there. So I can prove it!

 

My entire issue is Policemen trying to arrest me for things I can't be arrested for.

 

The scenario I refer to would be more like:

 

Mr Policeman "hello sir, would you please put your gun down and show me your licence?"

 

Mr Logic "Certainly officer. I shall just unload and make it safe. Unfortunately I don't have my license with me, it's in for variation"

 

Mr Policeman "Can you prove you have permission to shoot here?"

 

Mr Logic "Yes Officer. Here is my letter"

 

Mr Policeman "Right. But you don't have your certificate on you?"

 

Mr Logic "No. Like I said, it's in for variation"

 

Mr Policeman "OK, then I am arresting you for failing to show your certificate"

 

The CORRECT response here would be:

 

Mr Policeman "I need you to prove this firearm is legally held, otherwise I will have to confiscate it."

 

Mr Logic "Why don't you call HQ - they can access the database and verify it for you."

 

Mr P "OK. <radios in>"

 

... a few minutes later ...

 

Mr P "Ok, no problem. Have a nice afternoon"

 

In the Correct ending, the Policeman has applied the letter of the law, which is fair enough. In the other ending, he's being ignorant and failing to do his job.

 

In your original scenario, I would be being unreasonable, since in that scenario I would not be able to prove my permission to shoot there. If shooters are courteous and Police not heavy-handed and ignorant, then it's all possible without threats or grief - that's all I want!

[Bagsy]

We are going round in circles......my original point was:

 

quote "is it not fair to assume that it is reasonable for the police to remove firearms, or in worst case scenarios arrest a person, until such time as they can satisfy themselves as to the users legal right to be in possession/use of the firearm"

 

I'm no legal eagle but I think you will find the answer is yes, but you may of course wish to have your day in court. Me, I'll happily keep my licence in my cartridge bag and co-operate with the police, regardless of their knowledge of the law at the time.

[kdubya]

Mr logic makes sense a shame some of the cow toing lot do not see it?

 

KW

[Bagsy]

Common sense has gone with the wind