Surprise Visit

[matt_hooks]

Bottom line is that the police are the ones who grant us the certs & who can take them away .
Now considering the cuts made & their being next to no or minimal FEO for each region then a lot of the leg work will be carried out by serving officers ... Now are we expecting them to use their own cars & change uniform for an inspection ?
I really don't care what they turn up in & if it bothers the neighbours well for the sake of 10 minutes in the OP case it doesn't bother me .
Years ago when it was plod who did checks not FEO the did random inspections then .... But if you were tagged more than twice in 5yrs of the term of your cert that was unusual .
Considering that we are allowed to have & proven reason to hold the weapons we do at home , is it really so difficult / unrealistic to expect a couple of checks over 5 years?

I agree there are times & place etc, at 21:30 at night with youngsters bedded I would have asked them to come back myself .

Paul

There is a time, and a procedure, for checking our security provisions. The procedure is to arrange a suitable time with the FAC/SGC holder to carry out a visit. Turning up at 9:30 at night, without an appointment, and expecting not to be told to come back when you have an appointment, is presumptuous at best.

We, as FAC and SGC holders, have to jump through some of the toughest hoops of anyone just in order to pursue our hobby. We should not then bend over further when the police clearly overstep the boundaries of their remit.

 

[Pedro]

We all have our security checked at grant/renewal time, so any visits between these times are really to check that the security arrangements we have are being used. Guns/ammo lying around out of cabinets when not in use, or empty houses not locked. That sort of thing. Having already posted on here, my thoughts have been modified by some later posts though.

Of course the police are "allowed" to call on us at any time, in the absence of any legislation to stop them. Free country applies to them too. But to merely do this on a random basis is silly and time-wasting. What's more, it's entirely open to the householder to deny them entrance. So the police will detect diddly-squat doing that whether the cert holder is keeping his guns secure or not! Making appointments to visit would be equally silly. Anyone but the idiotic will have their security top notch for an arranged visit.

As regards intelligence led visits, that is where there is intelligence that the certificate holder is not keeping his firearms secure, then perhaps the police should be able to apply for a warrant to enter, warrants being granted if the intelligence is solid enough, which to me would mean actual evidence that the security of firearms was being compromised by the cert holder. Not necessarily evidence strong enough to convict, but evidence that shows the matter needs investigating.

My previous remark about throwing toys out of prams was only meant flippantly, I had no intention to annoy, so I apologise to anyone it did annoy. Sorry folks!

 

[Orion]

As regards intelligence led visits, that is where there is intelligence that the certificate holder is not keeping his firearms secure, then perhaps the police should be able to apply for a warrant to enter, warrants being granted if the intelligence is solid enough, which to me would mean actual evidence that the security of firearms was being compromised by the cert holder. Not necessarily evidence strong enough to convict, but evidence that shows the matter needs investigating.

I don't believe you'll find that it is 'intelligence' relating to the certificate holder's security arrangements that should prompt an unannounced visit - more intelligence relating to external matters that might be construed as posing a threat to their security, or a risk of harm. Therefore, unless the officer calling can explain what that threat is, and "provide a clear and reasoned explanation" of why the visit is required, it is nothing more than an unwarranted spot check.

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.
It is recognised that there is no new power of entry for police or police staff when conducting home visits. To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit.”

http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-relea...o-certificate-holders-basc-advice-to-members/

 

[matt_hooks]

Of course the police are "allowed" to call on us at any time, in the absence of any legislation to stop them. Free country applies to them too.

They are allowed to visit. That does not mean that we have to let them in. A polite "thanks, but I was just about to go to bed/get in the bath/have a tumble with the wife, please feel free to make an appointment to view my firearms security at a mutually convenient time" should see them on their way. It's not being obstructive, we are all busy people with stuff to do. If there is a specific issue, they can get a warrant (or enter without if they believe an offence is taking place, but they need to have a good reason for believing that, having firearms is definitely not sufficient reason.)

 

[Taff]

Pedro your statement that " We all have our security checked at grant/ renewal time " is untrue , my son has just had his renewal done by hants, he has had no visit for the last two renewals.

 

[Pedro]

Pedro your statement that " We all have our security checked at grant/ renewal time " is untrue , my son has just had his renewal done by hants, he has had no visit for the last two renewals.

They obviously had their security checked at one time and have no reason to believe it's changed - but I take your point.

 

[Taff]

Not meant as a attack on your statement, just some info for others

 

[old man]

Thinking on.

Maybe the first question to the visitors should be, "And does the reason for this visit conform to Home Office Guidance?, please write it in your pocketbook for me to sign?"

 

[Woodsmoke]

I don't think I'd have any real issue with an unannounced visit, to be honest. As long as it wasn't hugely inconvenient (i.e: we were just about to leave/go to bed, etc) and the reason was fully-explained at the time. I don't take short-cuts regarding security anyway, so have nothing to hide, and at the end of the day the officers have a job to do. I understand and sympathise with the arguments against allowing the police entry at will, but I also see the benefit of co-operation, and the opportunity to build a relationship with officers who may well find themselves acting as FLOs in the future.

 

[2130martin]

I don't think I'd have any real issue with an unannounced visit, to be honest. As long as it wasn't hugely inconvenient (i.e: we were just about to leave/go to bed, etc) and the reason was fully-explained at the time. I don't take short-cuts regarding security anyway, so have nothing to hide, and at the end of the day the officers have a job to do. I understand and sympathise with the arguments against allowing the police entry at will, but I also see the benefit of co-operation, and the opportunity to build a relationship with officers who may well find themselves acting as FLOs in the future.

Always beneficial to be seen to be cooperating with the Police....

 

[kes]

With all respect you dont need to be a villain to ask for your rights to be recognised.
If we refer back to the OP, its a marked car, that makes you think of what as the owner? what does it make you think as a neighbour?
Is it that difficult to get the ops room to ring ahead and suggest "we are passing would it be convenient to call in, in about half an hour - no requirement to agree but it would save us time and effort ".
They recognise your rights and respond with respect, removes the problem.
EXPECTATION to be given access without obvious reason and with no recognition or respect deserves a refusal. There's altogether too much lack of respect for those who deserve it for being squeaky clean.

Never give up 'freedoms'.

 

[Woodsmoke]

I think it's a big deal over very little, to be honest. If the police turn up at my door unannounced, they'll be let in without hesitation, fro my part. I think it would leave a bad impression of someone who refused on principle, and in any case, if people are worried about the impression a marked car gives outside their door, who would know if it was there by appointment or otherwise?

To be honest, I don't imagine this is a scenario that will become very widespread. If it does, then that would be the time to start pushing back, I reckon?

 

[Orion]

To be honest, I don't imagine this is a scenario that will become very widespread. If it does, then that would be the time to start pushing back, I reckon?

Likely to become more widespread than you might think according to this extract from the FELWG Minutes:

3.6 STRATEGIC LEADERS’ MEETING (27 May 2014) – renamed “FIREARMS GOVERNANCE MEETING”

CC Marsh referred to the following issues raised at the May meeting:

a. Unannounced Visits Initiative
To date there have been 1,254 unannounced visits, 107 found security issues, 63 other issues, 83 certificate holders received advice, 25 a written warning, 62 are currently under review and 28 had been revoked.

This is a valuable initiative and thanked everyone for their help and urged unannounced visits to continue as good practice.

Is there a possible corollary between the increased workload caused by 'unannounced visits' and the unacceptable increase in waiting times for applications and renewals in some police areas?

http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FELWG_Minutes-March-2015.pdf

 

[Woodsmoke]

In that case, I withdraw my comment

 

[Eddie P]

Do we know what people had done wrong, ie why revoked? Were they fairly minor or were they showing total disregard?

 

[Highlandsjohn]

On the other hand, a visit which has positive results should expedite a renewal.

I flagged these visits up by Police Scotland on two of our members up here, a long time ago on this form, few had heard of it.

Now it's commonplace, get used to it's here to stay and our shooting orgs have done nothing practical to stop it.
In fact some might say encouraged it, by their inactivity. jmho john

 

[Orion]

On the other hand, a visit which has positive results should expedite a renewal.

Do you seriously think that is at all likely?

 

[Orion]

Do we know what people had done wrong, ie why revoked? Were they fairly minor or were they showing total disregard?

I think it's largely irrelevant what they had done wrong. The police need to get results, any results will do, in order to justify the continuance of the fishing expeditions. The fact that nearly three quarters of those visited resulted in no cause for concern will have absolutely no influence on the thinking within FELWG.

 

[kes]

Its a bit like ringing to advise you are out shooting. It helps the police but they still have to come out, just less resource intensive. This calling on spec is an erosion of a liberty which will be part of Guidance in due course. Whatever happened to the firearms review and the many anomilies like expanding ammunition - all take and no give - expectation no respect. I am not saying anything about what our representatives should be saying. Some are on FELWG and accept this each meeting?

 

[rarms]

He was using the visit as an alibi..he probably was sneaking in for a quick one in a house nearby with his lady ha ha.

Maybe he bought something off ebay down your road and needed to put the mileage down to something!