Legal issues of police 'spot checks' on firearms.

[Orion]

More of a death by a thousand cuts, the shooting organisations need to learn form Pastor Martin Niemöller

Exactly. Too many on here unable to identify 'creeping normality' until they are 'boiled frogs'.

We've suffered from nearly 100 years of increasingly punitive legislation aimed at owners of lawfully held firearms - much of it put into place on the flimsiest of 'evidence' (aka 'an excuse') - and it still doesn't register.

 

[Shootist]

Also, the latest HO Guidance states "Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right" yet the Firearms Act clearly states that, providing an applicant can demonstrate he is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, has good reason and is not a danger to the public he SHALL be granted a certificate.

Shall, not may be or could be.

That should be pounded into the head of every firearms owner, present or prospective, until it is forever in their memory.

And the people here asking what freedoms they have given up? My answer is none, because you've already given them up. This way to the shearing machine.

 

[nicowilson]

Does it say anywhere on the T&C's of FAC ownership that the Police have a right to enter your property without warrant? If not ask them to come back at at a time convenient to yourself. If they 'need' to come in they will arrive with a warrant.

No.

Section 46, Firearms Act 1968 is clear - the police need a warrant to search premises.

 

[Orion]

Whilst I applaud many of the ideas to have come out of FELWG, I do wonder if they have an underlying policy of gun control by the back door.

I can just see a few dog-eared copies of the 1972 McKay Report being thumbed for inspiration in FELWG and the upper stratum of the Home Office!

 

[Shootist]

You lost me there,can you explain??

It's quite simple. Do you want the police to obey the law? Or doesn't it bother you if they don't as long as they just break the law while dealing with anyone except you?

 

[Shootist]

Exactly. Too many on here unable to identify 'creeping normality' until they are 'boiled frogs'.

We've suffered from nearly 100 years of increasingly punitive legislation aimed at owners of lawfully held firearms - much of it put into place on the flimsiest of 'evidence' (aka 'an excuse') - and it still doesn't register.

Not just firearms owners, incidentally, one of the most law abiding sectors of the community, but everyone. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 changed the law to require that police arrests must be necessary. They still haven't all grasped the meaning of this word. In 2011 police officers arrested Lord Hanningfield, aged 72. One of the many facile reasons senior detectives gave for his arrest was that he could not be trusted because he had not only pleaded not guilty to some previous charged but had the temerity to appeal the subsequent conviction! That is but one example of the indifference to the laws that restrict the police. There are many appeal cases on this one subject.

 

[2130martin]

It's quite simple. Do you want the police to obey the law? Or doesn't it bother you if they don't as long as they just break the law while dealing with anyone except you?

Trying to put that into context.....during my telephone conversation at renewal i was told that an ARV team would pop in sometime to check my firearms security, this is part of there streamlining process cut down on renewal times,seems to be working on that front.
whats illegal about that?

 

[timbrayford]

Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right[/B]" yet the Firearms Act clearly states that, providing an applicant can demonstrate he is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, has good reason and is not a danger to the public he SHALL be granted a certificate.

You're quite correct to highlight this.
The Home Office and police would no doubt like the shooting community to believe that "gun ownership is a privilege, not a right" but parliament has decreed otherwise.
It is not just the general public that needs to respect the law, so do the public authorities.

 

[Shootist]

Trying to put that into context.....during my telephone conversation at renewal i was told that an ARV team would pop in sometime to check my firearms security, this is part of there streamlining process cut down on renewal times,seems to be working on that front.
whats illegal about that?

Nothing at all. Part of the renewal process is to check security. Rather than wait for an FEO to visit they send round, by appointment previously made, an ARV crew to have a quick swing off of your cabinet door, a quick look at the locks on windows and doors, maybe, and that's a job done. Totally different from an unannounced visit made, allegedly, on the basis of 'intelligence' received, that your security is lax. They will visit and if they find it so then you will have failed to comply with a condition on your certificate which is a criminal offence. That is why they are visiting, to find if a crime has been committed. On that basis they are required to comply with the law contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It's not like it's difficult. Go get a warrant from a tame magistrate (That involves speaking on oath, so maybe not that easy in some cases), make it clear they're not doing you a favour, and leave some forms behind.

 

[nun_hunter]

The difference between a search ad an inspection is that a search is to determine if something is or isnt there whilst an inspection is to determi e the state of something that is known to be present or at least should be present. In this circumstance it is the security arrangements. The only thing i agree with is that owning firearms is a right but i cant take most of what you say seriously as you clearly have an anti police agenda in general and not just about firearms.

 

[Shootist]

The difference between a search ad an inspection is that a search is to determine if something is or isnt there whilst an inspection is to determi e the state of something that is known to be present or at least should be present. In this circumstance it is the security arrangements. The only thing i agree with is that owning firearms is a right but i cant take most of what you say seriously as you clearly have an anti police agenda in general and not just about firearms.

Pointing out the failings of the police is being anti police? I prefer to think of it as anti failings.

There is case law on inspections carried out by Trading Standards officers requiring compliance with PACE. TS have no powers to 'search' (Other than one rarely used under the Enterprise Act IIRC) they only have powers to enter and inspect. PACE notices were required if there was any suspicion of an offence even if there were powers to enter and inspect as a routine visit. Given that these unannounced police visits are only supposed to happen if there are concerns about security as a result of 'intelligence' then it is a given that part of the visit is intended to find these alleged insecurities, which would constitute a criminal offence. It is the security failure that is being searched for which may or may not be there.

But, do tell. Even if I have an anti police agenda, how does this affect the words I write? I do not believe I can take anything of what you say seriously because you put a person's alleged agenda above factual information.

 

[Whitebeard]

Pointing out the failings of the police is being anti police? I prefer to think of it as anti failings.

There is case law on inspections carried out by Trading Standards officers requiring compliance with PACE. TS have no powers to 'search' (Other than one rarely used under the Enterprise Act IIRC) they only have powers to enter and inspect. PACE notices were required if there was any suspicion of an offence even if there were powers to enter and inspect as a routine visit. Given that these unannounced police visits are only supposed to happen if there are concerns about security as a result of 'intelligence' then it is a given that part of the visit is intended to find these alleged insecurities, which would constitute a criminal offence. It is the security failure that is being searched for which may or may not be there.

But, do tell. Even if I have an anti police agenda, how does this affect the words I write? I do not believe I can take anything of what you say seriously because you put a person's alleged agenda above factual information.

Well said

Ian.

 

[CharlieT]

In fairness to our local police and licensing teams, it must be remembered that they are under pressure from HMIC and FELWG to undertake unannounced visits, indeed such visits are recorded and subject to monitoring.

On the subject of lawful access and search,the following recommendation from HMIC dated September 2015 is worth noting.

4.72. Where this is the case, the police should have a right of access to the firearm,ammunition and the site where they are stored.
Recommendation 7
Within 12 months, the Home Office should amend its firearms licensingguidance so that it explicitly requires the police to conduct unannouncedhome visits when it is judged necessary in the light of intelligence. TheHome Office should ensure that, in such cases, the law enables the policeto fulfil their duty by inspecting the firearm, ammunition and the site wherethey are stored.

HMIC inspection into Firearms Licensing https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf

 

[Orion]

In fairness to our local police and licensing teams, it must be remembered that they are under pressure from HMIC and FELWG to undertake unannounced visits, indeed such visits are recorded and subject to monitoring.

On the subject of lawful access and search,the following recommendation from HMIC dated September 2015 is worth noting.

4.72. Where this is the case, the police should have a right of access to the firearm,ammunition and the site where they are stored.
Recommendation 7
Within 12 months, the Home Office should amend its firearms licensingguidance so that it explicitly requires the police to conduct unannouncedhome visits when it is judged necessary in the light of intelligence. TheHome Office should ensure that, in such cases, the law enables the policeto fulfil their duty by inspecting the firearm, ammunition and the site wherethey are stored.

HMIC inspection into Firearms Licensing https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...ads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf

The previous paragraph to which 4.72 'Where this is the case' refers puts it into context:

4.71.
It should be made explicit that the police are required to undertake an unannounced visit where they have the required intelligence that justifies such a course of action.

Which brings us back to the requirement for specific intelligence to warrant an unannounced visit - not random spot checks and fishing expeditions.

Although I do think it worrying that HMIC advocate by-passing legal process to allow access to a person's private property/home merely because they happen to be the holder of an FAC/SGC.

 

[CharlieT]

The previous paragraph to which 4.72 'Where this is the case' refers puts it into context:

4.71.
It should be made explicit that the police are required to undertake an unannounced visit where they have the required intelligence that justifies such a course of action.

Which brings us back to the requirement for specific intelligence to warrant an unannounced visit - not random spot checks and fishing expeditions.

Although I do think it worrying that HMIC advocate by-passing legal process to allow access to a person's private property/home merely because they happen to be the holder of an FAC/SGC.

Call me a cynic but I do wonder how suddenly there was sufficient intelligence on 1245 certificate holders to warrant........

4.61. In October 2014, the national policing lead for firearms licensing initiated anational campaign to raise awareness of security requirements amongcertificate holders. This was followed by unannounced home visits tocertificate holders. In accordance with the Home Office guidance, all suchvisits were based on intelligence.

4.62. This campaign resulted in 1,254 unannounced visits which led to:

1. the identification of 170 issues of concern, including 107 regarding thesecurity of firearms;
2. 83 certificate holders receiving advice;
3. 25 certificate holders receiving a written warning;
4. 62 certificates being made the subject of further review; and
5. 28 certificates being revoked.

 

[Orion]

Call me a cynic but I do wonder how suddenly there was sufficient intelligence on 1245 certificate holders to warrant........

Indeedy!

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

Call me a cynic but I do wonder how suddenly there was sufficient intelligence on 1245 certificate holders to warrant........

4.61. In October 2014, the national policing lead for firearms licensing initiated anational campaign to raise awareness of security requirements amongcertificate holders. This was followed by unannounced home visits tocertificate holders. In accordance with the Home Office guidance, all suchvisits were based on intelligence.

4.62. This campaign resulted in 1,254 unannounced visits which led to:

1. the identification of 170 issues of concern, including 107 regarding thesecurity of firearms;
2. 83 certificate holders receiving advice;
3. 25 certificate holders receiving a written warning;
4. 62 certificates being made the subject of further review; and
5. 28 certificates being revoked.

If those figures quoted above are accurate then imo the spot checks are working and have had a good result.

Ofcourse they have intelligence FAC holders arent exempt from real life experiences and disputes, marital, neighbour fiascos etc

You dont get a certificate revoked PERMANENTLY without good reason.. Ive had mine revoked twice over the last 35 years and have got to know all of the team at Dorset Licensing very well. Theyve never treated me without respect or professionalism.

Anybody who cant be arsed to meet the guidelines and conditions of owning a fac deserves what they get and the figures above demonstrate there is some justification in what they are doing.

The above said doesnt mean im going to just roll over and i dont think i would ever need to...

 

[nun_hunter]

Pointing out the failings of the police is being anti police? I prefer to think of it as anti failings.

There is case law on inspections carried out by Trading Standards officers requiring compliance with PACE. TS have no powers to 'search' (Other than one rarely used under the Enterprise Act IIRC) they only have powers to enter and inspect. PACE notices were required if there was any suspicion of an offence even if there were powers to enter and inspect as a routine visit. Given that these unannounced police visits are only supposed to happen if there are concerns about security as a result of 'intelligence' then it is a given that part of the visit is intended to find these alleged insecurities, which would constitute a criminal offence. It is the security failure that is being searched for which may or may not be there.

But, do tell. Even if I have an anti police agenda, how does this affect the words I write? I do not believe I can take anything of what you say seriously because you put a person's alleged agenda above factual information.

The thing with spot checks is that there isn't necessarily specific "intelligence" to that person or address (or if there is it is single strand and/or insufficient) otherwise a section 46 warrant would be granted or if the need was more urgent then other powers of entry and seizure would be used. For spot checks the "intelligence" that you refer to (from HO Guidance and BASC etc) could be as simple as another FAC holder left a rifle or shotgun insecure and it was stolen/someone saw it left outside or there has been intel to suggest criminals/terrorists are looking to steal firearms etc and the police want to carry out spot checks to make sure certificate holders are doing what they should in relation to security.

It wasn't that long ago a member on here posted that they had left all their gear including ammo (less the rifle) in their car over night on the driveway and had it stolen. They reported the stolen ammo and subsequently had their certificate revoked. This type of incident is exactly what FLDs want to prevent and spot checks are a way to make people (both those visited and those who suspect they could have a visit) think a lot harder about their security.

With this in mind a spot check is highly unlikely to be looking for anything specific (especially criminal offences), as if it was then they wouldn't turn up with the possibility of being turned away and would make sure they could find the evidence of the offence and deal with it. If there was credible intel that someone was reguarly breaching the conditions of their certificate or they were going to be the victim of a theft/burglary then it would be unlikely to send round a civillian FEO and ask them nicely to stop rather than a police officer with a suitable power and specific intelligence to deal with it.

Pointing out the failings of any organisation is fine as long as it is tempered with pointing out all the good that is done too. Just to continually bash something/someone makes it hard to take what is said more seriously. And seeing as this thread isn't going anywhere due to massively opposing views there doesn't seem much point continuing.

 

[Pedro]

The thing with spot checks is that there isn't necessarily specific "intelligence" to that person or address (or if there is it is single strand and/or insufficient) otherwise a section 46 warrant would be granted or if the need was more urgent then other powers of entry and seizure would be used. For spot checks the "intelligence" that you refer to (from HO Guidance and BASC etc) could be as simple as another FAC holder left a rifle or shotgun insecure and it was stolen/someone saw it left outside or there has been intel to suggest criminals/terrorists are looking to steal firearms etc and the police want to carry out spot checks to make sure certificate holders are doing what they should in relation to security.

It wasn't that long ago a member on here posted that they had left all their gear including ammo (less the rifle) in their car over night on the driveway and had it stolen. They reported the stolen ammo and subsequently had their certificate revoked. This type of incident is exactly what FLDs want to prevent and spot checks are a way to make people (both those visited and those who suspect they could have a visit) think a lot harder about their security.

With this in mind a spot check is highly unlikely to be looking for anything specific (especially criminal offences), as if it was then they wouldn't turn up with the possibility of being turned away and would make sure they could find the evidence of the offence and deal with it. If there was credible intel that someone was reguarly breaching the conditions of their certificate or they were going to be the victim of a theft/burglary then it would be unlikely to send round a civillian FEO and ask them nicely to stop rather than a police officer with a suitable power and specific intelligence to deal with it.

Pointing out the failings of any organisation is fine as long as it is tempered with pointing out all the good that is done too. Just to continually bash something/someone makes it hard to take what is said more seriously. And seeing as this thread isn't going anywhere due to massively opposing views there doesn't seem much point continuing.

Three threads on the go, all on the same issue and it seems to me going round in circles. Some interesting points made, some chips on shoulders aired, some speculations made and much of what's in them repeated, some more than once. I think between us, we've managed to inform each other on the subject of police visits to certificate holders' houses comprehensively. Haven't we?

 

[timbrayford]

Just one further matter that hasn't been covered unless I've overlooked it.

If the police turn up when you are out make sure that anyone else living with you who is not authorised to share your guns does not have the keys or know where they are kept to access your cabinet