Legal issues of police 'spot checks' on firearms.

[stubear]

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

Good point Tim - I have one of these hidden away at home and I keep my keys in that. You set the code when you get it and only you know it.

C500 Police Approved KeySafe | UK's First Police Approved Key Safe | Free Delivery

They're rock solid, come with some heavy duty screws which tap themselves into the brickwork so you cant lever it off the wall and are police approved for security as well.

 

[flying felix]

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

Is that a statement of fact or an opinion?

It's just that from the posts made by other members on this site who have been subjected to an unannounced visit, there was no intelligence. Just a requirement to meet target figures.

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

Is that a statement of fact or an opinion?

It's just that from the posts made by other members on this site who have been subjected to an unannounced visit, there was no intelligence. Just a requirement to meet target figures.

That is a statement of fact in regard to the context it was written regarding the quote and the figures

 

[JAYB]

This to me appears to be another axe grinding thread that really resolves nothing. If you want to own a firearm then you have to accept that along with it comes certain conditions, welcome or not they will be there. I would suggest that any changes in the perception of firearm ownership nowadays is not down to some Government ploy to snatch back guns but more in reaction to the present day conditions that are affecting the whole world. The state of mind of the general public as a whole has to be considered, not just FAC holders.

Public fears have to be kept to a minimum and if by Government being able to identify that there is in place a system to monitor gun ownership/safety on an ad hoc basis to check this, is this a bad thing. Knocking on the door and demanding entry is not an option, you control, under these circumstance, who enters your house and if you wish it to be this will be appointment based. The world today is a nasty place and needs checks and balances to help maintain order, if allowing a Police Officer to look at your guns, and check all is as it should be helps with this where's the problem. Only if things are not as they should be do folk need to worry, and if they are brought to book over this whose fault is that? All this complaining about petty things is IMHO a waste of time. There cannot be rules in place that apply to everyone except FAC owners, it don't work like that. One view could be that firearms stolen today are likely to be used in the commission of some lunatic attack somewhere, so therefor everything possible should be done to ensure their safety and if that means ad hoc home inspections, so be it.

It might also be worth bearing in mind that any attempt to argue the fine points of PACE over an open forum is a waste of time. It requires things like a Council's opinion, a court case, a judges ruling and various appeals to come to a decision that would be of any use.

In conclusion if we could get on with the business of a deer stalking forum and leave personal agendas out of it, I would be obliged.

John

 

[Greymaster]

True. But then, no serving officer I've ever asked has had the least issue with me asking to see their warrant card

I asked the officer who assaulted me because I inadvertently strayed into his line of sight while he was videoing a crowd to see his warrant card. He refused. I next saw him at the local nick and identified him as my assailant. One IPCC investigation later he just might have regretted his arrogance.

My experience does not tar all police officers, but nor does your experience suggest that officers will always comply with the citizen's legal right to request.

 

[User00014]

This to me appears to be another axe grinding thread that really resolves nothing. If you want to own a firearm then you have to accept that along with it comes certain conditions, welcome or not they will be there. I would suggest that any changes in the perception of firearm ownership nowadays is not down to some Government ploy to snatch back guns but more in reaction to the present day conditions that are affecting the whole world. The state of mind of the general public as a whole has to be considered, not just FAC holders.

Public fears have to be kept to a minimum and if by Government being able to identify that there is in place a system to monitor gun ownership/safety on an ad hoc basis to check this, is this a bad thing. Knocking on the door and demanding entry is not an option, you control, under these circumstance, who enters your house and if you wish it to be this will be appointment based. The world today is a nasty place and needs checks and balances to help maintain order, if allowing a Police Officer to look at your guns, and check all is as it should be helps with this where's the problem. Only if things are not as they should be do folk need to worry, and if they are brought to book over this whose fault is that? All this complaining about petty things is IMHO a waste of time. There cannot be rules in place that apply to everyone except FAC owners, it don't work like that. One view could be that firearms stolen today are likely to be used in the commission of some lunatic attack somewhere, so therefor everything possible should be done to ensure their safety and if that means ad hoc home inspections, so be it.

It might also be worth bearing in mind that any attempt to argue the fine points of PACE over an open forum is a waste of time. It requires things like a Council's opinion, a court case, a judges ruling and various appeals to come to a decision that would be of any use.

In conclusion if we could get on with the business of a deer stalking forum and leave personal agendas out of it, I would be obliged.

John

At last the first post on this thread that makes sense!

 

[flying felix]

That is a statement of fact in regard to the context it was written regarding the quote and the figures

So out of 1,250 unannounced visits that were instigated on specific intelligence only 170 raised points of concern.......that tells us a lot about the quality of their intelligence.

 

[Shootist]

Good point Tim - I have one of these hidden away at home and I keep my keys in that. You set the code when you get it and only you know it.

C500 Police Approved KeySafe | UK's First Police Approved Key Safe | Free Delivery

They're rock solid, come with some heavy duty screws which tap themselves into the brickwork so you cant lever it off the wall and are police approved for security as well.

Picked in seconds.




Laughably easy to hack if you have Youtube.

 

[stubear]

Picked in seconds.

Laughably easy to hack if you have Youtube.

Ok, I take your point. But;

1) You're assuming that any potential thief will have seen said video and know how to pick the safe. A chance possibly increased by the videos being shared here...
2) You're never going to stop professional thieves who DO have that knowledge. They'll get your safe off the wall or know how to lock pick or whatever they need to if they've gone into your home with a view to accessing your guns.
3) I still think its better to put another barrier in the way (even if it is relatively easy to bypass) to prevent casual thieves accessing your gun safe than it is to just stow the keys in a drawer somewhere. Also, putting them in a key safe means that your kids are less likely to get access as well.

Someone who gets in to nick your iPad and stumbles across a key safe might have the knowledge to get in to it and access your guns, but the same guy stumbling across your keys in a drawer definitely will ​be able to get to your guns.

 

[Woodsmoke]

It's all about 'reasonable precautions' though, isn't it? No safe is ever going to be absolutely secure under any and all circumstances, but if you can make life as difficult as humanly possible for any potential thieves to gain access then you can't really be hauled up on charges of carelessness.

 

[stubear]

It's all about 'reasonable precautions' though, isn't it? No safe is ever going to be absolutely secure under any and all circumstances, but if you can make life as difficult as humanly possible for any potential thieves to gain access then you can't really be hauled up on charges of carelessness.

Exactly my thoughts!

 

[timbrayford]

Whether or not you could be had up for carelessness perhaps is only a side issue, who would want a load of career criminals making off with you guns anyway?

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

So out of 1,250 unannounced visits that were instigated on specific intelligence only 170 raised points of concern.......that tells us a lot about the quality of their intelligence.

It tells me more about your ability at maths....

170 points of concern plus 83+25+62+28 so theres another 198 which imo doesnt make for a bad percentage out of 1,250...

From your remarks im sure you would be much happier for the 28 revocations not to have taken place even though you and i have no idea of the seriousness or justification..

I think ive made it very clear where my opinion on this stands, your entitled to your opinion just as i am

 

[Shootist]

Ok, I take your point. But;

1) You're assuming that any potential thief will have seen said video and know how to pick the safe. A chance possibly increased by the videos being shared here...
2) You're never going to stop professional thieves who DO have that knowledge. They'll get your safe off the wall or know how to lock pick or whatever they need to if they've gone into your home with a view to accessing your guns.
3) I still think its better to put another barrier in the way (even if it is relatively easy to bypass) to prevent casual thieves accessing your gun safe than it is to just stow the keys in a drawer somewhere. Also, putting them in a key safe means that your kids are less likely to get access as well.

Someone who gets in to nick your iPad and stumbles across a key safe might have the knowledge to get in to it and access your guns, but the same guy stumbling across your keys in a drawer definitely will ​be able to get to your guns.

The key safe is a weakness, and I cannot believe that 'the police' have somehow approved it. OK, I take your point that it's potentially better than nothing, but that is an argument that is absolutely hollow. If I was rich enough I would buy one and see how it stands up to a decent lump hammer and a cold chisel. I'd give it a couple of minutes at most. Why even consider it when it is accepted that thieves targeting your firearms can bring a battery powered angle grinder and get into your safe in minutes?

The bit about the kids/family does make sense, unless the kids watch Youtube too.

Edit:

Just discovered that the standard of testing puts this keysafe on the same security level as a front door. Wow! Or not, as the case may be. If you live alone then you might as well leave your firearms leaning against the bedroom wall if that's the standard they judge by.

 

[Brimfire]

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

Nobody else has access to the keys.....

Good point Tim - I have one of these hidden away at home and I keep my keys in that. You set the code when you get it and only you know it.

C500 Police Approved KeySafe | UK's First Police Approved Key Safe | Free Delivery

They're rock solid, come with some heavy duty screws which tap themselves into the brickwork so you cant lever it off the wall and are police approved for security as well.

Nobody will ever find them as they are locked in the gun safe. It will of course cost a fortune for a lock smith if the lock ever fails but felt it was the safest place to keep the keys.

 

[flying felix]

It tells me more about your ability at maths....

170 points of concern plus 83+25+62+28 so theres another 198 which imo doesnt make for a bad percentage out of 1,250...

From your remarks im sure you would be much happier for the 28 revocations not to have taken place even though you and i have no idea of the seriousness or justification..

I think ive made it very clear where my opinion on this stands, your entitled to your opinion just as i am

OK, let’s do the maths:

Out of 1, 254 unannounced visits only 2% were considered serious enough for the holder to receive a written warning, 5% recommended that the certificate is subjected to a further review and 2.2% resulted in revocation.
Even taking the whole figures it still results in over a 70% failure in intelligence.
No organisation considers 30% being an acceptable success rate. If these visits were in fact based on specific intelligence, you would expect the figures to be the other way around, at least.
Unless of course you are happy with only 1 in 3 of your rounds working when you pull the trigger.
I do wonder how many of the revocations were overturned on appeal. However, I fully support the revocation of anyone’s licence if there are grounds (has demonstrated or is likely to be a danger to the public).

 

[Shootist]

OK, let’s do the maths:

Out of 1, 254 unannounced visits only 2% were considered serious enough for the holder to receive a written warning, 5% recommended that the certificate is subjected to a further review and 2.2% resulted in revocation.
Even taking the whole figures it still results in over a 70% failure in intelligence.
No organisation considers 30% being an acceptable success rate. If these visits were in fact based on specific intelligence, you would expect the figures to be the other way around, at least.
I do wonder how many of the revocations were overturned on appeal. However, I fully support the revocation of anyone’s licence if there are grounds (has demonstrated or is likely to be a danger to the public).

You forget the holy mantra.

If even just one life is saved it will all be worthwhile.



But...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8...vptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_30fz6ad24w_b

 

[Tom D]

Given that there is no formal psychological evaluation as part of the FAC application process, the police have to rely on a home visit. I can't help wondering if these unanounced visits have little to do with security nod perhaps more to do withseeing the licence holder at home when he hasn't had time to prepare.
I wouldn't want the job of a liaison officer that's for sure, but if they do turn up at my door I'll happily let them in..

 

[Pedro]

Frankly, I think that police firearms departments make lists of who serves the best tea, coffee and biscuits at renewal time. They then do the maths and visit them randomly to check that standards aren't slipping.

 

[Uncle Norm]

Frankly, I think that police firearms departments make lists of who serves the best tea, coffee and biscuits at renewal time. They then do the maths and visit them randomly to check that standards aren't slipping.

Nice one Pedro ! Very perceptive of you. That rule certainly applies here. They know that they are welcome to pop in anytime and even see my guns.....again and again . I regard this whole subject as a lot of fuss about nothing.