Legal issues of police 'spot checks' on firearms.

[Shootist]

Rigorous discussion on other forums has made me look around a bit more. Here goes.

1. The unannounced visits are to be used only where there is intelligence (!) suggesting that there are security issues at a firearms owners home.

2. Failing to comply with the conditions on a firearms certificate is a criminal offence.

3. The police say they have no powers to enter premises to check if there are failures in security/

I think that in regard to number three the police are either lying, or haven't read the Firearms Act 1968.

Firearms Act 1968

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES
46.-(1) If a justice of the peace or, in Scotland, the sheriff Power of
or any magistrate (by whatever name called) officiating under the search with
provisions of a general or local Police Act, is satisfied by information on oath
that there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that an offence relevant for the purposes of this section has been,
is being, or is about to be committed, he may grant a search
warrant authorising a constable named therein-
(a) to enter at any time any premises or place named in
the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the
premises or place and every person found there ;
(b) to seize and detain any firearm or ammunition which
he may find on the premises or place, or on any such
person, in respect of which or in connection with which
he has reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence
relevant for the purposes of this section has been, is
being or is about to be committed ; and
PART III (c) if the premises are those of a registered firearms dealer,
to examine any books relating to the business.
(2) The offences relevant for the purposes of this section are
all offences under this Act except an offence under section 22(3)
or an offence relating specifically to air weapons.

So, if the police have intelligence that security is not up to snuff, they can, if they can convince a magistrate (and if they cannot then perhaps they should not be visiting) obtain a warrant to enter and search. Of course, they have to persuade a magistrate, on oath, of the necessity.

It seems increasingly obvious to me that the police are agitating for a power to march into any firearms owners home at any time without any reason. Why would they do that. Well, examine the case of Lord Hanningfield.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/243.html

It's fascinating reading for those actually interested in the law and in their rights. Basically, the police, very senior detectives at that, used a power of arrest unlawfully because they couldn't be bothered to try and convince a magistrate that they needed a warrant. They had made up their mind to act unlawfully, they clearly knew this, but went ahead anyway. Make up your own mind as to why.

 

[Archer]

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.

Same here- and if it's breakfast time there's a bacon butty to go with the tea!

 

[Lateral]

I totally agree with Jayb. Every time I read this thread, I have left it thinking what a load of ignorant twaddle.

You forget the holy mantra.

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

The way this reads, suggests that you are prepared to see someone die, rather than have spot checks, we have the RIGHT TO REFUSE !!!!


REALLY ???? And you question why the police are doing spot checks ! Ironic....................

 

[Harry Brown]

Same here- and if it's breakfast time there's a bacon butty to go with the tea!

I'm really not fussed about unannounced visits myself either. I'll check my front door camera and if it's someone I'm not expecting or wanting to talk to, I'll most probably think to myself..Nah! Then turn the volume up on the TV....After I buy a TV licence that is!

 

[nun_hunter]

The police are in the job of preventing and detecting crime so who can blame them for trying to detect some possible crime. We can refuse entry so no big deal.

An officer walking down the street passes someone who stinks of canabis, under current stop and search powers this on its own is insufficient evidence for a search.

Should the officer...

A. walk on by and do nothing
B. Ask them if they would let them search them, take a punt as they may say yes (or quite often just admit they have drugs on them). If they say no then they carry on walking and know at least they tried.

I know what I think and I can guess what others on here will think.

 

[Shootist]

An officer walking down the street passes someone who stinks of canabis, under current stop and search powers this on its own is insufficient evidence for a search.

I am quite sure that is not the case. Can you point out legislation or case law to this effect?

 

[JAYB]

OK, I have had enough of the axe grinding, private agenda type of post. The refusal of people to move with the times and make allowances accordingly, their stubborn belief that only certain rules apply to them, and their refusal to participate in any practice that is of no detriment to lawful FAC holders is beyond belief.

I refuse to dedicate anymore bandwidth to this thread, it is closed.

John