Just had an unexpected home visit from 3 officers.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beware the police do not have to have a warrant they can say e.g. we believe you have 50 more rounds of ammo above your limit and gain access - we are the only group of people to whom this applies.
Exactly, which would be an unannounced visit - for a serious offence where one would imagine specific intelligence has been obtained which would lead the police to believe that the licence holder is holding more than his/her allowance. Fair Enough.

Not to mumble something about criminals and handgun bullets as three police officers stand around maskless whilst myself and my elderly mother are in our pyjamas (having woke her up after gaining entry) asking me to show them how to handload a .303 as my boss pings away at my work laptop in the background. Just a fishing exercise. Therefore does NOT justify an unannounced visit.
 
Beware the police do not have to have a warrant they can say e.g. we believe you have 50 more rounds of ammo above your limit and gain access - we are the only group of people to whom this applies.
I disagree, why do they believe that? They would need evidence surely, and if that was the case, potentially a crime has been committed so they would require a warrant. I don't think they can just turn up at the local drug dealers house and ask to look around, but then criminals have more rights than law abiding shooters
 
Exactly, which would be an unannounced visit - for a serious offence where one would imagine specific intelligence has been obtained which would lead the police to believe that the licence holder is holding more than his/her allowance. Fair Enough.

Not to mumble something about criminals and handgun bullets as three police officers stand around maskless whilst myself and my elderly mother are in our pyjamas (having woke her up after gaining entry) asking me to show them how to handload a .303 as my boss pings away at my work laptop in the background. Just a fishing exercise. Therefore does NOT justify an unannounced visit.
I agree entirely - they were not within the law.
 
I'm an ex-police officer and if three officers turned up asking for admittance, I'd not be not allowing them in without an explanation. This is all very odd.

I used to carry out home visits for FAC/SGC before it became a civvy job. My wife and I are foster carers and I refused an unannounced visit (which they have a legal right to do) because I did not know the attending Social Worker and could get no one to confirm her identity.

My address is a 'Protected' address so no one comes in without an appointment or unless we can confirm identity. Recently a new Social Worker wanted to know what firearms I held and what purpose they were used. I refused to answer and told them to contact Devon and Cornwall Police for those answers, as I did not accept that they had good reason to know.
 
I agree entirely - they were not within the law.
In the hypothetical scenario, as previously quoted, of the police believing you have 50 more rounds of ammunition than you are authorised to possess, then they have a legal power of entry. The possession is a substantive firearms offence.

If the police have intelligence to suggest that a Section 1 firearms Act offence is being committed, they could enter and search (S17 PACE) to arrest (S24 PACE). Search for said 50 rounds under S18 or S32 PACE. The power to enter is to arrest and search for the person who they want to arrest, it is not to search for e.g. the 50 extra rounds. The power to search comes after the arrest. The extent of the search is also governed by law.

In the 50 round scenario the police could also seek a warrant, to enter and search, but I believe that they would have a hard time convincing a court of the issue at hand.

The police could also ask nicely.

In the posters scenario it appears that the police had no legal power but entered instead, after invite, however pressured/persuasive their explanation was, under the “ask nicely” bit. Their conduct once in is another debate for another day.

If the police contend that they had a legal power then they should have left a form stating that they had entered, why and under which power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kes
10 pages on and we have letters of complaints fired off to God knows who. People posting that the cops were acting illegally. Everyone and their dog offering advice.
It worthy of note that this visit took place following the well OPs well publicised encounter with a land owner which resulted in the loss of several permissions.
Coincidence? I think not.
I have refrained from commenting so far but I would like to remind everyone what the OP stated in his initial post

"i'd like to point out, all three were very polite, professional and curteous. I had no problem letting them in and showing them around as I had nothing to hide"
 
ffering advice.
It worthy of note that this visit took place following the well OPs well publicised encounter with a land owner which resulted in the loss of several permissions.
Coincidence? I think not.
I have posted a few times before on this, they aren't related. Also the issue was with a land owners neighbour, and there is no evidence he went to the police, it was I who went to the police to report harrasment against him on BASC's advice.
 
"i'd like to point out, all three were very polite, professional and curteous. I had no problem letting them in and showing them around as I had nothing to hide"
My mood drastically changed once I'd had time to process the events of the day, and when my elderly mother started crying and asking if they would come back again when I was out.
 
Baring in what mind bobthedug has just posted I suspect this post (bandwagon) is about to come to an abrupt end (hopefully) which should facilitate those wishing to alight.
I would add that the vast majority of Police and Public interactions are done with the consent and cooperation of all involved without recourse to warrants and the like or for that matter forcing the front door off its hinges.

bryn
 
I have posted a few times before on this, they aren't related. Also the issue was with a land owners neighbour, and there is no evidence he went to the police, it was I who went to the police to report harrasment against him on BASC's advice.
And do you think that this neighbour did not have a tale to tell following his visit from the police? And I have no doubt such a visit took place following your allegation against him.
Hopefully, you will soon have an explanation as to the purpose of the visit.
 
Just had three police officers turn up randomly at 9:30 am. They seemed to know I loaded my own ammunition, had a big file on me tucked under one arm, and was asking me all about how I loaded ammunition. I took them through the process and showed them all my equipment. Then they wanted to see my gun safe, check all my guns, ammunition etc. Asking me where and what I shoot, my land, my clubs.

Only been loading my own for a couple of months.

They weren't FEO's, they were officers with badges, one of them said they worked in ballistics.

i'd like to point out, all three were very polite, professional and curteous. I had no problem letting them in and showing them around as I had nothing to hide.

The whole thing was ...... odd. Why x3 ballistics officers (plain clothes, radios) rather than an feo? I'd heard they called first before doing a check?

I wonder if they're doing enhanced spot checks now because of the Plymouth lunatic?
Almost 200 posts now, 12,000 views, still waiting for the official response. The excuse for the call never sounded plausible. Three plain-clothes GMP officers claiming to be from the ballistics investigation branch would know everything there is to know about fabricating ammunition. They will have seen far more sophisticated setups than your Lee starter kit. I just don't get why they've decided to pull your chain, but there's a reason behind this. It's not officiousness, and with your documentation in hand it's clearly not random.

Could it be that you're originally from NZ, have moved in from Derbyshire, tinker with and modify firearms, have recently been asking for reloading advice, posted on your marital breakup, employment difficulties, financial problems, and have contacted licensing about non-FAC matters? All of this is visible on here, so it's a possibility. There might be more explicit stuff posted elsewhere. None of it is a crime in itself, but it's a user-defined pattern of behaviour on social media which may have rung bells, and brought you to their attention. They're obviously interested in your profile enough to start checking out the domestic side.
Just a theory of mine, but this might be due to lack of thought, and carelessness on your part. People can be too open about their personal affairs at times. It's sometimes embarrassing to see the intimacy of the revelations on here, where anonymity for any of us is an illusion at best. If GMP gleaned their intelligence for the call from TSD then the site is definitely not the best place to be discussing it. I wouldn't have raised it as a topic openly, without knowing more about what really prompted the visit.
:confused::)
 
Almost 200 posts now, 12,000 views, still waiting for the official response. The excuse for the call never sounded plausible. Three plain-clothes GMP officers claiming to be from the ballistics investigation branch would know everything there is to know about fabricating ammunition. They will have seen far more sophisticated setups than your Lee starter kit. I just don't get why they've decided to pull your chain, but there's a reason behind this. It's not officiousness, and with your documentation in hand it's clearly not random.

Could it be that you're originally from NZ, have moved in from Derbyshire, tinker with and modify firearms, have recently been asking for reloading advice, posted on your marital breakup, employment difficulties, financial problems, and have contacted licensing about non-FAC matters? All of this is visible on here, so it's a possibility. There might be more explicit stuff posted elsewhere. None of it is a crime in itself, but it's a user-defined pattern of behaviour on social media which may have rung bells, and brought you to their attention. They're obviously interested in your profile enough to start checking out the domestic side.
Just a theory of mine, but this might be due to lack of thought, and carelessness on your part. People can be too open about their personal affairs at times. It's sometimes embarrassing to see the intimacy of the revelations on here, where anonymity for any of us is an illusion at best. If GMP gleaned their intelligence for the call from TSD then the site is definitely not the best place to be discussing it. I wouldn't have raised it as a topic openly, without knowing more about what really prompted the visit.
:confused::)
I'm not even going to bother replying to that, considering how wrong it is ... I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe that I'm English and have never been married and live in Manchester. Nah, not worth it.

I posted this post to ask for help and then kept it up for it to offer guidance, conversation and maybe some future help to others in my position in the spirit of transparency.

Now it is degenerating to attacks against myself so if it could please be closed by the mods.

Thankyou to everyone who has posted constructive comments and I hope many have learnt something new about the law!
 
I have never experienced or heard of police asking to show them how to reload ammunition, this sounds totally suspicious to me. Did they ask you about your home security system?
I would call BSAC and speak to Bill Harriman about the visit and go from there.
 
I'm not even going to bother replying to that, considering how wrong it is ... I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe that I'm English and have never been married and live in Manchester. Nah, not worth it.

I posted this post to ask for help and then kept it up for it to offer guidance, conversation and maybe some future help to others in my position in the spirit of transparency.

Now it is degenerating to attacks against myself so if it could please be closed by the mods.

Thankyou to everyone who has posted constructive comments and I hope many have learnt something new about the law!
Sorry if I've used the wrong words, but I was going on this post. This wasn't a personal attack at all. :)
Just a suggestion as to why the police apparently have so much information about you to justify their interest.
 
In the hypothetical scenario, as previously quoted, of the police believing you have 50 more rounds of ammunition than you are authorised to possess, then they have a legal power of entry. The possession is a substantive firearms offence.

If the police have intelligence to suggest that a Section 1 firearms Act offence is being committed, they could enter and search (S17 PACE) to arrest (S24 PACE). Search for said 50 rounds under S18 or S32 PACE. The power to enter is to arrest and search for the person who they want to arrest, it is not to search for e.g. the 50 extra rounds. The power to search comes after the arrest. The extent of the search is also governed by law.

In the 50 round scenario the police could also seek a warrant, to enter and search, but I believe that they would have a hard time convincing a court of the issue at hand.

The police could also ask nicely.

In the posters scenario it appears that the police had no legal power but entered instead, after invite, however pressured/persuasive their explanation was, under the “ask nicely” bit. Their conduct once in is another debate for another day.

If the police contend that they had a legal power then they should have left a form stating that they had entered, why and under which power.
In that scenario they would explain that would they not when they read you your rights?, in the actual scenario where three men watched another in his pyjamas demonstrate his reloading process while his mother cried in the other room,do you think it was justified?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top