guns taken

[AGR]

Can I sidetrack this thread slightly by asking if any of you have something in place regarding your firearms in the event of your untimely death?
I and one or two friends now have shared firearms, ie, we own them but they appear quite legally on another's certificate.
This came about when a friend, a company chairman, died suddenly from a heart attack.
The police turned up that evening to collect the guns, unfortunately his grieving widow, no doubt to upset to remember the drill, produced the cabinet keys, and despite her protests, his very expensive shotguns were rolled up in a blanket.
They were recovered by another friend, an RFD, who had to enrol the help of another friend, a judge, who also helped recover repair costs for the damage caused by the police's rough handling.
A similar incidence regarding a dairy farmer's sudden death, resulted in a poice swoop within 24 hours to recover guns safely locked away was told to me subsequently.
These cases happened a few years ago, so obviously the situation is not improving.

 

[catzrob]

A member of the public can arrest anyone, who they believe is or has committed an "arrestable" offence.

I think it’s “reasonably believes is or knows has committed an indictable offence”. If you reasonably but mistakenly believed that someone had committed an indictable offence, you would not be acting within the law to carry out a citizens arrest.

to prevent something that may be about to happen, if they have a reasonable belief that their entry is necessary to stop it or to protect their safety or the safety of the public

I’m a pedant…if the “something” is criminal. I write this only because another poster asked.

I think the issue arrises from the standard Police letter that asks you to "facilitate' entry to conduct a security inspection without recourse to a warrant to enter and search

I write as a lowly non-certificate holder (for the time being) and so have not seen the letter. However, this would appear to me to mean that your rights are different from another citizen. They are different in a way that you have, reasonably and proportionately, accepted as part of the grant of a certificate.

I say I am a pedant; really, it appears to me that most of this is obviously implied in what you have written. The rules are broadly sensible, including in imposing a somewhat higher standard of behaviour and a requirement to cooperate with the police where that is reasonable on certificate holders. I am not sure why some of the members are examining your words quite so pedantically themselves.

 

[Jon P]

Can I sidetrack this thread slightly by asking if any of you have something in place regarding your firearms in the event of your untimely death?
I and one or two friends now have shared firearms, ie, we own them but they appear quite legally on another's certificate.
This came about when a friend, a company chairman, died suddenly from a heart attack.
The police turned up that evening to collect the guns, unfortunately his grieving widow, no doubt to upset to remember the drill, produced the cabinet keys, and despite her protests, his very expensive shotguns were rolled up in a blanket.
They were recovered by another friend, an RFD, who had to enrol the help of another friend, a judge, who also helped recover repair costs for the damage caused by the police's rough handling.
A similar incidence regarding a dairy farmer's sudden death, resulted in a poice swoop within 24 hours to recover guns safely locked away was told to me subsequently.
These cases happened a few years ago, so obviously the situation is not improving.

My wife’s uncle died after a short illness, on his death his widow applied for a SG licence and got it with no issue at all, when her licence was due to expire it was decided not to renew so my wife had the guns she wanted on her SG certificate and others were given to friends and the one that we could not move on, I handed into the local police station, in all fairness Gwent Police could not of been more helpful, the guns were never removed from the family at any time.

 

[AGR]

My wife’s uncle died after a short illness, on his death his widow applied for a SG licence and got it with no issue at all, when her licence was due to expire it was decided not to renew so my wife had the guns she wanted on her SG certificate and others were given to friends and the one that we could not move on, I handed into the local police station, in all fairness Gwent Police could not of been more helpful, the guns were never removed from the family at any time.

Different police force, different interpretation?
For most of us firearms owners there may be a different interpretation.

 

[Stalker62]

The concept of an 'arrestable offence' has been obsolete, IIRC, since 2005.

Hence the quotation marks ("arrestable") offence in my post.

Replacement​

With the increasing number of newly created offences being included in Schedule 1A and thus being made arrestable, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 abolished the category of arrestable offence, replacing the dual rules with a single set of criteria for all offences. The question now for police is whether it is "necessary" to arrest the relevant person, by reference to various broadly-drafted statutory criteria. The general arrest conditions are:[6]

1. that:
   1. the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable,
   2. the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name,
2. that:
   1. the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service, or
   2. the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service,
3. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person:
   1. causing physical injury to himself or any other person,
   2. suffering physical injury,
   3. causing loss of or damage to property,
   4. committing an offence against public decency, or
   5. causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway,
4. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the relevant person.
5. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question, or
6. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

 

[Stalker62]

I think it’s “reasonably believes is or knows has committed an indictable offence”. If you reasonably but mistakenly believed that someone had committed an indictable offence, you would not be acting within the law to carry out a citizens arrest.

Correct.

I’m a pedant…if the “something” is criminal. I write this only because another poster asked.

Correct (obviously)

I write as a lowly non-certificate holder (for the time being) and so have not seen the letter. However, this would appear to me to mean that your rights are different from another citizen. They are different in a way that you have, reasonably and proportionately, accepted as part of the grant of a certificate.

Not correct.

Your legal rights are not reduced or lessened by being an FAC/SGC holder - it is madness to suggest otherwise.

Your responsibilities are increased. For example: if you have a FAC and do not sign it - you commit a criminal offence. If you do not have a FAC then you cannot commit the offence of not signing your FAC.

I say I am a pedant; really, it appears to me that most of this is obviously implied in what you have written. The rules are broadly sensible, including in imposing a somewhat higher standard of behaviour and a requirement to cooperate with the police where that is reasonable on certificate holders.

The Police (society) does impose a "somewhat higher standard of behaviour" from FAC/SGC holders.
The Police (society) cannot and does not "impose a requirement to cooperate" - it can ask, and it can make life difficult if you decline. Semantics.

I am not sure why some of the members are examining your words quite so pedantically themselves.

From a 'self-confessed pendant'?

 

[Stalker62]

Can I sidetrack this thread slightly by asking if any of you have something in place regarding your firearms in the event of your untimely death?

Firstly, there will be nothing "untimely" about my death when it comes - long overdue.

That said.

I have a family member who has a 'mirror' FAC/SGC of my own FAC/SGC.

They live in another Force area and all the firearms are at my domicile. It just needs a bit of foresight and execution to put it into place.

Saves the family the unnecessary extra drama, whilst they are trying to organise my Viking funeral...

 

[20-250]

Hence the quotation marks ("arrestable") offence in my post.

Replacement​

With the increasing number of newly created offences being included in Schedule 1A and thus being made arrestable, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 abolished the category of arrestable offence, replacing the dual rules with a single set of criteria for all offences. The question now for police is whether it is "necessary" to arrest the relevant person, by reference to various broadly-drafted statutory criteria. The general arrest conditions are:[6]

1. that:
   1. the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable,
   2. the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name,
2. that:
   1. the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service, or
   2. the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service,
3. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person:
   1. causing physical injury to himself or any other person,
   2. suffering physical injury,
   3. causing loss of or damage to property,
   4. committing an offence against public decency, or
   5. causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway,
4. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the relevant person.
5. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question, or
6. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

Maybe it's time to let go a bit. You're retired. Just enjoy your time.

 

[Stalker62]

Maybe it's time to let go a bit. You're retired. Just enjoy your time.

Just answering your (valid) point old son.

 

[20-250]

Just answering your (valid) point old son.

I'm certain that I am not your son. What is it with retired senior police officers? Missing the power?

 

[Stalker62]

I'm certain that I am not your son. What is it with retired senior police officers? Missing the power?

No offence intended. You are looking for offence when none is intended.

"Old son" where I come from is a term, nothing sinister meant by it.

"Missing the power?" Really?

If it helps you sleep better - no, no I don't.

 

[barndoorshovel]

Exactly, cheap insurance is great, until you have to make a claim

Do you think BASC used to pay £27 a member for it? Probably not as that would equate to 33% of the whole membership fee.
Give it a try I say!

 

[baguio]

Do you think BASC used to pay £27 a member for it? Probably not as that would equate to 33% of the whole membership fee.
Give it a try I say!

Not a chance would I buy £27 insurance. I have never needed to claim on shooting insurance just like most of us. However, when I did need it I very much doubt that it would cover my needs when proper insurance costs way more than that.
The shootings organisations will get big discounts by taking out group policies. Totally different from buying a single policy.

 

[hogey]

Firstly, there will be nothing "untimely" about my death when it comes - long overdue.

That said.

I have a family member who has a 'mirror' FAC/SGC of my own FAC/SGC.

They live in another Force area and all the firearms are at my domicile. It just needs a bit of foresight and execution to put it into place.

Saves the family the unnecessary extra drama, whilst they are trying to organise my Viking funeral...

How would that work,would they not need to have same shooting permission as yourself and legal reason to posses FAC/SGC

 

[Sonicdmb73]

How would that work,would they not need to have same shooting permission as yourself and legal reason to posses FAC/SGC

For any shotguns no reason required. For the firearms they would need their own good reason. That could be the same permission’s, but by no means needs to be.
For example person A has a stalking syndicate in Scotland person B owns a farm in N Yorkshire. Both places have the necessary quarry and thus satisfy the law.

 

[Stalker62]

How would that work, would they not need to have same shooting permission as yourself and legal reason to posses FAC/SGC

Indeed.

They have all my shooting permission permissions (never thought I would say that in a sentence) and they are a member of the same HO approved Club.

 

[AGR]

Firstly, there will be nothing "untimely" about my death when it comes - long overdue.

That said.

I have a family member who has a 'mirror' FAC/SGC of my own FAC/SGC.

They live in another Force area and all the firearms are at my domicile. It just needs a bit of foresight and execution to put it into place.

Saves the family the unnecessary extra drama, whilst they are trying to organise my Viking funeral...

So you've watched 'What we did on our holiday' with Billy Connolly then?

 

[Greenmist]

Do you think BASC used to pay £27 a member for it? Probably not as that would equate to 33% of the whole membership fee.
Give it a try I say!

I've absolutly no idea, but then my reply which you have quoted for some reason was in reply to the post on another insurance provider

 

[Stalker62]

So you've watched 'What we did on our holiday' with Billy Connolly then?

No.

But having read your post, I have looked at a couple of trailers. Looks to be worth an evening in.

Have always liked Billy Connolly, and I think the film will be even more emotive given his current medical condition.

 

[Twodogs]

This may, or not, be of interest.

Surrey Constabularies policy on the seizure of legally held firearms and Certificates. I’m sure if anyone digs deep enough they may find something similar for their force area.