Pete1774
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the £500K will buy enough pairs of asbestos underpants for all the Constabulary managers?
Mandatory training for firearms enquiry officers in England and Wales
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
This raises a number of points that a lot of people will possibly be unaware of anyway. The vast majority of FEO's are not Police Officers but civilian employees of the Police Force. Therefore they will have had no Police training in law, nor will they have the powers of a warranted Officer. (I know that in at least one force civilian FEO's are sent to seize guns with no Police or powers to do so..... it will bite them in the arse one day when the FEO gets nicked for stealing the guns or committing offences under the fraud act!)
In the late 90's or early 2000's they got rid of Centrex (the central Police Training schools) and taught 'in house'. as a custody Sgt at the time there was a noticeable difference in the law knowledge of Police Officers. They got rid of some specialist training eg in the force I did my last 12 years in, no Traffic Patrol Officers training, only for SIO's (Senior Investigating Officers) in Traffic and Forensic Collision investigators.
So it is good to see that they are now getting the message, that if you do not train, then you will have untrained people making important life changing decisions!
I just hope that it also levels the playing field and stops different forces making up their own rules.
In the late 90's or early 2000's they got rid of Centrex (the central Police Training schools) and taught 'in house'. as a custody Sgt at the time there was a noticeable difference in the law knowledge of Police Officers. They got rid of some specialist training eg in the force I did my last 12 years in, no Traffic Patrol Officers training, only for SIO's (Senior Investigating Officers) in Traffic and Forensic Collision investigators.
So it is good to see that they are now getting the message, that if you do not train, then you will have untrained people making important life changing decisions!
I just hope that it also levels the playing field and stops different forces making up their own rules.
An interesting article: and personally, I wouldn't be keen to align myself with those who claim the Bill of Rights means we can have whatever firearms we want whenever we want them.The following article may help as regards recent comments on this thread:
Both Barrels - Bill of Rights - BASC
BASC's Bill Harriman dispels the belief that the Bill of Rights 1689 offers a safeguard for the private ownership of firearms in the UK.basc.org.uk
However, it does seem that there persists a right to own and use firearms in the UK: and I'm not deriving that from the Bill of Rights, but from the wording of the 1968 Firearms Act (as amended). This is something you'd think lawful shooting-folk would be keen to keep in the mind of public and parliament.
This line particularly caught my eye:
There is another aspect to this as well. Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 makes it an offence to possess a firearm with intent to endanger the life of another. It flows from that, if you keep a gun for self-defence, then you are automatically committing an offence because you intend to endanger life. QED.
Was this opinion, I wonder, reviewed by a lawyer? A section with similar wording appears in the Northern Ireland Firearms Order - which would suggest that the conclusion drawn by Mr Harriman doesn't follow quite so clearly as 'QED' would suggest? I would have imagined that under the (fortunately rare) circumstances where the intended endangering the life of another was lawful, then the possession of the firearm would not by reason of that intent to commit a lawful act suddenly become unlawful?
sorry it is not a right in law to own a firearm , its a privilege to own and posses firearms .
Its also written into the laws concerning self defence that any form of firearm or "bomb" cannot be used under a plea of self defence. Interesting how the whole guidance to act is written regards appropriate force as regards balance of use of force.
What makes you say that?
It is certainly what the police and the HO would like us to believe, as it says exactly this in the current HO Guide - but that doesn't make it true.
It is not a privilege to have a good reason to own and use a firearm. It is not a privilege to be a sober person of good standing. It is not a privilege to be competent to use a firearm without risk to the public or the peace. It strikes me that none of the requirements for holding FAC/SGC is a privilege.
Since none of those is a privilege, it seems odd to suggest that being granted a FAC/SGC is a privilege, since the certificate/s shall be granted to those who can show the relevant non-privileges.
Which law is that? I'd always thought that you could lawfully and proportionately defend yourself (or another) with whatever happened to be to hand.
Last edited:
Benelli m2
Well-Known Member
So is this the outcome from the home office from the Plymouth inquiry or is there bad news to follow
Continuing the digression from the original post, self defence in a legal nut shell, see below link, I see no mention of firearm or bomb, be intrigued to know where this particular aspect sits in legislation.
www.legislation.gov.uk
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
An Act to make further provision about criminal justice (including provision about the police) and dealing with offenders and defaulters; to make further provision about the management of offenders; to amend the criminal law; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make...
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
That is a pitifull amount I would suspect that this turns out to be a one day in house course. It isn't sufficient to cover the amount of feos in the country. To be honest feo are not the decision makers they report any concerns to the manager. The manger makes the decision based on what they are presented with. At the end of the day the licensing departments don't have a crystal ball or a time machine so whatever is in place will not assist if someone is hell bent on causing a unspeakable act. The course may assist in improving the consistencies between forces. However overall this is a taken gesture to appease the coroner. It also highlights that the government are not concerned with licensing. If they were folk would be in prison and the training fund would be in the millions.
However do you really think that the managers are any more aware of the firearms legislation?
If so you would be sorely mistaken. They are often non police officer managers from a Criminal Justice Department ( basically paperwork bods for court files etc). As previously stated I know of one who really needs to learn the basics of law and Police powers.
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
I know what the role of the licensing manager entails. I worked alongside a very bright and intelligent officer for over three years. They do know the legislation and if they are civilians they have plenty of help at hand. They don't really need to know legislation inside out but they do know there stuff when it comes to revocations and the appeal process. You do them.a disservice.
No, some are good, some are bad and the majority are adequate. I have only been in 2 forces and had family working in 4 others some within the firearms depts.I have had personal dealings with 5 forces firearms depts as I moved around the country. therefore I can only base my opinion on what I have seen or been told by people that I trust the judgment of.
It seems that in 1946 the Home Office (N.B. not Parliament) decided that self-defence no longer constituted a 'good reason' for possession of a firearm.
As far as I'm aware, this does not apply to Northern Ireland, however.
The major issue is that that the relevant authorities have been left unchallenged over many years. Firearms holders have been left very much to fend for themselves, I raised this several times at Basc Council meetings that we should be more aggresive in challenging the wrongdoings of those in position of power.
I proposed that in the event of an unjustified imposition put on holders it would instantly be challenged in court. What came of that, was we were informed that if you challenge the Police in Firearms related matters and win you do not always get costs.
This seemd to be the overiding decision not to challenge..
The mould needs to be broken, cost should not be the overiding motive not to challenge but a duty to protect members from over reaching officials.
I proposed that in the event of an unjustified imposition put on holders it would instantly be challenged in court. What came of that, was we were informed that if you challenge the Police in Firearms related matters and win you do not always get costs.
This seemd to be the overiding decision not to challenge..
The mould needs to be broken, cost should not be the overiding motive not to challenge but a duty to protect members from over reaching officials.
And that will probably land next to my suggestions,Way over there in the long grass.
On that basis do we not all have some of insurance, so why extra cost?
Do you . How much are you prepared to pay then ? Search “the slippery slope” on this forum, it may make you reconsider your pov
Similar threads
