You obviously aren't aware of the great care and attention that the police sometimes take on firearms that come into their possession!
IPCC complaint
- Thread starter dnm26
- Start date
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
That's true but I expect a lot of that is due to them being seized in haste without suitable slips and protection.
Hi Andy,
I'm glad you get my frustration.
I have a clean sheet, always have had, I've not even appeared on a speed camera since this happened, yet alone any of their other radars!
I'll email Basc and arrange a call back, but when I spoke to them after the call saying I would need to Rfd my guns they seemed to think there was little to do until such time as they refused a licence..
They only store them when they want to...not to help out...
ColinJ
Well-Known Member
By your own admission you were confident that 3 of the 4 officers were genuine, so this comment is just silly.
It could be viewed the other way in that by being argumentative and obstructing an officer doing his duty he has committed an offence.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Or that the coppers were thinking they don't want to nick the guy for obstructing them when they know he hasn't done anything wrong regarding the alleged assault but they've been told to seize his guns and let the FLD sort it out so they're trying to be as accommodating as possible.
indeed lots of possibilities, i wonder if the coppers were in possession of the facts regarding the alleged assault or just following instructions to seize the firearms, did they even have or need a warrant?
OP said he would only hand them over to a police firearms unit.
Think I would have handed them over to the coppers, but taken photos and got badge numbers and a list of what was taken and a signature from one of the coppers receiving them.
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Just for clarity, in what exact circumstances are the police authorised to remove someone’s firearm(s)?
I thought (but may be wrong) that it was only if there was suspicion that an offence had been committed (the OP was never accused of such) OR if there was reasonable belief that removing them would prevent an offence being committed?
Is this the correct position?
I thought (but may be wrong) that it was only if there was suspicion that an offence had been committed (the OP was never accused of such) OR if there was reasonable belief that removing them would prevent an offence being committed?
Is this the correct position?
lots of circumstances, risk of self harm, risk to the public, drugs or alcohol abuse, suspected domestic violence, they don’t like who you associate with, any of the relevant medical conditions, no longer a fit and proper person etc etc if the FLM or Chief Constable says remove them they will remove them.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Rhe following extract is taken from the online policy from Surrey and Sussex Police. I expect most forces have similar. There is no specific power to seize lawfully held firearms but various powers and acts can be applied which is why it is often handled differently for each situation.
Any police officer would rather err on the side of caution in these circumstances, seize firearms and have them returned than not seize them and face serious disciplinary action if those reviewing the inaction decided it was (potentially) putting the public at risk.
The days of "you made a mistake, let's learn from it" have been replaced with "you made a mistake, now I can make an example of you to enhance my promotion prospects and make sure I don't get in trouble".
Policy Statement
3.1 Surrey Police and Sussex Police (hereafter referred to as the Forces) will always strictly assess the suitability of individuals including police officers and staff to have access to and/or possession of legally held firearms and certificates. Where appropriate, necessary, and proportionate, in line with section 3.2 below (Chief Officers' overarching Statement) firearms and certificates will be seized by officers with the full support of their Force in order to balance the risk of harm to the public or themselves with the lawful right to possess weapons.
3.2 The Forces will always support their staff and officers when making NDM based decisions in terms of those in possession of legally held firearms having an adverse effect on public safety.Chief Officers’ Overarching Statement - Ratified by ACC Dobinson, Head of Operations Command. "In the management of threat, risk and harm from firearms, there is a need for dynamic and clear decision making and there is an absolute need for officers do the right thing when keeping our communities safe. There will be occasions involving lawfully possessed firearms and shotguns when the threat of harm is so significant that immediate action is required, where justified and proportionate, to manage the threat and police officers should not hesitate to remove guns, ammunition, and certificates where they have justified concerns around public safety when any delay in taking action may result in serious injury or loss of life.
"I want all officers to understand that you will have my full support in taking appropriate action where circumstances dictate."
3.3 Need for immediate action.There may be circumstances where officers assess or are asked to consider, the need for immediate action that requires the removal of firearms, shotguns, and certificates to ensure public safety. This could include but is not limited to:
• Alcohol or drug abuse.
• Medical suitability.
• Domestic abuse (DA) incidents.
• Violence or threats of violence made to others.
• Ongoing and escalating disputes with neighbours.
• Associations or links to organised crime groups.
Involvement in crime where the conduct of the holder is such that it would be cause for concern if they were left in possession of their weapons.
There was no assault.
Her male colleague alleged that she threatened him, in response to a harrasment and bullying case being brought against him by my Mrs after 3 years of various incidents and finally getting.to the point she needed something to be done about it.
He had to report it to the police for the company to consider it as a potential incident, it was later found to be a fabrication after it emerged his trade union rep told him what to say.
The thing with all of this is interpretation. The guidance @nun_hunter quotes makes complete sense to me. However, and anecdotally, a number of the seizures we hear about don’t meet the threshold of “the threat of harm is so significant that immediate action is required, where justified and proportionate, … when any delay in taking action may result in serious injury or loss of life”.
It’s a strain to see how someone’s wife making a threat really creates a significant risk of immediate harm resulting in serious injury or loss of life. At most, it suggests a slightly higher risk profile.
As can be seen from the BASC link (and excepting other limited circumstances) the police only have a legal right to seize firearms where grounds would exist to revoke the relevant license. I’m personally doubtful that the situation the OP describes would cross that threshold (but could accept it might, with specific circumstances).
To the interested observer, it feels as though police use the request of voluntary surrender (and associated threat of a ‘black mark’ for being uncooperative) to undertake seizure where the threshold for revocation isn’t met.
I would have less of an issue with that if there was a formal process for this, including an expected timeframe for enquiry and a right of appeal. However, when forces are taking years to grant licenses (if they will at all) and where stories of long waits, with inadequate information abound, I fully understand why some shooters feel the situation is unfair, heavily biased against them and liable to leave them in indeterminate limbo.
It’s a strain to see how someone’s wife making a threat really creates a significant risk of immediate harm resulting in serious injury or loss of life. At most, it suggests a slightly higher risk profile.
As can be seen from the BASC link (and excepting other limited circumstances) the police only have a legal right to seize firearms where grounds would exist to revoke the relevant license. I’m personally doubtful that the situation the OP describes would cross that threshold (but could accept it might, with specific circumstances).
To the interested observer, it feels as though police use the request of voluntary surrender (and associated threat of a ‘black mark’ for being uncooperative) to undertake seizure where the threshold for revocation isn’t met.
I would have less of an issue with that if there was a formal process for this, including an expected timeframe for enquiry and a right of appeal. However, when forces are taking years to grant licenses (if they will at all) and where stories of long waits, with inadequate information abound, I fully understand why some shooters feel the situation is unfair, heavily biased against them and liable to leave them in indeterminate limbo.
In reality, it is a matter of the arbitrary exercise of police powers which may or may not exist, and you'll go a long way before you'll find a policeman who has the slightest qualms about whether it is undesirable for the police to exceed their powers.
There are plenty of ex-cops on here. Very much doubt any of them have anything other than a highly Soviet view of the matter -.i.e. that if you can invoke a potential risk to the public, real or imaginary, pretty much anything is fine.
There are plenty of ex-cops on here. Very much doubt any of them have anything other than a highly Soviet view of the matter -.i.e. that if you can invoke a potential risk to the public, real or imaginary, pretty much anything is fine.
Very well written Andy, the ambiguity of legislation means this can be applied in all manner of circumstances that a tighter description would prevent its use in some of those circumstances.
,
Similar threads
