Insurance! Which organisations don't cover you if this happens?

[Confidis]

Not hiding your guns/slips in your car while parking in a supermarket is asking for trouble.
Insecure and on display in a public place.
The 'member of the public ' could have stolen them .
And shot someone.
I'm going to assume ammunition was not far away.
Most of us wouldn't get them back.
Understandabley .
In sight.
Unattended.
Public (very)
Insecure.
Very silly.

 

[mudman]

BASC never provided legal cover. SACS came along and make a big song and dance of providing legal cover as part of their package, much noise about it and how great SACS was on here, even so far as people organising discounted group membership of SACS for those on SD who wanted it. BASC then did provide legal cover, undoubtedly to catch up with SACS. So far so good……

But then a few years later SACS then quietly drop their legal cover, hardly anything said on here or elsewhere. Some time later, BASC drop their legal cover from their insurance package, probably for the same reason SACS did. Yet all hell then lets loose……go figure.

 

[homer]

Just a quick question, if your gun is completely concealed inside a gunslip, is that considered "out of sight" or do you then have to cover the slip too?

 

[The Singing Stalker]

Vehicles Left Unattended

7.2 Whenever possible, the vehicle should not be left unattended for long periods.

7.3 Vehicles containing firearms and left unattended for any length of time should ideally have an immobiliser and/or alarm fitted. For commercial vehicles, such as vans additional locking solutions should be fitted to manufacturer’s standards. Trackers should be considered by those individuals who regularly move large numbers of guns.

7.4 Where possible, they should be parked in an area that provides natural surveillance

7.5 For preference, the firearms should be stored in the locked boot or other secured load carrying area of the vehicle. They should be out of sight from passers-by.

7.6 In the case of estates, hatchbacks and similar vehicles, the certificate holder should ensure that:

a) where fitted, the lid or cover of the load carrying area should be in place, or the firearms are covered and concealed to prevent their identification;

b) if the vehicle is to be left unattended for any length of time, the firearm and ammunition should not be stored together;

c) where the boot or load carrying area is the most practical place, ammunition should be secured in an appropriate container ideally, but not necessarily, secured to the vehicle;

d) where it is practical, the bolt magazine or other operating part should be separated from the firearm and either carried on the person, or kept in a locked container, ideally secured to the vehicle, or concealed elsewhere.

7.7 Where firearms and ammunition are being carried on a journey which involves their being kept away from their usual secure storage, the certificate holder should make arrangements to ensure that they are, so far as is possible, secure. Considerations when firearms are being taken to venues involving overnight or longer accommodation include:

a) obtaining accommodation that already provides secure facilities;

b) separating and retaining possession of integral parts of the firearm, e.g. the fore-end of a shotgun, bolt of a rifle etc.;

c) Utilising portable security devices, i.e. security cords etc.

 

[rollotomassi]

If you're someone whose livelihood relies on gun ownership you should be setup properly at your property and modes of transport.

Assume every interaction with the public /public place is being filmed, whether on CCTV or camera phone. Sounds lax at best, you'd think you'd make some effort with a blanket or jacket thrown over it. There are busybodies everywhere looking for their moment in the sun, don't give them the chance.

 

[timbrayford]

Just a quick question, if your gun is completely concealed inside a gunslip, is that considered "out of sight" or do you then have to cover the slip too?

No, you don't have to, but you might well choose to if its visible within a vehicle. I use a security cord as well if I'm going to pop into the shops and I don't want to have to deal with a broken window so cover up regardless.

 

[timbrayford]

Vehicles Left Unattended

7.2 Whenever possible, the vehicle should not be left unattended for long periods.

7.3 Vehicles containing firearms and left unattended for any length of time should ideally have an immobiliser and/or alarm fitted. For commercial vehicles, such as vans additional locking solutions should be fitted to manufacturer’s standards. Trackers should be considered by those individuals who regularly move large numbers of guns.

7.4 Where possible, they should be parked in an area that provides natural surveillance

7.5 For preference, the firearms should be stored in the locked boot or other secured load carrying area of the vehicle. They should be out of sight from passers-by.

7.6 In the case of estates, hatchbacks and similar vehicles, the certificate holder should ensure that:

a) where fitted, the lid or cover of the load carrying area should be in place, or the firearms are covered and concealed to prevent their identification;

b) if the vehicle is to be left unattended for any length of time, the firearm and ammunition should not be stored together;

c) where the boot or load carrying area is the most practical place, ammunition should be secured in an appropriate container ideally, but not necessarily, secured to the vehicle;

d) where it is practical, the bolt magazine or other operating part should be separated from the firearm and either carried on the person, or kept in a locked container, ideally secured to the vehicle, or concealed elsewhere.

7.7 Where firearms and ammunition are being carried on a journey which involves their being kept away from their usual secure storage, the certificate holder should make arrangements to ensure that they are, so far as is possible, secure. Considerations when firearms are being taken to venues involving overnight or longer accommodation include:

a) obtaining accommodation that already provides secure facilities;

b) separating and retaining possession of integral parts of the firearm, e.g. the fore-end of a shotgun, bolt of a rifle etc.;

c) Utilising portable security devices, i.e. security cords etc.

Guidance not law, but who needs the aggravation if you've been the victim of a crime and the police want to dump the responsibility on you rather than the crook responsible?

 

[8x57]

No, you don't have to, but you might well choose to if its visible within a vehicle. I use a security cord as well if I'm going to pop into the shops and I don't want to have to deal with a broken window so cover up regardless.

I would have thought that a professional who daily carries firearms in his vehicle and wants immediate access (via a single key locking system) would have a suitable security gun cabinet fixed in his vehicle.
It seems like the responsible thing to me and something that his employer should insist on especially if the vehicle is provided by the employer. Thinking about it further I would think it could be considered that this would be an essential piece of safety equipment that the employer would have a duty to supply. So perhaps the employer should share some of the blame in this case.

 

[Chris Richardson]

I would have thought that a professional who daily carries firearms in his vehicle and wants immediate access (via a single key locking system) would have a suitable security gun cabinet fixed in his vehicle.
It seems like the responsible thing to me and something that his employer should insist on especially if the vehicle is provided by the employer. Thinking about it further I would think it could be considered that this would be an essential piece of safety equipment that the employer would have a duty to supply. So perhaps the employer should share some of the blame in this case.

well ive never met a keeper or pro stalker with a cabinet in their vehicle .... i know the FC have them but in the private sector dont know of anyone

 

[8x57]

well ive never met a keeper or pro stalker with a cabinet in their vehicle .... i know the FC have them but in the private sector dont know of anyone

I agree, but in this day and age and with consideration for employers legal responsibilities regarding H&S perhaps they should?

P.S. I've met a few stalkers who have security boxes fitted in the back of their trucks (the drawer type).

 

[Chris Richardson]

I agree, but in this day and age and with consideration for employers legal responsibilities regarding H&S perhaps they should?

Perhaps …. Personally I wouldn’t want one but then I’m not full time only out 2-3 days a week , for me personally having a cabinet where it could be viewed would show potential thieves there are firearms in my vehicle, I’d sooner cover them up

 

[8x57]

Being only a hobby stalker I do the same as timbrayford - out of sight plus security cord fixed to solid part of the vehicle.

Chris I take it that you don't have an employer provided vehicle?

 

[Chris Richardson]

Being only a hobby stalker I do the same as timbrayford - out of sight plus security cord fixed to solid part of the vehicle.

Chris I take it that you don't have an employer provided vehicle?

No I don’t have an employer provided vehicle it’s my own truck

 

[timbrayford]

I would have thought that a professional who daily carries firearms in his vehicle and wants immediate access (via a single key locking system) would have a suitable security gun cabinet fixed in his vehicle.
It seems like the responsible thing to me and something that his employer should insist on especially if the vehicle is provided by the employer. Thinking about it further I would think it could be considered that this would be an essential piece of safety equipment that the employer would have a duty to supply. So perhaps the employer should share some of the blame in this case.

There's no blame to be had, that was the judge's ruling.

 

[8x57]

There's no blame to be had, that was the judge's ruling.

That may be one interpretation but what was the Judge's actual words when he dismissed the case. Is there a transcript of the case or are we just relying upon hearsay?

 

[andyk]

I’d echo what @8x57 says, all we can conclude is that the judge didn’t think this was serious enough to mean the statutory criteria for revoking a license were met.

A recurring feature in some of these stories is that the Police give the impression that revocation is based on whether they think they may be criticised for not revoking the license, not whether the conduct alleged is serious enough to warrant believing that the holder cannot possess a gun without a risk to the public. That seems an unfair ‘sleight of hand’ given the number of situations where there has been ample evidence available to conclude that, but it’s been overlooked.

There does appear to be a case here for the holder having breached the terms of his SGC (we can argue technicalities but the gun was visible in a situation where it could, at the very least, have been entirely covered by a slip). The question is whether that warrants revocation or just a b******ing. Personally, I think the latter and that the former is a gross overreaction, unless this is part of a course of conduct.

 

[sanibel686]

It also dawned on me that the FSC have recently started to offer shooting insurance, and include legal expenses cover, and I suspect this story has an ulterior motive ????

Regarding your suspicion of ulterior motive?

Sometimes the police will confiscate guns for good reason within the legislative framework. Sometimes, there is overreach as most people and indeed the court seem to agree about this particular case. There are also times when the police may be perceived to have acted with bad faith / incompetence / illegality ect.

For licence holders affected by that last scenario it costs an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 pounds for that rare person to defend themselves:

 The "elephant in the room" is:

Why has this Cottage industry of the various shooting organisations not already built a ring of steel around its members by offering a legal costs protection add-on.

Right or wrong, we read all too often that someone gets their guns taken, calls their shooting organization for help and some bloody snake oil salesman says "well.... Let me draw your attention to the small print here in clause 666! I'm afraid you're on your own bonnie lad"

So here it is; open question to anyone directly employed by these shooting organizations.

1, Why don't YOU already offer the option of this protection on the front page of YOUR website?

 

[Martiniblack577]

It is quite difficult to rationalise how the shooting community has ended up so powerfully marginalised in our society.

Generally, those holding SGC/FAC’s are wholly committed to adhering and upholding the rule of law. Unfortunately, they are also so often the most fragile and vulnerable in terms of negative allegations or assumptions made against them.

 

[timbrayford]

That may be one interpretation but what was the Judge's actual words when he dismissed the case. Is there a transcript of the case or are we just relying upon hearsay?

We are relying on the rule of law, no more, no less and certainly no innuendo and plod making it up to suit themselves!

 

[timbrayford]

I’d echo what @8x57 says, all we can conclude is that the judge didn’t think this was serious enough to mean the statutory criteria for revoking a license were met.

A recurring feature in some of these stories is that the Police give the impression that revocation is based on whether they think they may be criticised for not revoking the license, not whether the conduct alleged is serious enough to warrant believing that the holder cannot possess a gun without a risk to the public. That seems an unfair ‘sleight of hand’ given the number of situations where there has been ample evidence available to conclude that, but it’s been overlooked.

There does appear to be a case here for the holder having breached the terms of his SGC (we can argue technicalities but the gun was visible in a situation where it could, at the very least, have been entirely covered by a slip). The question is whether that warrants revocation or just a b******ing. Personally, I think the latter and that the former is a gross overreaction, unless this is part of a course of conduct.

The over arching principal, is that firearms ownership is a right enforceable under section 44 of the firearms act