That was the impression I got.
guns siezed
- Thread starter tac20
- Start date
Been there, used to have the T shirt, spent twenty years in the shooting wilderness, (with friends!)........... back then it was a knock on the door of the digs & a polite message left, "Lodge your firearms!"
P.S. , Wether your missus has an F.A.C. matters not a jot, your keys should not be available to her, & the same of her keys with you.
P.S. , Wether your missus has an F.A.C. matters not a jot, your keys should not be available to her, & the same of her keys with you.
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Above all remain calm and co-operative with the police. Allow them a reasonable time to investigate the alleged situation. Domestic incidents have proven the most potentially lethal and the police must err on the side of caution. If you are a member of BASC (or another organisation) then give the firearms team a call. Make sure that you tell them all the facts and don't be selective or economical. If the incident is purely verbal with no physical violence nor verbal threats, you should have nothing to fear. In the event of physical assault or threats of violence, then that is a very different matter.
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Allegations, whether true, spurious or malicious, may be hard to prove but even harder to disprove. There have been instances where graphic and (apparently credible) allegations of a person having been threatened with a particular firearm have been made. Upon investigation, the firearm(s) concerned had shrewdly and fortunately been lodged with an RFD three days previous to the alleged threat! On other occasions firearms have not been siezed with tragic results. Softy softly and with a little good fortune, the truth will emerge and the right conclusion made. 20/20 hindsight is only granted to lawyers and certain sections of the press.
richard1951
Well-Known Member
A tip for all, I keep my keys in a digital safe, my wife knows where the keys are but has no idea of the pin number to get into the safe, I work on the assumption that if anything bad happened to me then the police with a locksmith could get into the safe with the keys and then open the gun safes.....
Here comes the next issue, the wife will find a very nice note along the lines of: Well I guess I have passed on for you to read this, sorry for any untruths but PLEASE don't sell these guns for what I told you they were worth, please give our friend XXXXXX a call he will make sure they get sold for the true value, love always[/QUOTE
ROFL now according to the way my X explained it to me i thought i was the only man who did that kind of thing... Now i see we all do it lol
Patterdale Terrier
Well-Known Member
Sorry chaps but I have read this item over and over again and I have between my fingers a large quantity of salt to take. This is some 'verbal argument' especially when 13 police officers have responded. I very much doubt a rural police force like Cumbria, or anywhere else for that matter would be able to muster such a large force for such a trivial matter at anytime in the 24 hour period. I am aware seizure of weapons in similar circumstances are only likely if the police believe there may be a threat. To not seize weapons at the time of the initial visit either means there was insufficient evidence at the time, access to the cabinet had been denied or one or more of the parties was absent and there was no threat. To seize the following day probably means the evidence had been gathered and a threat was still present. A 'verbal argument' does not fit the scenario I am afraid.
Anyway, if the police have acted properly they would have seized the certificates and there is no mention of that here. To not seize a Shotgun Certificate negates the police actions because further Section 2 Shotguns can be purchased whilst your seized weapons languish in police custody. To not seize your Firearm Certificate means you can continue to purchase ammunition, attend stalking events or any other events with estate rifles, allowed in your Section 1 conditions.
A good friend of mine was told by his girlfriend she was going to report their domestic situation to the police in the knowledge the police would make it difficult for him to continue as a game keeper without weapons. Before the police arrived he picked up his guns and all his ammo and delivered them for safe keeping to the local RFD and paid for their keep. Police arrived and on request he opened up his BS cabinet which of course was bare. Police left empty handed and didn't even request his certificates. Disgusted girlfiend leaves for good, all charges dropped and he collects his guns from the RFD in good order. Do you think the police would have given them back any quicker?
Anyway, if the police have acted properly they would have seized the certificates and there is no mention of that here. To not seize a Shotgun Certificate negates the police actions because further Section 2 Shotguns can be purchased whilst your seized weapons languish in police custody. To not seize your Firearm Certificate means you can continue to purchase ammunition, attend stalking events or any other events with estate rifles, allowed in your Section 1 conditions.
A good friend of mine was told by his girlfriend she was going to report their domestic situation to the police in the knowledge the police would make it difficult for him to continue as a game keeper without weapons. Before the police arrived he picked up his guns and all his ammo and delivered them for safe keeping to the local RFD and paid for their keep. Police arrived and on request he opened up his BS cabinet which of course was bare. Police left empty handed and didn't even request his certificates. Disgusted girlfiend leaves for good, all charges dropped and he collects his guns from the RFD in good order. Do you think the police would have given them back any quicker?
I wonder whether what kind of argument it actually was it less-important than the kind of argument the lady said it was when she spoke to the police.
In any case, a verbal exchange of sufficient vehemence, or with threatenting content, could easily be enough to make someone feel they are at risk of violence even when perhaps there was no such risk.
So I'm not certain your analysis is correct.
a friend of mine has beeen in this situation. had a bust up with his wife and police were called to house
by his wife.no violence took place ,the avon and somerset suspended his licence for 6 months .
they called it a cooling off period. and this seems to be a preetty standard thing now a days.
by his wife.no violence took place ,the avon and somerset suspended his licence for 6 months .
they called it a cooling off period. and this seems to be a preetty standard thing now a days.
Pt you need to live in the real world I was at a fellow stalkers house when the police turned up, armed, several cars, following a alleged phone call the previous night to a ex wife, there was no charges brought no evidence offered and it took two yrs for the guns and license to be returned, very rarely are the guns removed straight away as this could cause problems if there is not enough police present. as to removal of the license there is a well known case of a man having his guns removed due to mental health problems, they left his license, several days later he bought a new shotgun and shot himself.
Jimbo 30 06
Well-Known Member
Are you a member of the NGO if so contact them and ask to speak with George Wallace their Firearms officer he is excellent and will fight your corner once he has all the details. Dereck Bird has a lot to answer for.
Kind regards Jimbo 30 06
jamross65
Well-Known Member
I would like to offer comment in the hope of drawing this into perspective.
Firstly, the police in obtaining a warrant have been provided with evidence, or a statement if you prefer from the wife. Regardless of whether its content is accurate, that is what they have in the meantime and that is what they presented in obtaining a warrant to seize the weapons. That is standard practice if there is an allegation of violence or threats of violence. Regardless of what the parties involved think about it, it is absolutely the correct thing to do in the short term. The validity of the allegations will have to be explored either through a police enquiry, or at the end of that a trial in court if charges are preferred.
There are numerous stories of no action being taken at the time of a domestic incident and the subsequent deaths that have ensued. In Scotland the Lord Advocates guidlelines state that if the police are called to a domestic incident, and there is evidence that an assault has taken place, then the accused party should be arrested and detained to appear at court the following day, thereby removing any likleyhood of the situation escalating at that time after they leave. Now in Scotland, corroboration is needed under normal circumstances, but in the instance of domestics and what could result in the following hours, that strength of evidence has been diluted somewhat to the evidence of one witness and other circumstantial evidence, like hair pulled out, other visible injury, upturned furniture or even neighbours hearing a disturbance but unable to say who the victim was. The point is, the threat at that material time has to be reduced or removed.
That is why the weapons are taken.
We could argue that they should then remove sharp objects, heavy tools or whatever else could also be seen as potential weapons. But there is no governance over such items, but there is with firearms.
I think Uncle Norm highlighted the softly, softly approach and sitting this one out. I agree.
If you consider that in all criminal trials or disputes between two parties, the evidence or perspective is always different on both sides. In the long run one of these stories is generally accepted as being the most credible.
If at the end of the day it truly is your word against hers, then they will not be able to retain the weapons for longer than is necessary to determine that, assuming there are no other extenuating circumstances.
Firstly, the police in obtaining a warrant have been provided with evidence, or a statement if you prefer from the wife. Regardless of whether its content is accurate, that is what they have in the meantime and that is what they presented in obtaining a warrant to seize the weapons. That is standard practice if there is an allegation of violence or threats of violence. Regardless of what the parties involved think about it, it is absolutely the correct thing to do in the short term. The validity of the allegations will have to be explored either through a police enquiry, or at the end of that a trial in court if charges are preferred.
There are numerous stories of no action being taken at the time of a domestic incident and the subsequent deaths that have ensued. In Scotland the Lord Advocates guidlelines state that if the police are called to a domestic incident, and there is evidence that an assault has taken place, then the accused party should be arrested and detained to appear at court the following day, thereby removing any likleyhood of the situation escalating at that time after they leave. Now in Scotland, corroboration is needed under normal circumstances, but in the instance of domestics and what could result in the following hours, that strength of evidence has been diluted somewhat to the evidence of one witness and other circumstantial evidence, like hair pulled out, other visible injury, upturned furniture or even neighbours hearing a disturbance but unable to say who the victim was. The point is, the threat at that material time has to be reduced or removed.
That is why the weapons are taken.
We could argue that they should then remove sharp objects, heavy tools or whatever else could also be seen as potential weapons. But there is no governance over such items, but there is with firearms.
I think Uncle Norm highlighted the softly, softly approach and sitting this one out. I agree.
If you consider that in all criminal trials or disputes between two parties, the evidence or perspective is always different on both sides. In the long run one of these stories is generally accepted as being the most credible.
If at the end of the day it truly is your word against hers, then they will not be able to retain the weapons for longer than is necessary to determine that, assuming there are no other extenuating circumstances.
Last edited:
jamross65
Well-Known Member
The thing is Taff, they don't. The magistrate who issues the warrant to seize the weapons does, based on the evidence presented to them by the police which in turn has been provided by witnesses...
a lad down this way had a dispute with his girlfriend verbal and the police were called by a neighbour .all his guns were taken along with some grass found in his cabinet . the next day all were returnd to him ? he no longer lives there but his guns and cabinet remain on the property and licensed to him at that address but the police know he doesnt live there ?
Brithunter
Well-Known Member
Well most of you are aware now how Lincs Police would react... Only 11 or 13 officers............................... try about 25.
widows son
Well-Known Member
read it again billy
Similar threads
