Got arrested this morning

[User100]

I agree with you to an extent, but that's not the fault of the Police. There'll be an awful lot of people in our towns and cities who don't even realise you can legally own firearms in this country.

<snip>

the more we as individuals can do to promote shooting, and the more BASC, etc. can do to educate and inform, the better. People don't need to panic when they see a firearm, but they don't know that until they know it.

️

 

[Lateral]

I disagree
Going out shooting is a perfectly normal thing to do.
The fact that the press have folk terrified of their own shadow should not reflect on us, basically what you are saying is that we are all criminals and terrorists until the police say otherwise.

It’s that kind of thinking that’s part of the problem

I neither said, or implied any such thing. It's the attitude of entitlement, and the lack of understanding of the publics perception of firearms, of some FAC holders, that will be the cause of tougher regulations, NOT the empathy of most who understand the concerns of the public !

 

[Smellydog]

Instead of bothering over the police. Visit any suspected whistle blowers home and tell them you going to legally what ever over there. Record it on your phone and save it.

 

[kenbro]

I can tell you what’s next - after the implementations of a “call in system” it will be geo-tagging, whereby if you want to carry a firearm you will need to have some sort of GPS tracking to show where you are - it’s all part of the “death by one thousand cuts” system that seems to be being implemented and many shooters are happily waltzing along the path.

I remember looking at the US NRA spokespersons and thinking they were extreme and off-putting, I now understand exactly why they do not give one inch.

So far in my short time with firearms we have -

Lost the right to use pistols.

Lost the right to use large chamberings semi-autos.

Lost the right to use snares.

Had medical forms made compulsory (even though doctors have no obligation to complete them)

Having powders restricted through reach.

On the way to having ammunition materials restricted.

On the way to having licence costs elevated by 400%.

Can anyone think of any ground we have gained? The only small thing would be the ability to use less than 100gr bullets on red deer and use electronic scopes to shoot deer A why?…well, because for now it suits the governments environmental tree planting narrative.

When the deer numbers are down (and that will happen eventually in many areas) we will have those things taken again….

We need to vote in politicians who are not blind or liking to line their own pockets.

Don’t give ‘em ideas

 

[Budgie Smuggler]

's

 

[Miki]

This morning my friend and I had loaded weapons pointed at us, were told to walk with our hands in the air, were handcuffed, were told "you are both under arrest under suspicion of possession of a firearm", our clothes were searched searched and my car was briefly examined visually inside before "Thank you for your cooperation, sorry for the trouble but you will understand we have to investigate reports" This is not on and I would like advice as to how to stop this happening to others.
<snip>

Sounds like you were a training excercise .... things must be quiet with the ARP division.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I neither said, or implied any such thing. It's the attitude of entitlement, and the lack of understanding of the publics perception of firearms, of some FAC holders, that will be the cause of tougher regulations, NOT the empathy of most who understand the concerns of the public !

Attitude of entitlement??

We are entitled ffs !! We are entitled to own guns and shoot !

 

[Silvius]

Following up on advice I have been given I can see that this arrest does not satisfy Article 5 of the human rights act or PACE

Legal grounds for claiming this was an illegal arrest



2. Elements of Arrest under section 24 PACE

2.1 A lawful arrest requires two elements:

A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence;

AND

Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.

both elements must be satisfied, and

it can never be necessary to arrest a person unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of committing an offence.





Article 5 of the human rights act

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a)the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

(b)the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

(c)the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

(d)the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

(e)the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

(f)the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

 

[Greenmist]

I think the response will be
They suspected you of an illegal act
They detained you until your ID was confirmed and as a firearm was involved, for their safety
And I also think they will say option C was satisfied

However, I wasn't there, if you feel your rights have been violated, I wish you well with the case

 

[Silvius]

I think the response will be
They suspected you of an illegal act
They detained you until your ID was confirmed and as a firearm was involved, for their safety
And I also think they will say option C was satisfied

However, I wasn't there, if you feel your rights have been violated, I wish you well with the case

Very likely the response but what reason do they have apart from "has rifle and had rifle"

I am not feeling violated. I just think this is an opportunity to stand up for our rights as a group and that I should do something, even if just to raise awareness. If we all just accept things, things will get worse and in the end every FAC holder has been very law abiding all their life or they would not have a FAC. We are not a bad lot.

Thanks for your good wishes.

 

[Greenmist]

Very likely the response but what reason do they have apart from "has rifle and had rifle"

I am not feeling violated. I just think this is an opportunity to stand up for our rights as a group and that I should do something, even if just to raise awareness. If we all just accept things, things will get worse and in the end every FAC holder has been very law abiding all their life or they would not have a FAC. We are not a bad lot.

Thanks for your good wishes.

I completely agree, perhaps a polite and factual letter to both the chief constable and crime commissioner even your MP should be the first step, if you are a member of a shooting organisation perhaps seek their advice (but don't expect any action)

 

[Rutland lad]

It's about £30 for a body cam from Amazon,won't stop you getting arrested but you can make the coppers "famous" on social media.Also if your approached by antis it'll stop any accusations.

Why would you want to do that ?

The officers are only doing their job. And they DO get death threats made against them - the recent murder charge against one Met officer shows that’s a real issue.
I’m not sorry to step up here - I’ve been in similar situation with the blue suit on and we do take our own security quite seriously.
I am sorry someone thinks that to ‘make them famous’ is a good idea.
The above post is in reality a threat to the officers homelife, wife, partner, children.

For just doing his job.

Ask yourself a question - if you were sent to a job with minimal info but you knew someone had a weapon (possibly shotgun possibly rifle) would you be polite but firm ? Would you put them in handcuffs until you were satisfied there wasn’t a threat ?

Or would you let them dictate what was going on and end up on the wrong end of violence (think Manchester Airport recently)

In the US someone would probably have been shot.

How lucky we are in the UK that Police still deal with things with a ‘light touch’ and I read the OP and think it still was lightly handled overall.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

I had two 9mm MP5s pointed at my head after 911 by Federal cops doing a traffic stop outside a US Rangers barracks, they had been drafted in from Hamburg in north Germany and did not know the area in Stuttgart south Germany where it happened, it is very unsettling to say the least.

 

[Dunwaters]

A little bit of common sense is required, if I was wandering around Trafalgar Square with a firearm, then an armed response would probably be appropriate, if I’m doing the same thing in darkest rural Englandshire, and the report makes no mention of dangerous conduct a full on armed response may not be.
On the other hand £400 for a certificate is cheap for the entertainment offered the OP

 

[bigtone]

Why would you want to do that ?

The officers are only doing their job. And they DO get death threats made against them - the recent murder charge against one Met officer shows that’s a real issue.
I’m not sorry to step up here - I’ve been in similar situation with the blue suit on and we do take our own security quite seriously.
I am sorry someone thinks that to ‘make them famous’ is a good idea.
The above post is in reality a threat to the officers homelife, wife, partner, children.

For just doing his job.

Ask yourself a question - if you were sent to a job with minimal info but you knew someone had a weapon (possibly shotgun possibly rifle) would you be polite but firm ? Would you put them in handcuffs until you were satisfied there wasn’t a threat ?

Or would you let them dictate what was going on and end up on the wrong end of violence (think Manchester Airport recently)

In the US someone would probably have been shot.

How lucky we are in the UK that Police still deal with things with a ‘light touch’ and I read the OP and think it still was lightly handled overall.

Because when l was questioned for going about my legal business in the early hours of the morning with a gun and a lamp,the police flashed a torch around the field and over l walked.You could see the blues flashing.It was a 2 minute conversation with no guns being pointed at me and he was more interested in a silenced 12g than anything else.Handcuffs and screeching,with guns pointed at you is not on,it's in a field not a housing estate.If I was wearing a body cam at least l could prove what happened and it was disproportionate to the perceived threat.As for a threat to someone's family l don't think so do you,it's a saying,a movie quote if you like.Would l have put a post on here with a link to said footage ( if id recorded it) probably yes.I certainly wouldn't want a loaded gun pointed at me with what sounds like an over enthusiastic person with their finger on the trigger.

 

[Rutland lad]

A little bit of common sense is required, if I was wandering around Trafalgar Square with a firearm, then an armed response would probably be appropriate, if I’m doing the same thing in darkest rural Englandshire, and the report makes no mention of dangerous conduct a full on armed response may not be.
On the other hand £400 for a certificate is cheap for the entertainment offered the OP

Sadly we are becoming like the US. Where there is ‘no common sense, just rules and regulations to protect us all’

 

[Rutland lad]

Because when l was questioned for going about my legal business in the early hours of the morning with a gun and a lamp,the police flashed a torch around the field and over l walked.You could see the blues flashing.It was a 2 minute conversation with no guns being pointed at me and he was more interested in a silenced 12g than anything else.Handcuffs and screeching,with guns pointed at you is not on,it's in a field not a housing estate.If I was wearing a body cam at least l could prove what happened and it was disproportionate to the perceived threat.As for a threat to someone's family l don't think so do you,it's a saying,a movie quote if you like.Would l have put a post on here with a link to said footage ( if id recorded it) probably yes.I certainly wouldn't want a loaded gun pointed at me with what sounds like an over enthusiastic person with their finger on the trigger.

I’m confused here. You’re not the original poster but yet you say it happened exactly like that ? Were you there ?
I wasn’t so I made no direct comment about that post. I made a generic statement about it.

And to be clear - once you ‘put a link on here to said footage’ then it’s out there. You can’t get it back, and you cannot control where it goes or who does what with it.

Whatever happened between the OP and the officers concerned is a matter for them. They WOULD have had their body cams activated, just in case things kicked off, so if the OP complains and asks for the BC footage to be reviewed then and only then would we actually know exactly what happened. Only trouble is we won’t get to see that will we.

 

[Hardy]

I believe the Police use these opportunities with legit shooters as a training exercise and on this occasion took it one or two ( or three) steps further than they needed to. Totally overboard but training is needed to the max and who better to practice on.

 

[Mike1962]

For a relatively new shooter there's some interesting reading here.
With the way things are in this country, I think I agree with what the police did. You could have been a criminal, how were they to know the difference.
I think we need to realise, if we hold firearms there is a cost. If we hold firearms there is a responsability.
When I first read the officer said to inform the police before you go, I thought "Bollocks"
But the more I read, the more I agree it's a good idea.
The problem, for me, is that knowing who to text/notify is not straight forward, nor do people give inexperienced advice on how to go about these things.
This forum is a gold mine for us beginners!

 

[bigtone]

I’m confused here. You’re not the original poster but yet you say it happened exactly like that ? Were you there ?
I wasn’t so I made no direct comment about that post. I made a generic statement about it.

And to be clear - once you ‘put a link on here to said footage’ then it’s out there. You can’t get it back, and you cannot control where it goes or who does what with it.

Whatever happened between the OP and the officers concerned is a matter for them. They WOULD have had their body cams activated, just in case things kicked off, so if the OP complains and asks for the BC footage to be reviewed then and only then would we actually know exactly what happened. Only trouble is we won’t get to see that will we.

Further down the post is a link to a simular situation that happened to someone on another forum.l mixed up the two,my mistake,but saying that have a read of it and make up your own mind.