Yes, the Police have a power to enter with a warrant.
Yes, they can also enter without a warrant, dependant on circumstances.
What they can do after entering is a whole different matter.
guns taken
- Thread starter tolley
- Start date
Yes, the Police have a power to enter with a warrant.
Yes, they can also enter without a warrant, dependant on circumstances.
What they can do after entering is a whole different matter.
In this case, the decision appears to have been made without or prior to any proper investigation. What is different here is that the decision to revoke has been made... in secret.
Again, this appears not to have happened.
That's because that's what the police like putting into the media. They can't complain when it works both ways.
There's no good reason at all why they couldn't simply have written him a letter and asked him to surrender his guns at the police station. Turning up with armed policemen inside a family house (I'm unclear whether there was or wasn't a warrant) without any specific intelligence to justify doing that, is surely both unnecessary, unreasonable and wrong. We're constantly told the police are under-resourced. Apparently they're over-resourced.
If there is an enquiry, That stage appears to have been dispensed with.
I suppose they could have informed him to surrender them, then he could have taken that the wrong way and gone on a rampage, let’s not forget what happens when the police make the wrong decision.
And I have been in the situation where my firearms were taken due to a false allegation and duly returned after the investigation
And you can bet they know that BASC has done away with its legal cover insurance for its members.
I suppose so, although it seems vanishingly unlikely. We're not in the position where the holder is entirely unvetted.
On the occasion when your firearms were taken, would it have crossed your mind to go on a rampage if they'd just contacted you and asked you to hand them in?
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Do you genuinely think that police decided the removal and seizure of someone's guns on the basis of Basc level of insurance cover?
I presume he meant that the police felt free to act in an improper manner (prejudicing or dispensing with the investigation) safe in the knowledge that it is unaffordable to hold them to account.
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
I can only go with the video in the link and a Google search has failed to provide any further information.
As you appear to have more detailed knowledge of the circumstances, it would be of benefit to share them.
P
No it wouldn’t, but then we have Michael Ryan, derek bird etc that might not be as accommodating as myself, you also have the time when a fac holder was released without charge, and didn’t have guns removed who went home, got his gun then drove round to his former partner and killed her
The video said that his licence had been revoked at the same time as the guns were seized with no prior notice or contact. If that is so, it is hard to understand how they could have carried out a proper investigation.
Another comment above laid out the standard procedure the police use, which is that guns are seized as soon as an allegation or cause for concern is received. That is then followed by an investigation. And that followed by a decision to revoke or return guns. The point being that an investigation takes time and requires the subject to know about it and be able to provide evidence.
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Couple of points.
The police will not usually give notice or are indeed required to have any previous contact prior to attending to seize guns, the reason being that the certificate holder may decide he will resist.
Police action will depend on the nature of the allegation made and whatever evidence they have prior to attending at the home.
We have no idea what "investigation" took place and these situations are very often dynamic, fluid and time sensitive.
The notion that the subject requires to be informed is simply nonsense.
Any evidence which would refute any allegation made would no doubt assist the subject or their legal representation would be presented following the seizure.
Again, we have absolutely no idea what prompted the police response.
Yeah, you've missed the point there. Nobody disputes that the police have a right to seize guns when they have evidence or allegations which makes that a prudent thing to do. It makes perfect sense for the guns to be removed during an investigation and prior to revocation. The issue is that the decision to revoke ought to be taken after a proper investigation.
What is said to have happened here is that the decision to revoke was taken before.
The story is not that the guys guns were removed. It's that his certificates were revoked on the spot arbitrarily, without the proper investigation, and no reason given.
You're right that we have absolutely no idea what prompted the police response, precisely because the police refused to disclose any reason. It is exactly that which is the thing the guy concerned - and others - find objectionable, and what I had first commented on. If you can't understand why it is a problem if the police undertake defective investigations, or fail to investigate at all, where they should, then there is nothing further I can say. I have a disturbing worry that you may have been a policeman at some point. I hope not.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Well having watched the video it's an odd sort of revocation letter that ends abruptly as it seems to do. I think there's a page 2 to the letter that's not been shown in the video. Watch the video again and make up your own minds about the letter that's being presented. What's shown isn't signed so I say we're not being shown the all of it.
I'll have another look later, but the alternative is that this channel thinks it has something to gain by misrepresenting the police conduct. If the letter in its entirety has a different meaning, they know they're going to look very stupid, and the alleged victim of this would know he's damaging his cause.
Seems unlikely that they're both shooting themselves in the foot deliberately.
No given they are risk adverse, but it certainly makes it easier for them to take the firearms when the reason is boarder line, knowing any legal challenge in very unlikely. Win win situation for them.
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
Well
As he is a member of ngo rather than Basc I would assume this to be a mute point
Yes after a heated work meeting about water proofs ppe. I got a call from shift manager to call my local police station at which point I was asked to come in. I said sure no problem after work to which the reply was ehh no we will come and get you. got a lift to police station thence directly to my home rifles and fac taken only explanation was that an allegation had been made. Despite three letters from 3 medical professionals it took ten months to get them back and a whole new application as the fac had run out. So yes any one you upset can ruin your life.
Benelli m2
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ
It seems that if the police are driving through your village they may we'll call on the off chance and take your guns
Reason it will make your village a safer place
It seems that if the police are driving through your village they may we'll call on the off chance and take your guns
Reason it will make your village a safer place
Similar threads
