guns taken

[doric_prince]

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.

Don’t know your personal circumstances and I won’t try to cast aspersions about your actions; however what I have learned from my own experience is that the mere sign of any potential Reasons why one might be viewEd as questionable by others / police in the suitability of holding firearms = right / duty of police to remove accesss immediately and duly investigate / re assess suitable often at slower pace. The slightest cause for concern can initiate this, which has Taught me 2 things 1) not to disclose to others my holdings of said firearms & 2) modify my perceived / or actual behaviour around others, even if it’s unrelated to shooting, to ensure I am not in conflict (perceived or actual) with anyone. Now there are ways in which to be in staunch disagreement with others, rather than endore a policy of capitulation, this is aka the fine art of diplomacy and one that is easily distinguishable from conflict and justified to authorities if required. I.e box clever not hard!

 

[Kersnow]

A very good reason not to marry l guess. Why should an ex be allowed to ruin one's life after a split? She's an ex for a dammed good reason.

 

[Sandyb]

A very good reason not to marry l guess. Why should an ex be allowed to ruin one's life after a split? She's an ex for a dammed good reason.

You don't have to be married, it could be just an ex-partner, disgruntled over the break up. I was advised and did, lodge all my firearms with an RFD when I petitioned for a divorce.. No allegations were never made, but this guy thought the same 5 years ago. We don't get on for similar reasons, I don't communicate through phone calls for similar reasons. Texts and e-mails only.

False allegations need to be treated seriously, in that one proven to be false, the people making these malicious allegations should face prosecution themselves.

 

[Kersnow]

You don't have to be married, it could be just an ex-partner, disgruntled over the break up. I was advised and did, lodge all my firearms with an RFD when I petitioned for a divorce.. No allegations were never made, but this guy thought the same 5 years ago. We don't get on, I don't communicate through phone calls for similar reasons. Texts and e-mails... False allegations need to be treated seriously, in that one proven to be false, the people making these malicious allegations should face prosecution

 

[gixer1]

It all sounds a bit odd - and the guy clearly knows the reason but didn’t want to say in the vid - he was sheepish about it. If he’s going to appear in a vid about how this was unfair I suggest the whole situation, warts n’all is divulged…otherwise it just sounds like he’s got something to hide.

I see it the same as the about about water proof PPE story - “an altercation” could mean you punched somebody in the gob….or could mean a cross word was said - two massively different scenarios and ends of the spectrum.

A family member of mine lost guns and certs - this was due to a poisonous divorce where the wife was a poisonous known nut-nut however, when arguments happened the son of the woman called the police….to settle the situation the police suggested the cert holder left the house and suggested they walk him out - the female thought it a good idea to have a held out hand with M&m’s in them…and taunted the cert holder as he was led out - he hit the underside of her hand to knock the M&M’s out of her hand and she immediately shouted about it being assault - the police had no option but to act on it as thy were witness to it regardless of the situation - based on this the certs were never returned.

The woman and cert holder later communicated and she agreed to write a letter which stated she had lied to the police to get them to attend initially - yet nothing was ever done and the cert situation was never changed.

BASC were contacted to try and get help and they were as much use as t*ts on a bull…basically said you can throw money at it via a Solicitor….this was 12 years ago.

The cert holder had no previous and bore arms for Queen and country for 16 years. It didn’t seem to make any difference.

I see both sides to these stories but I feel many of these stories have background details that re hidden.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[Franchi Matt]

Ahhhh - the old 'ex makes accusations against firearms holder....'
This is not a rare event, small shoot I'm on has two members (one shoot captain) had guns removed due to ex partners allegations, one had them returned and one lost his ticket completely after sending his ex a slightly abusive text message asking her to return his car.....

 

[Sandyb]

As various posts above, I cancelled my membership with BASC, as there's is no legal support whatsoever for situations like this or other. Not that I ever needed it, but that's why a lot of shooters join such organisations.

I feel for people in this situation, but the odd and rare situation in recent history could have happened with a knife or car. An ex shooting partner of mine (retired navy officer) who has since passed away, upon being diagnosed with cancer, Lincs Firearms department were reviewing his possession of firearms...

 

[Heym SR20]

I think Devon and Cornwall have been put in an impossible situation by poor decisions of some of their staff.

They did not act on information received from close family and it ended in tragedy.

Now they seem to be responding to slightest rumour or concern about fitness to hold firearms.

And a lot is being driven by politics.

 

[Oracle]

A historic review of a certificate holders continued suitability to possess & use firearms. This is not unusual, however this comes on the back of the tragedy in Plymouth and the review has been conducted under the new statutory guidance "Assessing Suitability" which was enacted in November 2021. Whilst lots of us are second guessing the exact circumstances, the guy admits that his wider domestic problems with his ex have still not been resolved in 5 years. Clearly still an acrimonious situation with mention of struggling to agree over child care arrangements, Access orders and that the separation was in no way amicable. Whether the police have been involved directly over the past 5 years only the parties involved will know, however it is not unusual for one party or the other to get the police involved, for whatever reasons. If that is the case then the Firearms Licensing Dept. will automatically be informed of police involvement. What level of "involvement" Firearms Licensing will wish to undertake themselves will be decided by the Licensing Manager or those that have direct oversight of the department.

If Firearms Licensing have had previous involvement with the parties concerned it may well be that those members of the Firearms Licensing staff who were involved in the decision making processes leading up to the tragic events in Plymouth, may well have had input in this particular case. Obviously none of us are aware of the circumstances, but again, such members of staff, currently under investigation, would have all such previous historical actions and decisions they made put under close scrutiny.

The new statutory guidance "Assessing Suitability" does not give the Chief Officer much discretion, and it is a reminder to all who hold certificates that, although law abiding, ones domestic circumstances can dramatically change which may well then impact on a certificate holders continued suitability.

Lastly, as in several threads on SD, about which insurance is "cheaper" or "best", have a think about whether the policy will cover you for legal advice and funding for Appeals against Revocation/Grant/Renewal should you find yourself in such an unfortunate position.

 

[gixer1]

Makes you wonder how much support you’d get from a shooting organisation if a real accident occurred and you needed legal support on that side!

 

[Greenmist]

Makes you wonder how much support you’d get from a shooting organisation if a real accident occurred and you needed legal support on that side!

I'll go out on a limb here and say your membership will be revoked and they will robustly distance themselves from you

 

[Trigger260]

I've taken out a policy with Country cover.
It covers you for all the same situations as the basc insurance but also includes legal cover and has a 24hr revocation phone line. Well worth £33 a year!

 

[hogey]

I've taken out a policy with Country cover.
It covers you for all the same situations as the basc insurance but also includes legal cover and has a 24hr revocation phone line. Well worth £33 a year!

Just been looking at their web site.Looks very good

 

[enfieldspares]

I've taken out a policy with Country cover.
It covers you for all the same situations as the basc insurance but also includes legal cover and has a 24hr revocation phone line. Well worth £33 a year!

No glossy magazine? No offers for cheap wines? No deals on brand new 4x4 SUV vehicles? No email updates on how good the voluntary lead shot ban is going to be for us? It's just not going to be the same! Except of course it's £40 cheaper, not a penny of it pays for driven days for MPs and as rightly said it includes legal cover that other policies offered by some other associations no longer do!

 

[JH83]

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.

In a perfect world you are correct, that’d be ideal.

However imagine the scenario that allegations are made of a SGC/FAC holder, he kept his guns, and he subsequently shot the ex.

Can you begin to imagine the media response? Individual officers would be going to prison for dereliction of duty/corporate manslaughter. It’s the same reason they’re slow to start gripping protestors, absolutely terrified of making an error and being railroaded by the press.

That’s the problem with the number of witch-hunts the cops are subject to by the media/social media. Society gets the police it deserves, and it’d be a brave FLO that didn’t take the option to seek a voluntary/temporary revocation given allegations of a domestic nature.

 

[Apthorpe]

In a perfect world you are correct, that’d be ideal.

However imagine the scenario that allegations are made of a SGC/FAC holder, he kept his guns, and he subsequently shot the ex.

Like the other guy, you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that the police ought to seize or remove to an RFD his guns pending investigation. That's not the issue. What is supposed to happen is ...seize.....investigate.....decide whether to revoke....in that order. What is said to have happened here is revocation and seizure simultaneously, either with no investigation, or with a defective and biased investigation.

Can you begin to imagine the media response? Individual officers would be going to prison for dereliction of duty/corporate manslaughter. It’s the same reason they’re slow to start gripping protestors, absolutely terrified of making an error and being railroaded by the press.

That’s the problem with the number of witch-hunts the cops are subject to by the media/social media. Society gets the police it deserves, and it’d be a brave FLO that didn’t take the option to seek a voluntary/temporary revocation given allegations of a domestic nature.

 

[enfieldspares]

It's all about this I fear. Not just the recent Plymouth murders.

Horror of woman whose sister and mother shot dead at puppy farm

Surrey Police has referred itself to the Independent Police Complaints Commission after it emerged they took John Lowe's weapons in May last year but returned them two months' later.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JH83]

Like the other guy, you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that the police ought to seize or remove to an RFD his guns pending investigation. That's not the issue. What is supposed to happen is ...seize.....investigate.....decide whether to revoke....in that order. What is said to have happened here is revocation and seizure simultaneously, either with no investigation, or with a defective and biased investigation.

Realistically an investigation doesn’t happen overnight-it’ll be weeks or months possibly, depending on the allegations. One word against another, no witness/injuries and no previous…sorted in weeks. It’s likely a voluntary revocation in any event, certainly he won’t be fully revoked until the end of the investigation.

I really hope this guy is telling the truth and there isn’t more to it (not for a second am I suggesting anything different)…butttt… I think FSB should be rather careful throwing support behind him until the facts surface. I find that account hard to understand, to be candid.

 

[Whitefront]

Just been looking at their web site.Looks very good

Comparing insurance offers is akin to trying to bid in an auction of promises. You seldom know how good it is unless and until you actually make a claim. Country Cover might be absolutely fine for your purposes. However, you may wish to ask them a few questions, including:

1. I note you operate from a residential address in a village in Northamptonshire (also the home address of one of the two directors; your registered office is at a small accountancy firm in St Albans). According to Companies House, you have net assets of just over £75K and loans/overdraft of £50K. Nothing wrong with any of this, of course. But could you just clarify your exact role within the insurance industry, and tell us how many people you employ, other than the two directors?

2. How many shooting-related policies do you actually have in force at the moment?

3. How many of your shooting policy holders have actually had their claim for legal support for certificate issues taken up, over, say, the past 5 years?

4. And of these (if there are any), how many had their cases resolved through legal action to their satisfaction?

 

[Apthorpe]

It's all about this I fear. Not just the recent Plymouth murders.

Horror of woman whose sister and mother shot dead at puppy farm

Surrey Police has referred itself to the Independent Police Complaints Commission after it emerged they took John Lowe's weapons in May last year but returned them two months' later.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I know people sometimes think they're slow in Devon, but 7 years is a bit much. Even if it is, all the more reason for a proper investigation to take place, rather than what is said to have happened.