House doors to be locked continuously even when you're at home?

[243ack]

I can see why you would think that. But one needs to justify every firearm one posses. If we were entitled to have an FAC surely while applying for slots one could just put down. 'just because I want it' and not give further explanation? As you know If you ever did put that down, they would simply reject your application.

And if you have justification for possession, then it is your right to do so.

 

[flying felix]

Stu, you're correct. So many on here think that having an FAC is a right and they will carry on acting as they wish to regardless. Those that do will not have an FAC for very long. I spoke with probably one of the top firearms barristers recently. He told me this for free. 'There aren't many Judges that will go against the decision of the Police should they revoke an FAC on the grounds the said holder poses a risk or is un-safe in possessing said FAC'

People forget we do not have a Second Amendment in the UK and have no inherent right to possess firearms. Its by the good grace of the Chief Police Officer.

You do realise that the ONLY reason the police can revoke a licence is when they consider the person has or will pose a risk to the public safety. They then have to prove that risk if it goes to a court of appeal. In most cases they have sufficient evidence (chasing someone down the road with a gun etc), but not necessarily when it comes to reasonable precautions.

 

[flying felix]

...Edit: Just out of interest does anyone know what the legal situation would be if someone entered your home without invitation and your dog attacked and seriously injured them?

I've always been of the opinion that the law should be changed to as soon as you knowingly break the law, you consent to giving up the vast majority of your rights until after the act. So a thief can't claim for cutting his hand whilst breaking into your house, or having his nuts chewed off by a well trained.....sorry....badly trained dog.

 

[Shootist]

They try and force you to open the cabinet and you defend yourself you're in the wrong if you hospitalise them! You can't win, unless you bury the body!

Absolutely not true. And if you bury the body then you are tacitly admitting some degree of guilt. If someone breaks into your home and tries to physically persuade you to hand over your firearms and you are obliged to use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances and that force kills them, or crushes their poor little testicles, you have committed no crime. If by some misfortune you are placed in such a position then here is the most single important piece of information you could ever have. Under no circumstances speak to the police without a solicitor present, other than to give your name and address.

 

[mrhim]

And if you have justification for possession, then it is your right to do so.

A right and a justification are two different things. I have a right to breath but I don't have to justify breathing as an example.

 

[Shootist]

Edit: Just out of interest does anyone know what the legal situation would be if someone entered your home without invitation and your dog attacked and seriously injured them?

It is my understanding that, dependent to some degree upon the circumstances of the entry, there would be no problem. The dog will have done what dogs are generally meant to do. OTOH, if the visitor was a police officer with a warrant and you were standing there cheering the dog on, things might get a little tricky.

 

[mrhim]

You do realise that the ONLY reason the police can revoke a licence is when they consider the person has or will pose a risk to the public safety. They then have to prove that risk if it goes to a court of appeal. In most cases they have sufficient evidence (chasing someone down the road with a gun etc), but not necessarily when it comes to reasonable precautions.

If they are revoking your licence the burden of proof required is far lower than a criminal case. They only have to prove 'On balance of probability' and not 'Beyond reasonable doubt' and saying well on an occasion Mr x left his property unsecured which in turned allowed a known criminal to gain entry to Mr X's property and said criminal was feet from Mr X's firearm cabinet.

You can see how the rozzers would present the case to the judge!

 

[flying felix]

Absolutely not true. And if you bury the body then you are tacitly admitting some degree of guilt. If someone breaks into your home and tries to physically persuade you to hand over your firearms and you are obliged to use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances and that force kills them, or crushes their poor little testicles, you have committed no crime. If by some misfortune you are placed in such a position then here is the most single important piece of information you could ever have. Under no circumstances speak to the police without a solicitor present, other than to give your name and address.

+1

A good piece of advice I was given was, never search through your house armed with a golf club, cricket bat etc, as it could be argued that you have shown intent, and if you felt at risk you should have locked yourself in the bathroom and called the police. If however, you carry a torch and it is in your hand when you encountered said intruder and felt that you had to defend yourself with it, there is no intent. The fact that the torch just happens to be a 7 D cell maglight with a breakglass base is of little consequence.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

I've always been of the opinion that the law should be changed to as soon as you knowingly break the law, you consent to giving up the vast majority of your rights until after the act. So a thief can't claim for cutting his hand whilst breaking into your house, or having his nuts chewed off by a well trained.....sorry....badly trained dog.

I couldn't agree more! Unfortunately all too often "human rights activists" and "do gooders" will not allow that to happen and it's the victim who is left to suffer and try to pick up the pieces!
It is my opinion that anyone who knowingly and willingly goes out to break the law should just as knowingly and willingly be forced to give up any rights or legal protection that they think they might have. They should accept whatever "consequences" come their way while out committing their crimes!

 

[mchughcb]

This thread reminds can the trend towards a nanny state ever be reversed? If you are at home and need to lock all doors and windows what is the point of having them.

 

[flying felix]

If they are revoking your licence the burden of proof required is far lower than a criminal case. They only have to prove 'On balance of probability' and not 'Beyond reasonable doubt' and saying well on an occasion Mr x left his property unsecured which in turned allowed a known criminal to gain entry to Mr X's property and said criminal was feet from Mr X's firearm cabinet.

You can see how the rozzers would present the case to the judge!

You are correct in that it comes down to a balance of probability, and I've witnessed it first hand, so know exactly how it is presented, I was able to get hold of the whole case file submitted by the police to support their claim to the appeal and it's no small decision, but there are a number mistakes made (and I mean real mistakes as opposed to the guilty getting away with a technicality) for a start the FAC holder did not allow anything, to allow means to knowingly grant. This is only reasonable if there has been evidence that a criminal will or is likely to gain entry.

Using the car analogy I used earlier, it would change if it was known to the stalker that this particular rest area had been subjected to car thefts repeatedly in the past.

At the moment what is reasonable is perceived to what is the threat, or the likelihood of the threat. If you don't expect to come home from work every night to find your house has been broken into then it is reasonable not to protect against it. If the risk of burglary is high then it is reasonable to protect against it.

The level of risk is both subjective and objective and although I hate Risk Assessments with a vengeance, one has to be conducted on your individual security and you need to adopt the relevant precautions. Some will need to lock their front doors whilst at home, others will want to and some will have no requirement to. But to say all should is a step too far IMHO.

Don't forget what is and what is not reasonable is covered in the HO guidelines for storage and transportation of firearms.

 

[Alantoo]

Yes agree complete Ed - I think if you're in the house then surely thats you covered!

I suspect this is more just abdication of responsibility than anything else; "Well you didnt have your doors and windows locked, its your fault..."

Like you say, before you know it we'll be cuffed to what we own and living in windowless boxes behind inch thick steel doors.

Only an inch thick? It might just delay an opportunist...

As Bewsher said earlier we have a cabinet for firearm security. I am not going to make my cabinet large enough to live in.

Alan

 

[Woodsmoke]

'Reasonable precautions' means exactly that. It's hardly rocket science is it? I mean, if you leave your house unlocked when you're not actually there, then hell mend you as an idiot. I live in a very remote area, and the only time I lock my door is when I'm either leaving the property, or when I go to bed. As far as I'm concerned, anyone intent on gaining entry when I'm not there will do so if given the opportunity. But my firearms are secured in accordance with Home Office guidelines and to me this constitutes 'reasonable precautions' against any reasonably-foreseeable threat. Anyone leaving their property accessible while they're not there though, or who fails to secure their firearms deservedly needs the book thrown at them. It's merely common-sense

 

[Orion]

People forget we do not have a Second Amendment in the UK and have no inherent right to possess firearms. Its by the good grace of the Chief Police Officer.

Despite what was stated by that 'here today gone tomorrow' Police Minister Damian Green (sacked in 2014) in his introduction to the HO Guidance, there are many who would disagree that it is a 'privilege' to lawfully possess firearms - and it doesn't matter how many times certain police departments keep parroting it - the fact remains that it is a right, albeit one that is conditional on certain criteria being met.

A position supported by one or two big guns in the shooting world:

"The British Shooting Sports Council submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Firearms Control included this:

Gill Marshall-Andrews is not correct when she states that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Whilst it is reasonable to assert that the right to have arms which existed prior to 1920 has been circumscribed, elements of that right remain in current legislation, viz. Section 27(1) "A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied…" and Section 28(1), "…a shot gun certificate shall be granted…" Whilst the conditions that follow are stringent, the term "shall" is used rather than "may". This is not accidental and arises from recommendations of the Blackwell Committee of 1919.


BASC's included this:

5.3) BASC does not agree with the proposition that the ownership of firearms
for legitimate purposes by suitable persons is a privilege. We assert that it is a
right, albeit one which is conditional upon certain legally defined criteria
being satisfied. The language at Section 27(1) of the 1968 Act sustains this; “A
firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is
satisfied...” and Section 28(1), “...a shot gun certificate shall be granted...” The
term ‘shall’ is used rather than ‘may’, as is the case in Northern Ireland where
the Chief Officer has absolute discretion. The use of the mandatory word
“shall” is no historical accident and comes from recommendations of the
Blackwell Committee of 1919."

Are you familiar with the Blackwell Committee's Report and subsequent legislation?

https://www.cybershooters.org/PDFdocs/blackwell report.pdf

 

[Shootist]

+1

A good piece of advice I was given was, never search through your house armed with a golf club, cricket bat etc, as it could be argued that you have shown intent, and if you felt at risk you should have locked yourself in the bathroom and called the police. If however, you carry a torch and it is in your hand when you encountered said intruder and felt that you had to defend yourself with it, there is no intent. The fact that the torch just happens to be a 7 D cell maglight with a breakglass base is of little consequence.

At risk of annoying some or other people I feel obliged to say that you have proposed here one of the most common misunderstandings on the law concerning weapons and self defence. The advice above is flawed and against the interests of the householder. The best advice is "Don't start what you can't finish." There is nothing to be achieved by physically confronting a home invader if they are big enough and nasty enough to kick the crap out of you. Neither is it likely, or necessarily advisable for a number of reasons, to try and confront them with a firearm. Any weapon you arm yourself could well be taken from you and most people are not mentally equipped to use extreme personal violence against anyone regardless of circumstances.

My advice to vulnerable people seeking advice on the subject when I was policing, and still is, is as follows. Purchase the largest fairy liquid bottle you can. Make sure it has a cap that flicks right back out of the way when it is opened. Replace the liquid therein with ammonia. Household stuff should suffice. Keep it, or even a couple of them, at strategic locations. If approached by an intruder do not warn them, do not threaten them, just empty in in their face as soon as they are in range. If you've had the time then call 999. If on a land line then the police should attend as a silent 999 call as an urgent call. If on a mobile give your address before anything else.

With special regard to 'intent' you are at perfect liberty to show intent to defend yourself. It is perfectly legal to possess weapons for self defence in your home and to express an intent to use it if forced to by circumstances.

 

[highland stalker]

A very interesting post. It ties in with a TV program that I saw a month or two ago about dog behaviour. They set up cameras in various houses where the owner had a dog as a pet which they thought would deter or guard against intruders. They then sent an "intruder" in and in just about all cases the dog failed to deter or even bark at the "intruder" - In fact several of the dogs filmed actually went and cowered in their bed!
As for my dog - If we had an intruder they would be in severe danger of some very serious injuries - Our dog would almost certainly beat them to death with her tail!

Edit: Just out of interest does anyone know what the legal situation would be if someone entered your home without invitation and your dog attacked and seriously injured them?

I know of a Weimaraner that let an uninvited police man know that he wasn't welcome in the house. Tore the sleeve off his jumper. Not a thing he could do.

 

[nun_hunter]

At risk of annoying some or other people I feel obliged to say that you have proposed here one of the most common misunderstandings on the law concerning weapons and self defence. The advice above is flawed and against the interests of the householder. The best advice is "Don't start what you can't finish." There is nothing to be achieved by physically confronting a home invader if they are big enough and nasty enough to kick the crap out of you. Neither is it likely, or necessarily advisable for a number of reasons, to try and confront them with a firearm. Any weapon you arm yourself could well be taken from you and most people are not mentally equipped to use extreme personal violence against anyone regardless of circumstances.

My advice to vulnerable people seeking advice on the subject when I was policing, and still is, is as follows. Purchase the largest fairy liquid bottle you can. Make sure it has a cap that flicks right back out of the way when it is opened. Replace the liquid therein with ammonia. Household stuff should suffice. Keep it, or even a couple of them, at strategic locations. If approached by an intruder do not warn them, do not threaten them, just empty in in their face as soon as they are in range. If you've had the time then call 999. If on a land line then the police should attend as a silent 999 call as an urgent call. If on a mobile give your address before anything else.

With special regard to 'intent' you are at perfect liberty to show intent to defend yourself. It is perfectly legal to possess weapons for self defence in your home and to express an intent to use it if forced to by circumstances.

Not advice I would advocate or recommend at all due to the fact that what you are proposing would leave the home owner in no end of bother.

Section 5(1)(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. The fact that you are (or at least were) encouraging people to make a home made prohibited weapon is ludacris of someone who says they used to be a police officer. There were a spate of incidents in London where gangs were using Jiff lemon bottles full of amonia as weapons and subsequently found themselves charged with possession of Sec 5 weapons before you say there is nothing wrong with storing amonia in washing up bottles for ease of use etc .

The Crimnal Law Act 1967 is quite clear "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime.....". Reasonable is now widely viewed by the courts as minimal. Littering your house with home made Sec 5 weapons is hardly reasonable with the only defence being "I've got them to blind burglars".

 

[sauer]

Reasonable or minimum .....
My definition is enough to put him down & prevent him from getting up to carry on ill intent ...
Some folk will go down easy others need fair putting down .....
Add to that you have wife n kids in the house & I don't know if all he wants is tv for next hit , or seriously deranged & wanting to go serious harm .....
Either way minute they cross the threshold they have given up their human rights by violating mine & I'll do the
" reasonable or minimum "
Required to stop them .

Paul

 

[Woodsmoke]

Reasonable or minimum .....
My definition is enough to put him down & prevent him from getting up

That's my take on it too. And if he's actually able to get back up after I've administered said 'reasonable' force he should consider himself extremely fortunate. I won't be giving taking any chances . . . .

 

[Alantoo]

That's my take on it too. And if he's actually able to get back up after I've administered said 'reasonable' force he should consider himself extremely fortunate. I won't be giving taking any chances . . . .

I wish I could be as certain as to how I would act in such a situation.

Can you be sure you will be quicker than the villain to administer force? He will be psyched up and have the advantage of surprise, you will be on the back foot from the get go.

Alan