Insurance! Which organisations don't cover you if this happens?

[timbrayford]

Kindly explain why my attitude is 'horrible'? I take it you then sanction disregard for public safety and the requirements of holding an SGC? All he had to do was cover his slip. It's not rocket science, for god's sake. Clear guidance is even laid down in black and white on the SGC.

Paragraph 4 (a) in case you need reminding

And lets all remind ourselves of the outcome "The police took the owners guns and it was 11 months before a judge threw out the case", i.e. the police acted above and beyond what the law requires, if anyone deserves admonishing it is them!

 

[User00056]

And lets all remind ourselves of the outcome "The police took the owners guns and it was 11 months before a judge threw out the case", i.e. the police acted above and beyond what the law requires, if anyone deserves admonishing it is them!

Perhaps. Nobody has really covered themselves in glory here, to be honest. I think we can agree to disagree on some aspects of this, but it hopefully serves as a reminder that we all need to be squeaky-clean where the public are concerned

 

[Brittany boy]

I've heard of similar cases and I hope everything is sorted now. Did you ever look into other insurance companies and find any that would have covered you?

Yes I looked at a couple of others SACS and the Scottish Gamekeeper I think , as I had to do it through friends who were already members but they all had the same opinion that if the police said they had seized the weapons in the interests of public safety then they could not justify a legal challenge as the police don’t need to share any intelligence held. It’s the perfect get out clause for police forces , and I’m a serving police officer.

 

[Demetrius]

Surely, if the gun was in a closed slip, no-one would leave it in view, even in a locked vehicle, whether or not in a public place.
That comes under the heading of "common sense"....anyone remember that stuff?

D

 

[sanibel686]

In relation to this side by side insurance that has been mentioned above

Where it is 27 pounds independently purchased or discounted to 16 pounds as purchased through the NGO.

1 What exactly does it cover
2Are there any alternatives/competitors providing the same cover
3 why haven't the other organizations jumped on this as an addition?

Afterall what do we mainly want from our shooting organization? We want to be covered in the event of a personal problem and we want them to have political clout and fight for our sport.

It seems to me that the clearest leader in the marketplace at the moment is basc. And they are doing neither of these two things I have mentioned in point three.
What I would expect of basc is to be an English version of the American NRA. But what they give the average member for their stratospheric joining fee is absolutely beyond me.

 

[8x57]

The Fieldsports channel recently reported on an incident where a member of the public call the police because they saw the butt of a shotgun sticking out of its slip in the back of a locked car in a supermarket carpark. The police took the owners guns and it was 11 months before a judge threw out the case and he got his guns back. You can find the video on YouTube searching "Scott shuckford" he is a gamekeeper and relies on his guns for his job, he is also in a tight house so this was a serious position for him to be in.

He thought he was insured through his chosen shooting organization for such circumstances but found out that he was not and it cost him dearly to fight his case.

The fieldsports channel did not disclose which organization he was insured by.

We all have our favourite company, basc CPSA NGO SACS etc butit's high time we all knew which exact companies cover us under such circumstances and by default who is taking our money under false pretenses.

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong case or perhaps my memory is failing me, but wasn't this case reported in "Keeping the Balance" the magazine of the NGO some time ago.
I think the general opinion voiced was the gamekeeper in question had become rather complacent, some may say reckless, regarding security. If my recollection of what I think I had read is correct the NGO worked hard to get the guy his firearms back. Like you say he had a lot at risk with job and tied house etc.


P.S. sanibel686 I think you meant to say British version of the American NRA not English.

 

[Lateral]

And lets all remind ourselves of the outcome "The police took the owners guns and it was 11 months before a judge threw out the case", i.e. the police acted above and beyond what the law requires, if anyone deserves admonishing it is them!

And maybe THAT'S the best reason to take a little more care, to avoid having to go through losing your firearms, even if you do get them back, months later ?

It's hard enough for FAC holders, let alone inviting more attention ?

 

[Lateral]

It also dawned on me that the FSC have recently started to offer shooting insurance, and include legal expenses cover, and I suspect this story has an ulterior motive ????

 

[NoIDeer]

If the police withdrew his firearms for 11 months and a judge dismissed the case in 10 minutes it would suggest the police have chosen the wrong event to make a point.

Where are the protections for FAC/SGC holders in this sort of situation, the police seem to have unlimited powers to confiscate and forgive the pun, we are sitting ducks?

 

[timbrayford]

Perhaps. Nobody has really covered themselves in glory here, to be honest. I think we can agree to disagree on some aspects of this, but it hopefully serves as a reminder that we all need to be squeaky-clean where the public are concerned

And why its wise to insure yourself against the unlawful acts of the police!

 

[8x57]

And why its wise to insure yourself against the unlawful acts of the police!

Was it actually an unlawful act or was it merely dismissed on a legal technicality, such things happen with apparently "cut and dried" cases every day!

 

[Blaser243]

My views:

1. The person concerned arguably made a mistake. It isn't good practice to leave a shotgun in plain sight (even if slipped, its obvious what it is), unattended, in public. To do so raises questions over whether you have met your safekeeping obligations. All would depend on the circumstances (e.g. location, time left etc) as to whether it was reasonable.
2. The police were heavy handed in revoking rather than having a stern word and reminding the holder of his obligations and the potential consequences. That would have been more proportionate, would probably have resulted in the holder thinking about it more carefully in future (benefiting public safety) and saved money and time on all sides.
3. But, the police would rather revoke and leave it to the courts to make the decision to return firearms than be blamed (again!) for doing so themselves. Doesn't matter the situation, they are institutionally terrified now of another Plymouth or John Lowe/puppy farm situation (plus all the others).
4. The court made the only logical decision. It also probably thought that the holder had been punished enough (and probably the police did too).
5. People fail to understand the "insurance" (aka membership) that they buy. Read what it actually covers rather than assuming that because BASC fought someone's case once, they will do it for you. BASC doesn't offer legal assistance insurance for revocations, but does sometimes (after a long winded process that involved Council approving it) back individual cases. Other policies (e.g. those mentioned above) specifically are for such situations.
6. Complacency does breed contempt. I know of people who have lost guns through such casual approaches to security. In once instance, a car was broken into during a farm burglary and a gun that had been left in there was stolen and never recovered. Probably wasn't the first time he'd left it there overnight.

 

[timbrayford]

Was it actually an unlawful act or was it merely dismissed on a legal technicality, such things happen with apparently "cut and dried" cases every day!

The legal technicality being that no law had been broken. Fortunately the judiciary are still just about upholding the law against leftie public sector extremism!

 

[timbrayford]

My views:

1. The person concerned arguably made a mistake. It isn't good practice to leave a shotgun in plain sight (even if slipped, its obvious what it is), unattended, in public. To do so raises questions over whether you have met your safekeeping obligations. All would depend on the circumstances (e.g. location, time left etc) as to whether it was reasonable.
2. The police were heavy handed in revoking rather than having a stern word and reminding the holder of his obligations and the potential consequences. That would have been more proportionate, would probably have resulted in the holder thinking about it more carefully in future (benefiting public safety) and saved money and time on all sides.
3. But, the police would rather revoke and leave it to the courts to make the decision to return firearms than be blamed (again!) for doing so themselves. Doesn't matter the situation, they are institutionally terrified now of another Plymouth or John Lowe/puppy farm situation (plus all the others).
4. The court made the only logical decision. It also probably thought that the holder had been punished enough (and probably the police did too).
5. People fail to understand the "insurance" (aka membership) that they buy. Read what it actually covers rather than assuming that because BASC fought someone's case once, they will do it for you. BASC doesn't offer legal assistance insurance for revocations, but does sometimes (after a long winded process that involved Council approving it) back individual cases. Other policies (e.g. those mentioned above) specifically are for such situations.
6. Complacency does breed contempt. I know of people who have lost guns through such casual approaches to security. In once instance, a car was broken into during a farm burglary and a gun that had been left in there was stolen and never recovered. Probably wasn't the first time he'd left it there overnight.

Does BASC membership resemble a fool's errand by any chance?

 

[kenbro]

I'm going to potentially light the touchpaper here and state categorically that the most lackadaisical and careless attitudes towards firearms I've seen have been by gamekeepers.

I've seen loaded rifles leant against vehicles, thrown onto rear seats, and propped into footwells with zero regard to muzzle safety. I've seen loaded shotguns placed in a lunchroom rack. I've seen ammunition left lying around vehicles and buildings. I've even seen one individual turn up hungover, reeking of drink, and then belch his way through a family clay shoot taking five or six shots at each target with an FAC-rated semi-automatic. I've seen loaded shotguns and rifles bungee-ed onto quad racks with the same disregard they treat bags of feed.

And every time I've challenged them I've been met with abuse or indifference.

I have very little sympathy for the individual in question.

He knows the obligations that come with firearms ownership.

He ignored them.

He rightly got what he deserved.

Sounds like you keep some good company….
KB.

 

[Blaser243]

Does BASC membership resemble a fool's errand by any chance?

If you buy BASC membership for insurance that they don’t actually provide, then yes - the purchaser is the fool.

Personally, I still value their lobbying work and many other aspects of what they stand for. They’re not perfect, but they’re better than most of the alternatives - although I am equally fond of the NGO.

You’re entitled to any view you wish to hold, but BASC bashing is a bit tedious and something of a SD cliche if you don’t also give a reasoned argument, you know that, right?

 

[User00056]

Sounds like you keep some good company….
KB.

Nope. I've walked off shoots halfway through the day due to unsafe behaviour before now, and I'd do it again

 

[timbrayford]

If you buy BASC membership for insurance that they don’t actually provide, then yes - the purchaser is the fool.

Personally, I still value their lobbying work and many other aspects of what they stand for. They’re not perfect, but they’re better than most of the alternatives - although I am equally fond of the NGO.

You’re entitled to any view you wish to hold, but BASC bashing is a bit tedious and something of a SD cliche if you don’t also give a reasoned argument, you know that, right?

Absolutely, after the lead projectile debacle where I believe that it's fair to say that BASC were out of step with the majority of the shooting community (see Field sports Channel poll), I view with trepidation their refusal to give a very detailed account of their recent meeting with police representatives on prospective changes to firearms controls.

 

[8x57]

My views:


4. The court made the only logical decision. It also probably thought that the holder had been punished enough (and probably the police did too).

That's my thought too.

 

[sauer]

If the police withdrew his firearms for 11 months and a judge dismissed the case in 10 minutes it would suggest the police have chosen the wrong event to make a point.

Where are the protections for FAC/SGC holders in this sort of situation, the police seem to have unlimited powers to confiscate and forgive the pun, we are sitting ducks?

You have no protection

Ultimately if police decide they want your guns they will take them
Not ge said she said or whatever ...
Priority is gun removal end of
Sort out blame or what actually happened later ...

Onus is on you legally to try to get guns back

I know personally of case where guns removed .... lad did bu55er all wrong....went to his organisation..(BASC) ...wouldn't even listen to full story ...refused to provide legal cover....gut went on to win his guns & certs back and made police look like Fools in court .. .2 sides to every story and you pay for legal cover bit they dont tell you they cherry pick cases

Public safety no1 priority they just remove guns ans ask questions later

Paul