IPCC complaint

[palmer_mike]

Police right of entry and firearms seizures

Very informative and interesting thank you.
I wonder which category the OPs firearms were removed under?

 

[Greenmist]

Would you have just given your guns over to 4 officers, that turned up at 2am in the morning?, that apart from 3 of them having their warrant cards as ID had nothing else to demonstrate the legitimacy of their request, who wouldn't answer why they were taking them, who new nothing about guns and couldn't answer if there could be issues for me handing them over? There wasn't even a police vehicle outside the house.
I wanted to be on solid ground, so I asked for armed officers to take them away.
I didn't think I was being unreasonable seeing as I wasn't even part of their investigation...

In that situation, I wouldn't have opened the door

 

[nun_hunter]

The thing with all of this is interpretation. The guidance @nun_hunter quotes makes complete sense to me. However, and anecdotally, a number of the seizures we hear about don’t meet the threshold of “the threat of harm is so significant that immediate action is required, where justified and proportionate, … when any delay in taking action may result in serious injury or loss of life”.

It’s a strain to see how someone’s wife making a threat really creates a significant risk of immediate harm resulting in serious injury or loss of life. At most, it suggests a slightly higher risk profile.

As can be seen from the BASC link (and excepting other limited circumstances) the police only have a legal right to seize firearms where grounds would exist to revoke the relevant license. I’m personally doubtful that the situation the OP describes would cross that threshold (but could accept it might, with specific circumstances).

To the interested observer, it feels as though police use the request of voluntary surrender (and associated threat of a ‘black mark’ for being uncooperative) to undertake seizure where the threshold for revocation isn’t met.

I would have less of an issue with that if there was a formal process for this, including an expected timeframe for enquiry and a right of appeal. However, when forces are taking years to grant licenses (if they will at all) and where stories of long waits, with inadequate information abound, I fully understand why some shooters feel the situation is unfair, heavily biased against them and liable to leave them in indeterminate limbo.

While what you say makes sense there are enough tragic cases where the police were aware of issues that at the time seemed like they wouldn't lead to anything but did.

The subsequent inquests laid the blame squarely on the police (in some cases, rightly so) which has simply made them now err on the side or caution. The last thing a lowly PC wants is to be the one facing gross misconduct or criminal charges for failing to carry out their job properly and protect the public.

As a PC you may get told off for being overly cautious but you'll end up without a job if you are deemed to be cavalier with public safety.

 

[Apthorpe]

While what you say makes sense there are enough tragic cases where the police were aware of issues that at the time seemed like they wouldn't lead to anything but did.

The subsequent inquests laid the blame squarely on the police (in some cases, rightly so) which has simply made them now err on the side or caution. The last thing a lowly PC wants is to be the one facing gross misconduct or criminal charges for failing to carry out their job properly and protect the public.

As a PC you may get told off for being overly cautious but you'll end up without a job if you are deemed to be cavalier with public safety.

Which essentially means that perceived, not necessarily real, potential, not actual, reductions in public safety are considered by the police more important than a citizens's rights.

Something wrong there. Two tier indeed.

 

[andyk]

@nun_hunter I can sympathise with the police given the increasing ‘blame culture’ we live in. However, I don’t accept that means we must tolerate increasingly risk averse behaviour (in many walks of life) that completely outstrips the reality of risks.

I’d also suggest that a PC shouldn’t be making these decisions unless completely unavoidable, e.g. very obvious risk to the public.

I also can’t think of any of the situations you likely refer to being ones where (a) the police hadn’t had time to act, if they’d wanted to, or (b) where the situation was marginal.

If we take Plymouth as an example, D&C had ample evidence (including CCTV of him punching a teenage girl), had considered it but decided not to revoke (it may be that the FLD hadn’t received that CCTV but the wider force had). I’m not persuaded that treating petty allegations with an overabundance of caution is the required solution.

 

[Greenmist]

@nun_hunter I can sympathise with the police given the increasing ‘blame culture’ we live in. However, I don’t accept that means we must tolerate increasingly risk averse behaviour (in many walks of life) that completely outstrips the reality of risks.

I’d also suggest that a PC shouldn’t be making these decisions unless completely unavoidable, e.g. very obvious risk to the public.

I also can’t think of any of the situations you likely refer to being ones where (a) the police hadn’t had time to act, if they’d wanted to, or (b) where the situation was marginal.

If we take Plymouth as an example, D&C had ample evidence (including CCTV of him punching a teenage girl), had considered it but decided not to revoke (it may be that the FLD hadn’t received that CCTV but the wider force had). I’m not persuaded that treating petty allegations with an overabundance of caution is the required solution.

It wouldn't have been the PC's making this decision,it would be higher up and dare I say it, protocol. When it happened to me, the attending PC's were quite happy to take me and that was it, then the checks reached someone else and it came over the radio to turn around and remove firearms. They were very understanding when I refused to tell them where my cabinet keys were

 

[User00057]

Deleted

 

[nun_hunter]

@nun_hunter I can sympathise with the police given the increasing ‘blame culture’ we live in. However, I don’t accept that means we must tolerate increasingly risk averse behaviour (in many walks of life) that completely outstrips the reality of risks.

I’d also suggest that a PC shouldn’t be making these decisions unless completely unavoidable, e.g. very obvious risk to the public.

I also can’t think of any of the situations you likely refer to being ones where (a) the police hadn’t had time to act, if they’d wanted to, or (b) where the situation was marginal.

If we take Plymouth as an example, D&C had ample evidence (including CCTV of him punching a teenage girl), had considered it but decided not to revoke (it may be that the FLD hadn’t received that CCTV but the wider force had). I’m not persuaded that treating petty allegations with an overabundance of caution is the required solution.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out the feeling from the other side of the fence.

Taking calculated risks is a major part of life for anyone, especially police officers. Taking a risk when there is a lot to lose while you know you have no back up from supervisors is what leads to being risk averse.

There are many more examples, not relating to firearms where police have been lenient with a suspect and people have died. These have happened too often and will likely continue to do so with some (probably less experienced) officers which drives the rest to not be so lenient.

 

[dnm26]

So after some soul searching and reflection on many of the comments to my post I will sit tight for now.
My section 7 expires in January, I will wait until after Christmas and then ask how my renewal is progressing.
If there is no end in sight I will write to the Chief Constable, explain all of the circumstances and see if I get a reply.
I'm hoping it comes to an end and I get my renewal, going through this every 5 years is a major hassle, especially during doe and cwd season as I cannot purchase ammunition.
I had better dust off the homeloading equipment...

 

[Dickie]

I don’t get it. If 5 years ago it was renewed without issue are they now saying they were wrong 5 years ago so admitting incompetence?
It’s a bit like some forces asking for 10, 20 or 30 years of medical records when they have done 2, 4 or 6 renewal are the admitting we got them all wrong and need to read up a bit more?

 

[topscots1]

Bryn, I wasn't being uncooperative, I was ensuring that I met the terms of my licences by not allowing unlicensed beat police to have access and remove my guns.
They couldn't show anything to the contrary and the licences don't give any mention of exemption for police officers.

From the very start I was cooperative, I let them in, asked to see id to verify legitimacy, one of them didn't even have his warrant card with him but I took the word of the other officers that he was legit.

I stated early on, once they mentioned they wanted to take my guns but would not tell me why as the allegations related to my wife, that I would give them up to qualified / licenced firearms officers.

They had no paperwork or warrant to the contrary so I was trying to protect myself from any potential future allegation that I had surrendered my firearms to someone not authorised to have them.

I then walked them throughout my property whilst they searched " for anything else I might have", again they had no reason to suspect this, no paperwork to warrant this, but I was cooperative..

They even took an old stock from one of my rimfire rifles that I had replaced with a boyds stock... everything...

I can't see what I could have done more to help without putting myself at further risk..

Armed officers are not licensed, they do not have a certificate. They are allowed to carry firearms whilst in the course of their duties due to an exemption in legislation. Much like the military are not licensed, for the purposes of duty they are exempt the firearms act.

 

[Stalker62]

If 5 years ago it was renewed without issue are they now saying they were wrong 5 years ago so admitting incompetence?

I agree that is does look 'clumsy'.

However.

Each FLM takes responsibility for 'their' issues. If I was the decision-maker, I too would wish to review the entire information held, and base 'my' decision on what I felt. I would not seek to rely on what any of my predecessors thought.

 

[shakey jake]

So after some soul searching and reflection on many of the comments to my post I will sit tight for now.
My section 7 expires in January, I will wait until after Christmas and then ask how my renewal is progressing.
If there is no end in sight I will write to the Chief Constable, explain all of the circumstances and see if I get a reply.
I'm hoping it comes to an end and I get my renewal, going through this every 5 years is a major hassle, especially during doe and cwd season as I cannot purchase ammunition.
I had better dust off the homeloading equipment...

If its the same a mine it will be renewed from the expiry of your last so you will be renewing in less than 5 years. You at least got a section 7, i was with out a ticket for 4 or 5 months, but the flm is allowed to lie and back date the ticket. I assume to fudge the figures

 

[nun_hunter]

I don’t get it. If 5 years ago it was renewed without issue are they now saying they were wrong 5 years ago so admitting incompetence?
It’s a bit like some forces asking for 10, 20 or 30 years of medical records when they have done 2, 4 or 6 renewal are the admitting we got them all wrong and need to read up a bit more?

I believe that one of the recommendations or suggestions from the Plymouth inquiry was that any previously seized or revoked firearms that were then subsequently returned should be reviewed to ensure previous steps and decisions are considered correct under the current policy/knowledge etc.

Depending on the number of certificate holders this relates to and how much capacity the FLD has would determine how quickly this would happen.

 

[suburban bushwacker]

`would a Subject Access Request help to clarify matters?

 

[dnm26]

I don’t get it. If 5 years ago it was renewed without issue are they now saying they were wrong 5 years ago so admitting incompetence?
It’s a bit like some forces asking for 10, 20 or 30 years of medical records when they have done 2, 4 or 6 renewal are the admitting we got them all wrong and need to read up a bit more?

According to the FLD there have been a number of changes since the incident in Plymouth...

 

[dnm26]

`would a Subject Access Request help to clarify matters?

Please could you tell me more about this request?

 

[Mickeydredd]

Depending on the number of certificate holders this relates to and how much capacity the FLD has would determine how quickly this would happen.

Surely such cases should be completed as a priority though?

 

[nun_hunter]

Surely such cases should be completed as a priority though?

They are but as I said, depending non the size of the FLD and how busy they are it could take a long time especially if the FLD plans to keep BAU services running.

 

[Apthorpe]

There really is no defence of police forces having backlogs or slow processing times for firearms licensing. The Plymouth event happened years ago, and was caused by failure to apply the existing rules at the time. It cannot be remotely acceptable for police forces nationwide to still be reviewing the tiny percentage of cases where they previously had concerns.
The state of firearms licensing is police incompetence and bad management only. The amount of work is extraordinarily predictable, the fees are paid up front, and there is a statutory duty to do this. Some forces can get this right, so obviously the claims of systemic problems are false. Heads ought to be rolling not only over the incompetence, but the dishonesty employed in claiming that the delays are attributable to other reasons.