Legal issues of police 'spot checks' on firearms.

[Shootist]

The thread was intended to address more the matter of the police acting outside the law than whether they should be carrying out these checks at all. Why is it that because we own firearms, which I will remind everyone is a right and not some sort of grudgingly given privilege to be taken away at a whim, some people seem to think that the police can then act unlawfully toward what is one of the most law abiding groups in the country? Doesn't the fact that the police, when the law restricts any plan they might have, they look upon it as some sort of inconvenient obstruction to be ignored or abused as they want worry anyone?

 

[CharlieT]

You may have noted that the BASC factsheet on this matter states "[FONT=&quot] New Home Office guidance allows the police to make unannounced visits to check on the security arrangements of certificate holders under certain circumstances"[/FONT]

Since when did a guidance document have the power to rewrite the law, note the use of the term allows. Although to be fair it does go on to say "[FONT=&quot]The police do not have any new powers of entry"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[timbrayford]

You can always ring the firearms office and ask if the person concerned is one of their staff.

Hampshire FLD seldom answer the phone, and then only in the middle of the day.

 

[Shootist]

You may have noted that the BASC factsheet on this matter states " New Home Office guidance allows the police to make unannounced visits to check on the security arrangements of certificate holders under certain circumstances"

Since when did a guidance document have the power to rewrite the law, note the use of the term allows. Although to be fair it does go on to say "The police do not have any new powers of entry"

The new Home Office guidance just shows the deviousness of the Home Office, otherwise known as the political wing of the police. By using the word 'allows', it suggests the police may do this with some authority. Saying that the police do not have any new powers of entry implies, to the gullible, that the old powers of entry will suffice.

The home Office could say, by way of comparison, that the law itself, never mind any guidance, allows the police to repeatedly shoot you where you stand until you are dead, under certain circumstances, and it would be equally true. Equally meaningless when out of context.

 

[Cris]

I really don't see why people get so upset over this. Other types of licence have similar conditions of visits and inspections. If you are acting within the law what have you to hid. It's not about bullying or over stretching of authority but just doing what they need to. I would agree that if a police officer came with a poor attitude and demanded access then I might be unwelcome but if they turn up and there is mutual respect then it's done in 5 minutes and everyone is happy.
I also think that the original post makes a lot of reference to police searches and this is something quite different to an inspection. Hype and sensationalism.

 

[2130martin]

Shouldnt we as a community be seen to be cooperating with this and using it as a positive opportunity to help our cause???

 

[flying felix]

Shouldnt we as a community be seen to be cooperating with this and using it as a positive opportunity to help our cause???

I don't think so, as Benjamin Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Shootist]

I really don't see why people get so upset over this. Other types of licence have similar conditions of visits and inspections. If you are acting within the law what have you to hid. It's not about bullying or over stretching of authority but just doing what they need to. I would agree that if a police officer came with a poor attitude and demanded access then I might be unwelcome but if they turn up and there is mutual respect then it's done in 5 minutes and everyone is happy.
I also think that the original post makes a lot of reference to police searches and this is something quite different to an inspection. Hype and sensationalism.

So you say. Help me out here then please.

1. Name me some other types of licence that have similar conditions of visits and inspections.

2. If the police are not acting within the law, what is it they have to hide?

3. Why do they 'need' to do this? What does it achieve?

4. Explain in legal terms the difference between an inspection and a search.

5. Explain why such a visit need not comply with Code B of PACE.

6. Explain why you are not concerned about the police not following the law.

5. By mutual respect do you mean doing what they want even if they are in the wrong?

I don't hold myself up to be an expert, but over 30 years of policing and associated law enforcement, much of which concerned lawful entry into premises, I believe I am correct in this. I would add that I learned much more about entry requirements when working as a Trading Standards enforcement officer than as a police officer. As a Trading Standards officers, if I got the law wrong, it used to matter.

 

[Shootist]

Shouldnt we as a community be seen to be cooperating with this and using it as a positive opportunity to help our cause???

If you saw a police officer kicking the crap out of a known local criminal for no apparent reason, who would you go and help, the police officer or the villain?

 

[2130martin]

I don't think so, as Benjamin Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What liberty are we giving up?

 

[Orion]

The new Home Office guidance just shows the deviousness of the Home Office, otherwise known as the political wing of the police. By using the word 'allows', it suggests the police may do this with some authority. Saying that the police do not have any new powers of entry implies, to the gullible, that the old powers of entry will suffice.

It would appear that the police are already assuming that 'spot checks' can now be carried out with impunity under the guise of 'good practice' - from FELWG Minutes March 2015:

Unannounced Visits Initiative

To date there have been 1,254 unannounced visits, 107 found security issues, 63 other issues, 83 certificate holders received advice, 25 a written warning, 62 are currently under review and 28 had been revoked.
This is a valuable initiative and thanked everyone for their help and urged unannounced visits to continue as good practice.


http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FELWG_Minutes-March-2015.pdf

I really don't see why people get so upset over this. Other types of licence have similar conditions of visits and inspections.

Just as well that they are Firearm and Shotgun Certificates then - the difference between the two forms the basis of why some of us see a creeping infringement of rights taking place.

If you are acting within the law what have you to hid. It's not about bullying or over stretching of authority but just doing what they need to.

And it's not about 'having something to hide' and all about the over-stretching of authority. Why do they 'need' to suddenly start implementing a policy of unannounced home visits? The justification put forward to date is reliant on flawed (possibly deliberately so) data analysis, regarding the theft and criminal use of lawfully held firearms and cannot be considered proportional to the risk.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/20/acpo_claims_nearly_double_number_stolen_firearms_truth/

Then again as even BASC have carried out a total volte-face regarding unannounced home visits, maybe it's all a conspiracy by the tea and biccies industry to promote sales.

http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-challenges-police-spot-checks/

 

[2130martin]

If you saw a police officer kicking the crap out of a known local criminal for no apparent reason, who would you go and help, the police officer or the villain?

You lost me there,can you explain??

 

[Spaniel]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You lost me there,can you explain??

Don`t ask him that for gawds sake!!! He`ll have a sub section, Paragraph 2 of the Lets start a contentious issue document of 1882.

Storm in a tea cup. IMHO.
Spaniel

 

[mrhim]

Does it say anywhere on the T&C's of FAC ownership that the Police have a right to enter your property without warrant? If not ask them to come back at at a time convenient to yourself. If they 'need' to come in they will arrive with a warrant.

 

[2130martin]

Does it say anywhere on the T&C's of FAC ownership that the Police have a right to enter your property without warrant? If not ask them to come back at at a time convenient to yourself. If they 'need' to come in they will arrive with a warrant.

In my circumstances it would take longer to discuss a warrant than show them my secure storage facility.

 

[flying felix]

What liberty are we giving up?

Liberty..a right or privilege...

By the police having access to your property without a warrant, good cause or in the pursuit of a crime.

If it wasn't a loss of liberty then the police would already have the right to access all premises whenever and wherever they wanted.

 

[2130martin]

Liberty..a right or privilege...

By the police having access to your property without a warrant, good cause or in the pursuit of a crime.

If it wasn't a loss of liberty then the police would already have the right to access all premises whenever and wherever they wanted.

Crikey,I see that as a small price to pay if it helps to keep our FACs.....

 

[flying felix]

Crikey,I see that as a small price to pay if it helps to keep our FACs.....

More of a death by a thousand cuts, the shooting organisations need to learn form Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[finnbear270]

The old adage comes to mind here, "Give an inch & you will be short a mile"

 

[CharlieT]

Whilst I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories and the like, I do believe that there is a current policy to, shall we say, change the way we perceive gun ownership.

It is worth noting that the press release prior to the unannounced visit initiative stated...
Police across England and Wales are calling for firearms owners to make sure that their guns are being kept securely before police commence home visits on the 15th October.
“Our aim is not to catch out gun owners, which is why we are giving notice that these visits will be taking place. We want to work with the shooting community to ensure gun owners are aware of how to keep their firearms secure and, where appropriate, give advice to individual owners. I know that the vast majority of gun owners understand their responsibility to secure firearms and in the main take this very seriously, which allows their continued lawful use for work or leisure purposes.”

Also, the latest HO Guidance states "Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right" yet the Firearms Act clearly states that, providing an applicant can demonstrate he is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, has good reason and is not a danger to the public he SHALL be granted a certificate.

Shall, not may be or could be.

Whilst I applaud many of the ideas to have come out of FELWG, I do wonder if they have an underlying policy of gun control by the back door.