I think you’ll find any police officer can seize your firearms, there is no requirement for specific training. You would not be in breach of your conditions surrendering a firearm to a police officer. Refusal to do so due to some misguided perception of who can seize them would certainly put you in breach of your conditions.
Simple question re shooting while variation with police...
- Thread starter Sheprador1973
- Start date
Just looking at it from a law perspective, if there's a reason, (could be any of many, used in crime, threatened someone with it, no certificate amongst a rake of others) any police officer can seize your firearms. In practice, for planned operations AFOs will be part of it, who will (hopefully) know how to make firearms safe. But in, for example, a developing situation or other unplanned incident, that might not be immediately possible. In rural parts especially, the nearest AFO might be many miles away, be engaged on something else and possibly cannot attend for hours.
Anyway, if a police officer is seizing your firearm and you stick the finger up at him saying that he can't because there's no AFO there, do let me know how that works out. But don't waste your PACE rights when you land in the custody office doing it!
It's true that many police officers are pretty clueless about handling firearms, despite most of 'em getting some input during their basic training. But the thing is, police officers every day will be coming across incidents that they have not been trained for. It's the nature of the job. It is simply not possible to teach every law in the land to every police officer or to train them for every scenario they might encounter. But as a society we must rely that they will act in a reasonable and safe manner. And although many of us will be able to tell of stories they have heard or witnessed where that hasn't happened, mostly they do.
Anyway, if a police officer is seizing your firearm and you stick the finger up at him saying that he can't because there's no AFO there, do let me know how that works out. But don't waste your PACE rights when you land in the custody office doing it!
It's true that many police officers are pretty clueless about handling firearms, despite most of 'em getting some input during their basic training. But the thing is, police officers every day will be coming across incidents that they have not been trained for. It's the nature of the job. It is simply not possible to teach every law in the land to every police officer or to train them for every scenario they might encounter. But as a society we must rely that they will act in a reasonable and safe manner. And although many of us will be able to tell of stories they have heard or witnessed where that hasn't happened, mostly they do.
You are correct, I see this has been challenged in recent posts. Having been a fan of Police Interceptors, this is certainly the case. A couple of cases already aired, and the pointing of the muzzle into their discharge box in the event of the firearm or suspected firearm going off. No activity near the trigger. You'll be surprised however how many ARV's are about and firearms trained police are out there.
I can confirm catergorically that this is indeed incorrect, regardless of what Police interceptors has to say about it. Any Police officer can seize a certificate holders firearms should the need arise. However a trained officer must certify the firearms safe. This can be done either on the street or as is more common within a police station.
If the firearms are being seized in the execution of an armed crime as per police interceptors then an ARV may be present.
If they are is more likely the case being seized for a minor infringement as a precaution, then this will be done by any officer present.
Quite categorically any Police officer can seize firearms from a certificate holder. There is absolutely no requirement for an ARV to attend. And categorically any certificate holder making a misguided statement that firearms can only be surrendered to an ARV officer would be in breach of the conditions of his certificate.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
The exact wording of Section 48 of the FA 1968 is online.
This says the only valid document is the issue FAC or SGC, not a photocopy: but I can understand the reluctance to lug the original around when you might drop it or lose it.
There'll be a bit of fuss, and a fee to replace it. I've never carried mine as there's a facsimile on the PNC under the linked NFLMS system.
It's clear from the OP's question that the proposed variation(s) are for slots unrelated to his .308, so whatever legal authority he has for that won't be affected.
If #9 was even a possibility it would be non-sensical.
48 Production of certificates.
(1) A constable may demand, from any person whom he believes to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or of a shot gun, the production of his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate.
(2) If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate, or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.
(3) If under this section a person is required to declare to a constable his name and address, it is an offence for him to refuse to declare it or to fail to give his true name and address.
This says the only valid document is the issue FAC or SGC, not a photocopy: but I can understand the reluctance to lug the original around when you might drop it or lose it.
There'll be a bit of fuss, and a fee to replace it. I've never carried mine as there's a facsimile on the PNC under the linked NFLMS system.
It's clear from the OP's question that the proposed variation(s) are for slots unrelated to his .308, so whatever legal authority he has for that won't be affected.
If #9 was even a possibility it would be non-sensical.
48 Production of certificates.
(1) A constable may demand, from any person whom he believes to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or of a shot gun, the production of his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate.
(2) If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate, or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.
(3) If under this section a person is required to declare to a constable his name and address, it is an offence for him to refuse to declare it or to fail to give his true name and address.
There is a big difference between what the law says that you have a power to do as a constable (the office you hold rather than rank). and what the local force guidelines may be.
Unless the law has changed which i do not believe it has since i retired, you do not require to be an AFO or to have had any firearms training to seize a firearm. However under most forces guidelines, you would have to then require an AFO to attend either the scene or the station in order to declare the firearm 'safe'
The amusing this is that I was never an AFO but am ex forces, and have used many various firearms as part of hobbies/sport/pasttimes etc throughout my teens and adult life and in the past have often had to show AFO's how to make the guns and pyrotechnics safe after they have attended as they had no idea what to do with some. Just because they are an AFO or FEO does not mean that they have any large knowledge base. In fact civilian FEO's often breach the law when seizing guns/ entering premises as they are not warranted officers and have extremely limited powers. I know of a number of times that the civilian FEO could be accused of fraud/theft/impersonating a police officer.
Unless the law has changed which i do not believe it has since i retired, you do not require to be an AFO or to have had any firearms training to seize a firearm. However under most forces guidelines, you would have to then require an AFO to attend either the scene or the station in order to declare the firearm 'safe'
The amusing this is that I was never an AFO but am ex forces, and have used many various firearms as part of hobbies/sport/pasttimes etc throughout my teens and adult life and in the past have often had to show AFO's how to make the guns and pyrotechnics safe after they have attended as they had no idea what to do with some. Just because they are an AFO or FEO does not mean that they have any large knowledge base. In fact civilian FEO's often breach the law when seizing guns/ entering premises as they are not warranted officers and have extremely limited powers. I know of a number of times that the civilian FEO could be accused of fraud/theft/impersonating a police officer.
Zxrtom
Well-Known Member
I asked my Firearms Licencing Unit/Department to send me an email stating that I could lawfully use my weapons whilst not being in possession of a Licence (which was also in for renewal). Was not stopped/challenged whilst it was being renewed but well worth doing as if Jo Public have an issue or if you are challenged by the Police you will have proof of lawful possession.
Similar threads
