Surprise Visit

[CCB]

Just had a visit from a PC in a marked car to check my firearms security? He arrived at 9.30pm! found it to be strange? the chap was very polite, just mentioned he was under pressure from above to check security arrangements? He had a quick look, ticked a few boxes and left? Has this happened to anyone else?

 

[Cyres]

why on earth did you let him in? Should have refused politely and asked him to make an appointment. See thread on very subject on here.

D

 

[Whitebeard]

Did he ask to see your guns?

Ian.

 

[rick6point5]

My FEO mention that this was on the cards in my area all totally legit, polite refusal and appointment for a more convenient time was also his suggestion.

 

[Taff]

Just another arse covering exercise, it will do nothing but inconvenience license holders, and have no effect on criminals.

 

[kes]

Just another arse covering exercise, it will do nothing but inconvenience license holders, and have no effect on criminals.

This was supposed to NOT happen after the Andy Marsh 'shop a shooter' 'initiative', (the last word being an oxymoron).
Like all things, allow it and it will become a requirement. It is for US to drill into shooters continuing reference to the law and best practice to and that THEY are responsible for security to avoid any justification for the police to check to ensure a lack of security consciousness does not allow guns to fall into the 'wrong' hands.
Whilst I would have got 10/10 for my security, I would have asked politely for them to go through due process, as we are made to do. I wonder if we can ever stop being the good guys or are we just worried about renewals a little too much ?

 

[Orion]

This was supposed to NOT happen after the Andy Marsh 'shop a shooter' 'initiative', (the last word being an oxymoron).
Like all things, allow it and it will become a requirement.

It's up to individual FAC holders to question any police officer calling unannounced 'to inspect security' if this type of thing is not to become the norm. The HO Guidance is quite specific about the circumstances in which unannounced visits should be undertaken - "based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm" - and not just a spot check, which might be construed as an attempt to try and catch FAC holders out (aka a fishing expedition).

I'd personally want to establish the reason for any unannounced visit and who it was authorised by before deciding on a course of action as; "to mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit", and if it wasn't based on "specific intelligence" etc., or no "reasoned explanation" was forthcoming, then it would certainly result in a refusal and a letter or two going in to the appropriate people including my MP.

Yet another step down the slippery slope and I fail to see why, as the holder of an FAC, I should be subjected to unwarranted invasions of my privacy. Whatever next, Environmental Health officials demanding entry to see if there's anything in the fridge that's past it's best before date?

Refer to HO Guidance Chapter 19.11 & 12 for references.

 

[Oracle]

It's up to individual FAC holders to question any police officer calling unannounced 'to inspect security' if this type of thing is not to become the norm. The HO Guidance is quite specific about the circumstances in which unannounced visits should be undertaken - "based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm" - and not just a spot check, which might be construed as an attempt to try and catch FAC holders out (aka a fishing expedition).

I'd personally want to establish the reason for any unannounced visit and who it was authorised by before deciding on a course of action as; "to mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit", and if it wasn't based on "specific intelligence" etc., or no "reasoned explanation" was forthcoming, then it would certainly result in a refusal and a letter or two going in to the appropriate people including my MP.

Yet another step down the slippery slope and I fail to see why, as the holder of an FAC, I should be subjected to unwarranted invasions of my privacy. Whatever next, Environmental Health officials demanding entry to see if there's anything in the fridge that's past it's best before date?

Refer to HO Guidance Chapter 19.11 & 12 for references.

Excellent response and advice from Orion. The only thing I would add is that if you feel uncomfortable in challenging such unannounced visits make sure your shooting organisation takes it up on your behalf.

 

[CCB]

All

I did question, the timing and his reply was he is constant night shift, with a million things to do? he actually seemed uncomfortable asking and apologized for the timing! i personally didn't have a problem, nothing to hide! he came in had a look at the cabinets asked me to open them, i didn't remove any firearms, he ticked a few boxes, shook my hand and left! all in he was there ten minutes!

No major drama really! just found it strange?

 

[finnbear270]

Perhaps they might better use their forces monies on hurrying up renewals?

 

[Orion]

i personally didn't have a problem, nothing to hide!

Are you sure?

After all there most have been "specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm" that triggered the visit, or why was it made?

 

[Orion]

Perhaps they might better use their forces monies on hurrying up renewals?

That's a far too sensible suggestion - go to the bottom of the class!

 

[Pnuk]

Personally the part of this that concerns me the most is turning up in a marked car. As shooters we are rightly expected to maintain a certain level of security- one tier of which is surely discreetness. A marked car turning up whether it's driver is allowed in or not, is certainly going to interest the neighbours!

 

[sauer]

Aren't we just getting a wee bit paranoid over all this ?

As for what neighbours think ? Let them think .

It's quite simple .....budget cuts galore , FEO cut down to bare minimum so now they are utilising police instead of hired civilians .....
Ok if they appear at a bad time, late on & putting kids down just tell them ...politely
I'm sure if this visit was anything other than a routine check then they wouldn't have taken no for an answer.
20yrs ago it was the police who checked and yes they did appear now n again no drama

Paul

 

[kes]

With respect (you've been here a lot longer than me) ignoring the consequences of yet a further incursion into the 'rights' of the legal gun owner IS a serious issue. We are continually pushed back by legislation and now behaviour.
It Is wrong to turn up in a marked car - or in uniform without good reason.
It is wrong to expect the most law-abiding in society to allow the police to bend the rules
It is unacceptable for the assumption of lack of care on the part of any shooter to take precedence over his right to privacy - let us not forget who approved us !
The less we take such lack of poper process to task, the more we will be asked to do so. Remember where this came from as an initiative - the assumption by one Chief Constable, Head of FELWG that legal gun-owner were a source of lethal weapons for terrorists.
An assumption too far, especially when you send a marked car to point out where the guns may be, and tag the hackable NHS database with prcise locations of firearms owners.
To me it beggars belief and, more importantly is not the relationship based on trust we had and need with the police.

 

[sauer]

Bottom line is that the police are the ones who grant us the certs & who can take them away .
Now considering the cuts made & their being next to no or minimal FEO for each region then a lot of the leg work will be carried out by serving officers ... Now are we expecting them to use their own cars & change uniform for an inspection ?
I really don't care what they turn up in & if it bothers the neighbours well for the sake of 10 minutes in the OP case it doesn't bother me .
Years ago when it was plod who did checks not FEO the did random inspections then .... But if you were tagged more than twice in 5yrs of the term of your cert that was unusual .
Considering that we are allowed to have & proven reason to hold the weapons we do at home , is it really so difficult / unrealistic to expect a couple of checks over 5 years?

I agree there are times & place etc, at 21:30 at night with youngsters bedded I would have asked them to come back myself .

Paul

 

[John Gryphon]

He was using the visit as an alibi..he probably was sneaking in for a quick one in a house nearby with his lady ha ha.

 

[2130martin]

Just had a visit from a PC in a marked car to check my firearms security? He arrived at 9.30pm! found it to be strange? the chap was very polite, just mentioned he was under pressure from above to check security arrangements? He had a quick look, ticked a few boxes and left? Has this happened to anyone else?

When was your last renewal and did they do a visit?

Why I ask is because on my recent renewal I was told during my telephone interview that an armed response team would call in to check my security when passing,to save time on renewal processing. Sounded sensible to me........

 

[Lupus]

In over 25 years I've never had an 'inspection' that wasn't related to the initial grant, subsequent renewals, or changes of address. And all the above were with prior appointment.

People are too scared to rock the boat because of 'the Lord give'th and the Lord can take'th away' attitude, if you upset the firearms department. That is not how the system works, and if it does then it needs the intervention of higher authorities. I've had several disputes with a couple of Firearms Admin offices, and I'm pleased to say, regardless of outcome, each dispute was handled on its own circumstances and wasn't taken as an excuse to prejudice future dealings.

Many people have the responsibilities that could cause great harm if abused. That does not give the authorities the right to invade people's private lives without reasonable cause, 'just in case'. Or should HGV drivers get a knock on random evenings to make sure they aren't drinking too much before work in the morning, or teachers have their personal computer equipment forensically examined at random to make sure they aren't pedophiles? Both are in positions of trust and have the potential to destroy lives.

If they turn up here unannounced, without just cause, and sans warrant they shall be politely asked to come back at a more convenient time. I have nothing to hide, but my freedom to lose.

Wolfie

 

[CharlieT]

To quote CC Andy Marsh (chair of FELWG) from the NPPC FELWG minutes of February 5th 2015 on the subject or unannounced visits

"To date there have been 1245 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"