Surprise Visit

[Greymaster]

We are advised to send in our FAC renewal applications 3 months before expiry, and with Hants, this is the force that issued 1205 S7 permits in 2015, up from 76 in 2010.

So as for unannounced visits, not in line with guidelines that they should be based on specific intelligence etc. I would suggest that if it is not based on the guideline criteria that they provide a written request for an appointment, three months in advance, and that if not replied to by the FAC holder within that time, that they should request a temporary permit to make an unannounced visit at some time within the further three months.

If it is based on guidelines then before entry is granted, a written note stating that their visit is based on guideline critera, identifying themselves and noting the time and findings. A copy to be sent by recipient to BASC for collating nationally.

 

[JockStalk]

I'd expect routine checks as an FAC holder, and if they made an appointment they'd hardly be likely to find any problems. I'm not saying they should arrive at unsocial hours, but if its a reasonable hour I really don't have a problem.

Given Andy Marsh's report its hardly an abuse of power that's going on, and a fair percentage in the mix of security and other issues being picked up during checks. Surely that rather proves the point that its worth doing.

I get the 'thin end of the wedge' point, but frankly I'm not that bothered.

 

[bobby1234]

It might just be me.... But I don't have an issue with this happening. IF I were to be constantly leaving my guns unsecured/ammo laying around and the police arrived.... I'd expect to be delt with appropriately. If I know they are coming I have time to address my poor gun control for that one occasion. ... Which doesn't stop the issue.

On the other hand would anyone on here have a problem if someone they knew were shot with a stolen gun from a house that someone had left unsecured??

again it might just be me, but I prefer the thought that the plod could just appear at any point. It keeps me from becoming complacent.

just my 2p's worth

 

[McKenzie]

I've nothing to hide either.

 

[finnbear270]

I'd expect routine checks as an FAC holder, and if they made an appointment they'd hardly be likely to find any problems. I'm not saying they should arrive at unsocial hours, but if its a reasonable hour I really don't have a problem.

Given Andy Marsh's report its hardly an abuse of power that's going on, and a fair percentage in the mix of security and other issues being picked up during checks. Surely that rather proves the point that its worth doing.

I get the 'thin end of the wedge' point, but frankly I'm not that bothered.

more an abuse of resources

 

[Greymaster]

It might just be me.... But I don't have an issue with this happening. IF I were to be constantly leaving my guns unsecured/ammo laying around and the police arrived.... I'd expect to be delt with appropriately. If I know they are coming I have time to address my poor gun control for that one occasion. ... Which doesn't stop the issue.

On the other hand would anyone on here have a problem if someone they knew were shot with a stolen gun from a house that someone had left unsecured??

again it might just be me, but I prefer the thought that the plod could just appear at any point. It keeps me from becoming complacent.

just my 2p's worth

Not sure if you are not bothered period, whether they are not adhering to the guidelines, or whether they are. You could reasonably expect a visit at unsocial hours if there was an alert of some sort, but even so this should be to let you know that there have been a spate of, for example, break ins targeting firearms holders, (such as following the hacking of your local GPs computer and theft of tagged data concerning firearms holders, or such as an FEO leaving his laptop in the pub at lunchtime that day).

And then this should be a courtesy visit to advise and inform of the enhanced risk of theft. I can't see any need for inspection at such a time as the holder has already been vetted and determined as fit to possess a firearm, and the security arrangements were deemed satisfactory.

 

[JockStalk]

more an abuse of resources

With respect I don't get that? Surely an abuse of resources would require that the enforcement resources, the police, were working to achieve a defined and biased political outcome.

1245 unannounced visits with a little over one in ten finding security or other issues and just over one in 50 licenses being revoked. Doesn't sound like a purge on FAC holders and it is finding issues that as a member of the public, I'm pretty happy that they are finding.

The idea that you might just get a knock at the door will keep most folks mindful about security.

 

[Orion]

Given Andy Marsh's report its hardly an abuse of power that's going on, and a fair percentage in the mix of security and other issues being picked up during checks. Surely that rather proves the point that its worth doing.

Of course the police 'initiative' has to be seen to be achieving results in order to justify it's continued operation - and the next round of even more stringent controls on lawful shooters to come. Or will those results will be used for the benefit of FAC holders? More likely to be a push for ALL licensed firearms to be kept in secure central storage when not in use - or wouldn't you mind that infringement of your privacy and rights as well?

The next part of the quoted FELWG minutes goes on to say:

CC Marsh thanked those who had sent information about suicides or shootings that have gone wrong and requested the practice be continued.

Now why would they be wanting to collect data on 'shootings that have gone wrong'? More spin to come from the senior management of the police methinks.

Have a read of this and think on about the police awarding themselves the power to carry out this type of intrusive action and where it might lead.

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.co...dom-spot-checks-carried-out-on-uk-gun-owners/

 

[JockStalk]

Orion - I've read it and it seems beyond paranoid to me.

Doesn't mean they aren't still out to get you though.

From my perspective, the police have far bigger fish to fry at the moment.

 

[kes]

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to make 'raids' to recover illegal firearms since the UK is 'awash' with them ?
I can just see a confirmed criminal accepting random visits from the local police, as 'they were passing'. It wont be that long before I stop stalking and vermin shooting and I could say it doesn't bother me that the next generation wont have the freedoms to own and use firearms as I have, but it does.
I'm not a gun nut and shoot for a purpose - food - vermin control. Anyone still remember the feelings of their first fox or first deer but most of all being a part of the natural world, not as an onlooker but as a participant ? We need to write all our experiences down because the more 'freedoms' we surrender, the more likely the next generation are to have just those to rely on.

 

[finnbear270]

With respect I don't get that? Surely an abuse of resources would require that the enforcement resources, the police, were working to achieve a defined and biased political outcome.

1245 unannounced visits with a little over one in ten finding security or other issues and just over one in 50 licenses being revoked. Doesn't sound like a purge on FAC holders and it is finding issues that as a member of the public, I'm pretty happy that they are finding.

The idea that you might just get a knock at the door will keep most folks mindful about security.

So you reckon they could be forgiven for finding the time for this exercise,... but not the time to keep their side of the deal, licensing turnarounds for instance?

 

[JockStalk]

I don't think they are after our forgiveness. Its not one-dimensional. The police have responsibilities to issue, renew and monitor. Fact is they are stretched, but I don't think the answer is to stop the monitoring and focus solely on applications and renewals.

 

[Greymaster]

I don't think they are after our forgiveness. Its not one-dimensional. The police have responsibilities to issue, renew and monitor. Fact is they are stretched, but I don't think the answer is to stop the monitoring and focus solely on applications and renewals.

They might be stretched, but fees have increased for little gain, if any in efficiency. Indeed it is worse now in Hants, up to recently the home force of former FELWIG lead, Andy Marsh. It is hard to see that Hants have given applications and renewals any focus whatsoever. Pity the local gun trade who have gone out of business as applications and renewals have slowed to a trickle. With 1205 S7 permits issued in 2015, that means around 1205 shooters unable to buy ammunition. Restricting applications and renewals is a brake on the gun trade and a brake on legitimate shooters who are now paying more for a worse service. One sure fire method of restricting shooting is to slow the process to a trickle by denial of resources. And yet there is ample time and officers available apparently to drive around the neighbourhood seeking to assess security when this has already been performed prior to grant or renewal.

 

[JockStalk]

I don't think there are 'ample' resources for any aspect, which is my point. I also don't see that resources are being diverted from one task to another. If only the world were as simple as just having one job to do

There are approx. 150,000 FAC's in England and wales, 1245 unannounced inspections is less than 1% of FAC holders getting an unannounced visit.

Whilst we can all grumble about the service we get and how much we have to pay for it, I don't think that monitoring one in a hundred FAC holders is going overboard.

 

[Lupus]

I have relatives in the police service. And I have been told when the shift starts they go through all the calls that are supposed to require attending. Unless it's a quiet day, a majority of incidents don't even get a visit. And she said unless it was a case of a serious crime in progress or responding to violent crime you would be lucky to get an immediate response. Resources are stretched to breaking point and many criminals are able to act with impunity across large areas of the country; yet some forces can find the resources to make sure your security is in order, just on the off chance.

They surely do have bigger fish to fry, but for some reason certain officers see small fry, such as you and I, as much more important. Politics maybe? Being seen to be doing 'something' which is easy and makes good news, but does little for actual crime reduction? Fiddling while Rome burns perhaps?

Wolfie

 

[kes]

With respect to all, police resources are not the issue here, its how those resources are deployed and which resources are deployed where. If it is so important that our weapons do not fall into the wrong hands then those weapons that have already are and should be much more important.
With sufficient or reduced resources, there would be no resources used for the law abiding and the most for the criminal.
Who prioritises legal gun owners over illegal holders of guns ? Maybe the odd legal holder doesn't put his gun in the safe as quickly as he should - smack don't do it again - yellow card/red card method - but what is the point of spending scarce resources on this rather than the criminal who has a gun to use against other people and to aid the commission of a crime ?
When finally it dawns, most people will see that the police simply dont want the public owning guns - but why ? Is it logic or is it prejudice and the seeking for personal acclaim within the force or without. They have got it wrong so many times with legal gun owners, perhaps a little training is in order too?

after all - “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”– [Plato]

 

[turner.jc1]

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

Well said. The "I've got nothing to hide, so I don't mind giving my freedom away" brigade will be the ruin of us.

 

[CCB]

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........

My renewal was in November 15! like i said it didn't particularly bother me! by the looks of responses, it would bother many? at the end of the day its there job to check, as far as im concerned its a privilege to be granted an FAC or SGC and a privilege that has conditions! one being they are secure! if a spot check pops up fine! its no different to being stopped by a traffic car to check your details! its always inconvenient but we do it and move on! if you sit and argue about it, you generally attract more unwanted attention?

 

[Pedro]

Frankly, the police can come and check my security as much as they like. It won't be anything that makes my toys get flung out of the pram. There could be times when I can't afford the time to accommodate them, but otherwise, it's tea and biscuits and feel free to squint at my guns. I don't expect the fabric of society to collapse because of it.

But police priorities are a strange old thing. Most of the lawbreakers will tell you that they are being persecuted, there's too many of them, they're too heavy handed, they have too many powers and they should be concentrating on real criminals that (insert here crimes that the particular criminal doesn't go in for). If you go to parish or small town council meetings, the burning questions for the police to address are litter, dog poo in the streets and teenagers congregating and "getting up to no good" where they live. Ask most individuals and their priorities are to be safe in their homes and to not have their quality of life compromised when away from home. Ask Chief Constables and they will want to reduce (or detect more of) those crimes where statistics are showing they aren't doing well. Ask your average PCC and he/she will have a bee in the bonnet which might be sexual crimes against kids (still in vogue thanks to Jimmy Saville and his mates), domestic violence, (not something you can do much to prevent, unless you have "unannounced visits" to see if it's going on). Ask important politicians and it's all about national security.

All these are worthy of being priorities, but, unlike countries such as the USA, who have an agency to address pretty much everything individually, here it's all down to the cops. And as we can see, everyone has an opinion as to what they should be doing, don't they?

 

[kes]

Frankly, the police can come and check my security as much as they like. It won't be anything that makes my toys get flung out of the pram. There could be times when I can't afford the time to accommodate them, but otherwise, it's tea and biscuits and feel free to squint at my guns. I don't expect the fabric of society to collapse because of it.

But police priorities are a strange old thing. Most of the lawbreakers will tell you that they are being persecuted, there's too many of them, they're too heavy handed, they have too many powers and they should be concentrating on real criminals that (insert here crimes that the particular criminal doesn't go in for). If you go to parish or small town council meetings, the burning questions for the police to address are litter, dog poo in the streets and teenagers congregating and "getting up to no good" where they live. Ask most individuals and their priorities are to be safe in their homes and to not have their quality of life compromised when away from home. Ask Chief Constables and they will want to reduce (or detect more of) those crimes where statistics are showing they aren't doing well. Ask your average PCC and he/she will have a bee in the bonnet which might be sexual crimes against kids (still in vogue thanks to Jimmy Saville and his mates), domestic violence, (not something you can do much to prevent, unless you have "unannounced visits" to see if it's going on). Ask important politicians and it's all about national security.

All these are worthy of being priorities, but, unlike countries such as the USA, who have an agency to address pretty much everything individually, here it's all down to the cops. And as we can see, everyone has an opinion as to what they should be doing, don't they?

Its a shame you laced this post with 'toys and pram'. also there's a difference between criminal and legal and one is against the law and the other isnt.