If the request is at a reasonable hour, convenient and polite, then why refuse?
By permitting the visit, you are showing that you have nothing to hide, happy to comply with a reasonable request, and it will certainly not harm any future renewals/variations.
Remember, just a few short weeks ago, an "established" contributor to this very forum had a surprise visit after his child was spotted poking a rifle through the window. On arrival, the police found firearms left out and unattended. Bye bye FAC (quite correctly IMHO) and hello to the tar brush for the rest of us.
While I am a great fan of everyone having, and enforcing, their rights, we must also be careful to make sure the glasshouse is spotless before we start throwing stones?
That visit was obviously prompted by the report of the rifle out the window. Fair enough, intelligence led, as these visits are supposed to be. My objection is fishing visits, based on nothing.
Let's look at the premise for this scheme. It's supposed to be to prevent legally owned firearms falling into the hands of terrorists in these times of unprecedented terrorist threat. Correct?
The terrorist threat in the UK and Europe is actually less than it was in the 70's and 80's, so there goes the 'unprecedented'. And, if terrorists were to target legal gun owners your gunsafe isn't going to stop them. In fact they would likely just wait till you were home and get your keys from you through violence. Remember poor old George Digweed, and the gent I mentioned in the other thread murdered for his cabinet keys?
The measure most likely to prevent terrorists from acquiring legal firearms are for FAC/SC holders to keep a low profile and for the authorities to protect their identities. Well, done govt. for now identifying all FAC/SC holders on medical records.
If the worst came to worst and a licence holder was raided by terrorists the most effective method to prevent their firearms falling into the hands of violent criminals are the firearms themselves, but guess what, can't use them for home/self-defence.
So I question how serious this initiative is at trying to keep terrorists from our guns.
Maybe it's to prevent firearms falling into the hands of opportunistic thieves? But if someone were in the habit of leaving their firearms out when they weren't at home (the most serious situation), well the police aren't going to find out with unannounced visits are they, because no one will be home to let them in.
So what is it achieving? It may well catch out a few people, and even then that could be open to interpretation. What if you let them in and your rifle is out being cleaned? Is that a breach of your conditions? What if you were practicing your positions, dry firing? Are firearms 'unsecured' if you are present? What if you just returned from, or were about to go shooting, and your guns were out? That may depend on the police officer/FLO and their knowledge, experience, or even prejudice, like the story I heard of an FLO who wanted to revoke an FAC because they saw ammunition unsecured during a visit, when in fact it was empty cases.
At best this scheme is another case of 'being seen to be doing something', at worst it's yet another attempt at trimming down the number of licence holders. And it's being carried out contrary to guidance; the same guidance we are all supposed to be following, and God help us if we don't!
Those who think it's all BS conspiracy theories obviously have no knowledge or understanding of the history of firearms legislation in this country.
Wolfie
