Surprise Visit

[MJB0573]

interesting Report

I can now:

http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf

 

[Shootist]

Unannounced home visits
It is essential that the police undertake unannounced visits when they have thenecessary intelligence to do so. We were pleased to find that all forces stated thatthey would undertake visits when intelligence was received.
It would appear that the police require the consent of the householder to enter thepremises, even where they have intelligence that there may be a concern about thesecurity of a firearm. The absence of a specific legal right of entry means that thepolice may not be able to carry out their responsibilities when they attempt anunannounced visit, if the householder refuses entry.
This potential impasse is not in the best interests of the public. The Home Officeshould ensure that, in such cases, the law enables the police to fulfil their duty byinspecting the firearm, ammunition and the site where they are stored.

Got that from the
Targeting the risk An inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness offirearms licensing in police forces in England and Wales
September 2015
© HMIC 2015
ISBN: 978-1-78246-851-6

The only problem with that statement you quote is that the police have the necessary intelligence that there may be a concern about the security of a firearm is that they do have a specific legal right of entry, if they bother to act within the law. I have pointed this out elsewhere to the irritation of a moderator. Failing to secure your firearms in accordance with your firearms certificate is a criminal offence.

Section 46 Firearms Act 1968

If a justice of the peace or, in Scotland, the sheriff or any magistrate (by whatever name called) officiating under the provisions of a general or local Police Act, is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence relevant for the purposes of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed, he may grant a search warrant authorising a constable named therein—(a)to enter at any time any premises or place named in the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found there;

---- snip----

(2)The offences relevant for the purposes of this section are all offences under this Act except an offence under section 22(3) or an offence relating specifically to air weapons.

So, a statement issued with the authority of no lesser organisation that Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary indicates that they either have not read the Firearms Act, which is unlikely, or, they have read the Firearms Act but didn't understand it, possible but unlikely, or they are lying. Tell me another option. And many here want to let the representatives of these people to enter their homes at any time without let or hindrance. OK, it's your home.

And one question that has not been raised, at least as far as I have seen. What of the Firearms Enquiry Officer that doesn't know his or her job? Of the one that agrees with her boss that private firearms ownership shouldn't be allowed? This is not to do with personal axe grinding, it is a red flag warning firearms owners. A member of this forum has reported the actions of a licensing officer that caused him to lose his FAC not as any safety issue but as a punishment for a relatively unimportant breach of licence conditions, one that presented no hint of danger to the public, and one that could have easily been covered up by one simple lie, impossible to refute, which would have kept him his licence. But no, he told the truth, and suffered the consequences.

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

Ffs...

This hurts me to say as the three site owners are my friends..

What a load of bollock's. .

Every fkin other thread is anti police or has some hidden agenda....

This site has more ******s than it does credible stalkers..

It's a real shame as so many on here offer real friendship, great advice and many put themselves out at cost to themselves to genuinely help others.

I joined this site at a time there was 500 members and shot every weekend with a different member..

This is becoming nothing more than an alternative to fb for people that have never even shot a deer...

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

The only real suprise is that idiots that continually fuel threads that have been closed down arent banned immediately......

 

[Pedro]

With all due respect to all the posters on this thread, I have to agree with pheasant sniper 1. As a subject, this is important and interesting. But it's been done to death really on a number of threads now.

We all now know that the police generally don't have a power of entry (unless with warrant, but really that's always been so and not what this is about) and that householders can allow entry or refuse entry according to their own wishes.

Personally I'd like a nice subject to read about for a change. Someone's latest outing, their super rifle or even a bloody Land Rover thread for a change (never thought I'd say that).

 

[Brimfire]

Ffs...

This hurts me to say as the three site owners are my friends..

What a load of bollock's. .

Every fkin other thread is anti police or has some hidden agenda....

This site has more ******s than it does credible stalkers..

It's a real shame as so many on here offer real friendship, great advice and many put themselves out at cost to themselves to genuinely help others.

I joined this site at a time there was 500 members and shot every weekend with a different member..

This is becoming nothing more than an alternative to fb for people that have never even shot a deer...

I can assure you that it is a work in progress, I have made contact with someone to take me out as a client it might however not be until the end of the year or very early next year. If it were not the fact I want to use my own equipment and not the stalker's equipment I could have culled a deer already. To make sure the legalities of this are correct takes a little longer!

With all due respect to all the posters on this thread, I have to agree with pheasant sniper 1. As a subject, this is important and interesting. But it's been done to death really on a number of threads now.

We all now know that the police generally don't have a power of entry (unless with warrant, but really that's always been so and not what this is about) and that householders can allow entry or refuse entry according to their own wishes.

Personally I'd like a nice subject to read about for a change. Someone's latest outing, their super rifle or even a bloody Land Rover thread for a change (never thought I'd say that).

That is the crux, if there is real intelligence of something amiss there would be no hesitation in obtaining a warrant and there would be no choice for a FAC holder to refuse entry. Personally, I'm a rather hospitable bloke and so long as I am not already engaged in other important business then they are welcome to a coffee, a chat and to have a look at the security arrangements..... You could always look at the reloading threads they are interesting

 

[dogtired]

This is becoming nothing more than an alternative to fb for people that have never even shot a deer...

That will always be the same, whatever the subject. The internet gives everyone from wannabe Rambo's , through Walter Mitty's, to genuine people, access to an open forum. Sorting a keyboard warrior from a knowledgeable shooter is almost impossible. You can get a pretty good idea by looking at post counts vs membership length. Knobbers tend to post a hell of alot, in a short space of time. Trying to legitimise themselves.

Legal Issues is always full of people who have large chests online, but possible smaller ones in real life. But it's not the only section that attracts these people.

Always amusing is when someone genuinely asks a question like "do I get a 22-250 or a 243"?. Count how many replies before someone says "6.5" Or people throw in advice on calibres when we all know it's the largest calibre rifle they have had, or the only one in the cabinet.

If you ever fancy a real hoot, put a post up asking if anyone can recommend somewhere to do a paid stalk. Sit back and watch that PM folder fill up within 24 hours! Some of them slagging the others and promising the world, while still trying to pull your pants down for you.

At the end of the day, it's a public forum. Take it as that, take from it the info you require, and try to help out where you can. If something doesn't take your fancy just choose not to visit the thread. It really isn't worth getting worked up about

 

[JAYB]

You have been told before, take your axe grinding, private agenda threads elsewhere. This is a site for deer stalkers with legitimate comments, you I am afraid go beyond this and abuse the sites core issues, deer stalking and associated matters. Your issues over a home visit are not relevant, the site is not a platform you and your private agenda.

Take your whinging and whining elsewhere, or I shall help you with making that decision.

John

PS NOW I am irritated.

The only problem with that statement you quote is that the police have the necessary intelligence that there may be a concern about the security of a firearm is that they do have a specific legal right of entry, if they bother to act within the law. I have pointed this out elsewhere to the irritation of a moderator. Failing to secure your firearms in accordance with your firearms certificate is a criminal offence.

Section 46 Firearms Act 1968

If a justice of the peace or, in Scotland, the sheriff or any magistrate (by whatever name called) officiating under the provisions of a general or local Police Act, is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence relevant for the purposes of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed, he may grant a search warrant authorising a constable named therein—(a)to enter at any time any premises or place named in the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found there;

---- snip----

(2)The offences relevant for the purposes of this section are all offences under this Act except an offence under section 22(3) or an offence relating specifically to air weapons.

So, a statement issued with the authority of no lesser organisation that Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary indicates that they either have not read the Firearms Act, which is unlikely, or, they have read the Firearms Act but didn't understand it, possible but unlikely, or they are lying. Tell me another option. And many here want to let the representatives of these people to enter their homes at any time without let or hindrance. OK, it's your home.

And one question that has not been raised, at least as far as I have seen. What of the Firearms Enquiry Officer that doesn't know his or her job? Of the one that agrees with her boss that private firearms ownership shouldn't be allowed? This is not to do with personal axe grinding, it is a red flag warning firearms owners. A member of this forum has reported the actions of a licensing officer that caused him to lose his FAC not as any safety issue but as a punishment for a relatively unimportant breach of licence conditions, one that presented no hint of danger to the public, and one that could have easily been covered up by one simple lie, impossible to refute, which would have kept him his licence. But no, he told the truth, and suffered the consequences.

 

[sikamalc]

Gentlemen,

It appears this issue rattles some people, many others it is of no concern and like many of us are happy to oblige.

As firearms owners the police and authorities have a public duty to ensure the publics safety at all times. 99.9% of gun ownership in this country are safe, reliable, law abiding citizens who have a love of firearms if they are a collector, or dealer, or they enjoy country pursuits as many on here do, or they are tools of the trade as in my case and some others.
If the police receive information regarding firearms not being cared for properly then they have a public duty to make sure that the weapons do not fall into the wrongs hands and are stored as they should be. Checking on ownership and storage is time consuming and with a stretched police force and monetary cut backs I can understand some peoples reactions.

However I also see no real problem with them checking to make sure we adhere to our side of the bargain as legal firearm owners. Lets face it stalking and firearm ownership is on the rise in my opinion, and to make sure everyone is safe the authorities will be re visiting the laws and rules surrounding firearm ownership now and in the future.

So I think this subject has been covered from front to back and would advise anyone who is being visited to be polite and if it is not suitable at the time (maybe you are leaving the house or late for an appointment etc) make the polite case to re book at another time.

I see no real problem, only those that create one!

 

[Lateral]

i see no real problem, only those that create one!

amen !

 

[Lupus]

If you don't like the thread, don't read it. Simple solution. As long as people aren't being abusive or bringing the site into disrepute I fail to see a problem. Stalking involves firearms, so why the surprise when firearms legislation is discussed? Why bother with a legislation section if people's opinions on the matter differ from yours and causes offence.

It's a poor forum where members are only allowed to discuss subjects sanctioned by the moderators and then only if expressed opinions are approved.

And some wonder why a lot of the experienced members leave.

Wolfie

 

[JAYB]

If you took the trouble to read my post correctly, then you would see that I said the site was for deer stalkers and legitimate comments, banging on about personal axe grinding and private agendas are not legitimate matters.

The reason a lot of experienced members leave is because they are sick and tired of the sort of posts that that cause this type of problem. We have said before many times that things can be discussed as long as it is done in a courteous manner, things that is that are stalking related, including legislation, not axe grinding.

If you find that difficult to understand or think that makes for a poor forum, that is of course your prerogative, just as it ours to Police the site in a manner that we consider overall suits everyone

John

If you don't like the thread, don't read it. Simple solution. As long as people aren't being abusive or bringing the site into disrepute I fail to see a problem. Stalking involves firearms, so why the surprise when firearms legislation is discussed? Why bother with a legislation section if people's opinions on the matter differ from yours and causes offence.

It's a poor forum where members are only allowed to discuss subjects sanctioned by the moderators and then only if expressed opinions are approved.

And some wonder why a lot of the experienced members leave.

Wolfie

 

[Hereford]

I've had numerous arranged visits from my FEO and 2 unannounced spot-check visits in the last 20+ years.

All occasions were met with courtesy from both sides, 5 minutes of box ticking and then tea, biscuits and chinwag - never a hardship and I can't really see what all this fuss is about

 

[Pedro]

I've had numerous arranged visits from my FEO and 2 unannounced spot-check visits in the last 20+ years.

All occasions were met with courtesy from both sides, 5 minutes of box ticking and then tea, biscuits and chinwag - never a hardship and I can't really see what all this fuss is about

I suspect this is the normal way things are done. Even by those who would have other people shut the door in their faces I shouldn't wonder.

 

[gmart122]

Gentlemen,

It appears this issue rattles some people, many others it is of no concern and like many of us are happy to oblige.

As firearms owners the police and authorities have a public duty to ensure the publics safety at all times. 99.9% of gun ownership in this country are safe, reliable, law abiding citizens who have a love of firearms if they are a collector, or dealer, or they enjoy country pursuits as many on here do, or they are tools of the trade as in my case and some others.
If the police receive information regarding firearms not being cared for properly then they have a public duty to make sure that the weapons do not fall into the wrongs hands and are stored as they should be. Checking on ownership and storage is time consuming and with a stretched police force and monetary cut backs I can understand some peoples reactions.

However I also see no real problem with them checking to make sure we adhere to our side of the bargain as legal firearm owners. Lets face it stalking and firearm ownership is on the rise in my opinion, and to make sure everyone is safe the authorities will be re visiting the laws and rules surrounding firearm ownership now and in the future.

So I think this subject has been covered from front to back and would advise anyone who is being visited to be polite and if it is not suitable at the time (maybe you are leaving the house or late for an appointment etc) make the polite case to re book at another time.

I see no real problem, only those that create one!

I agree 100% Malc with what you've said. The status quo is that a Police officer can only enter your property if a crime has taken place or about to take place. Or they have a search warrant. also there may be some caveat above drugs raids where the duty inspector can sanction a warrant, but I digress. So there is no legal unpinning with announced visits, they are only there to trip you up and if they find anything it wont be a slap on the wrists, you will be made an example of. So if you're not abreast of all recent legislation, you could find yourself in hot water while trying to appease them. For example my expanding bullet heads are always left unlocked and has never been spotted by the FLO, many don't realize the firearm acts consider them as complete rounds and should therefore be locked away. If you let them in and they find it, your future shooting is in the hands of the Chief counstable.

People fears are that whilst accommodating the Police, these visits will become the norm, legislation changes and there will be no option to refuse entry. Then if your shotgun is drying out of the cabinet after a days shooting in the rain, you get a knock on the door, can't refuse entry, FAC gone. Slippery slope is the term often used.

 

[flying felix]

... many don't realize the firearm acts consider them as complete rounds and should therefore be locked away.

Unless you can provide a quote from the firearms act I'd have to disagree. They are not treated as complete rounds, they are a prohibited item (section 5) under the firearms act and you have to have a variation on your licence to hold them. There is no requirement to have any additional security than the rest of your components.

 

[old man]

Unless you can provide a quote from the firearms act I'd have to disagree. They are not treated as complete rounds, they are a prohibited item (section 5) under the firearms act and you have to have a variation on your licence to hold them. There is no requirement to have any additional security than the rest of your components.

Agreed, but, as prohibited items and not secured adequately (ie. lying on shelf) how could you, if required, justify that they were secured adequately as prohibited items should be?

 

[Shootist]

If you took the trouble to read my post correctly, then you would see that I said the site was for deer stalkers and legitimate comments, banging on about personal axe grinding and private agendas are not legitimate matters.

The reason a lot of experienced members leave is because they are sick and tired of the sort of posts that that cause this type of problem. We have said before many times that things can be discussed as long as it is done in a courteous manner, things that is that are stalking related, including legislation, not axe grinding.

If you find that difficult to understand or think that makes for a poor forum, that is of course your prerogative, just as it ours to Police the site in a manner that we consider overall suits everyone

John

It is dangerous ground, I realise, to criticise a moderator, but your post I quote has had me thinking. You appear to consider that concerns about the rights of shooters under the law, strictly enforced by the police, as not being legitimate matters for discussion. With respect, I think that suggesting that a person discussing the law in relation to police enforcement in greater depth than might be usual about a subject that any deer stalker might experience, can hardly be a private agenda, or axe grinding, whatever that means. Neither have I been discourteous in what I have posted except, perhaps where replying in kind, unless you think that disagreeing with someone else's personal perspective lacks courtesy. Your suggestion is certainly more discourteous than anything I have posted

To the best of my knowledge I have Discussed the law on this matter, and have refreshed my memory in what I consider to be a useful fashion. By making the posts I have, I believe that I may have helped some people make a more informed decision on relevant matters, regardless of what that decision might be. The law and police practice should be of immense interest to anyone with a firearms certificate of shotgun certificate. It really should be of great interest to every person who considers themselves a (relatively) free man.

As someone else has already pointed out, those who don't like such threads are not obliged to follow them any further than the first couple of posts, and are certainly under no obligation to make a reply. This is a discussion forum, and like at a party, if you don't like the person you are talking to then you are free to wander off and talk to somebody else. There is plenty here for everyone.

I also doubt very much that

The reason a lot of experienced members leave is because they are sick and tired of the sort of posts that that cause this type of problem.

Can you evidence that? In my experience one of the main reasons that people leave forums is that moderators have enforced their own personal agendas in preference to allowing free discussion. Power corrupts, etc...

 

[simonl]

I've only skimmed through some of the thread, but it seems mostly reasonable debate to me. I'm pretty mainstream and go with the general flow, but I appreciate the scrutiny some people put into some topics which may affect me, however unlikely: The risk of me being affected by this topic is small but the impact is huge. Nobody puts a wet rifle back in the cabinet straight away and could find themselves exposed, for however short a period (e.g. phone rings upstairs whilst you're cleaning your rifle).
If it happens to me I'll be offering the cup of tea, and allowing inspection, but I'll explain politely that next time I *might* not allow access because it could be the thin end of the wedge.

Some debates can get pedantic, but let's face it, the law can be very pedantic. As for being a moderator - it's one of the most thankless tasks. I wouldn't do it if you paid me. Keep up the good work.

 

[nicowilson]

As for being a moderator - it's one of the most thankless tasks. I wouldn't do it if you paid me. Keep up the good work.

Couldn't agree more.