Surprise Visit

[sikamalc]

Like I have said before dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.

Shootist, I wouldn't say it is dangerous ground to criticise a moderator, but then we are more than moderators, we are the owners of the site. Paid for the site with our money and more to the point our time. And believe me just purchasing a failing site, as this site was over 7 years ago, led to a lot of torture to get it right.

I personally have no issue with someone having a pop, however name calling, such as the recent idiot I banned, liking me and the rest of my colleagues as Nazis will not be tolerated and he was banned, and no coming back.

We sometimes get the same threads occurring, nothing wrong with that either, but this constant going back over ground that we have already covered and banging the same drum is slightly boring. Whether you think its wrong or right for a police officer to check your firearm security is up to you. But at the end of the day I fail to see why people would refuse them looking, unless it is totally inconvenient at the time.

If you refuse them entry to your home that's your prerogative. I notice that most of this visiting seems to be happening in Scotland? As yet I have not heard of any such unannounced visits in Kent. And to my knowledge there is no plan to do so.

 

[2130martin]

Couldn't agree more.

Could certainly think of better things to do as a "HOBBY"!!

 

[Shootist]

Whether you think its wrong or right for a police officer to check your firearm security is up to you.

I can only think that I have somehow failed to convey my opinions on this adequately. I think I have said and, I have acknowledged, repeatedly, that I have no problems with properly conducted visits. I don't know how else to say it. There are no other words I can find. (The bold and underlining fonts are not intended to cause offence)

All I have ever asked is that they obey the laws on the subject. Laws that are clear and laws that I have tried to explain. Laws that are hardly arduous to comply with. Knowing these laws might help someone deal with a situation on a more informed basis. That might be important to them. One of the most pithy saying I have heard is from a firearms licensing officer. "We make mistakes. You commit offences." I agree that I may have been somewhat repetitious but when people fail to see what I consider an important point then I have to assume I have not explained it adequately and I feel obliged to expand on the matter. The same goes when someone misquotes or misunderstands a particular law. You've had 40 years of deer shooting I believe. I would respect your opinions on how to shoot deer. I have had a relatively miserly 32 years in law enforcement.

While we're on the subject, if I have caused offence to anyone then I will apologise, except to those who I have merely answered in kind.

 

[flying felix]

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?

Because the laws regarding what is prohibited and what has to be secured are completely different. The prohibition covers the possession not the security. The security covers firearms and ammunition, not ammunition components. The same confusion applies to moderators. They only have to be entered on a FAC if you intend to use them with a firearm and you have a variation stating that. There is no requirement to lock up your mod, nor is there a problem owning a mod not on a FAC, if you have no intention of using it on one of your firearms (the duality of that has not escaped me).

However, there is a BIG difference between the law and common sense and good practice.

 

[CharlieT]

There is no requirement to lock up your mod

Strange that the police figures for stolen and lost firearms include sound moderators if they are not classed as a firearm.

 

[flying felix]

Strange that the police figures for stolen and lost firearms include sound moderators if they are not classed as a firearm.

They also have a tendency to include parts of firearms (not pressure bearing) air rifles (non FAC), deactivated and imitations. There are lies, damn lies and statistics as Churchill said.

 

[JAYB]

Shootist, I am a retired Police Officer and as such have a good understanding of the law and it's application, and I know that it has to have a degree of common sense applied by all parties. It is not all black and white grey is an essential ingredient in the application of the law. You have a great deal to day about people grasping what you say, did you ever stop to consider that people grasp what you say but at the same time understand that if the time that an unexpected visit was not convenient then it can easily be arranged for a time that is convenient to all. Why all this endless banging on, and this is not the only thread of it's kind you have been involved in, labouring the same point over and over again is beyond me.

As I said before I would if I could ignore your posts, but as people complain about you I am obliged to read them, and am getting fed up with them. I notice that you are now phrasing your replies a lot more eloquently than before but that does not detract me from my original opinion, you seem to be intent on following some private agenda. All I know is that the consensus of opinion on this thread is that people know how to deal with this situation should it arise, and I can see no apparent reason to keep picking away at it. I do not appreciate wasting my time moderating such pointless threads.

John

 

[Spaniel]

Hear! Hear! I for one like to see my local Bobby! From What department he / she is from, or on what business is immaterial to me. If they want a brew, not a problem. The police are not our enemy.
Spaniel

 

[Wapinschaw]

.... The police are not our enemy.....
Spaniel

In the context of the average everyday police officer who any of us is likely to meet I fully agree. There are exceptions and many of us will have met them, me included. On the whole our police officers in the UK are doing a difficult, sometimes dangerous job and the vast majority deserve our thanks and respect.

I wish I could be as grateful when it comes to the higher ranks, in particular those who make up ACPO or whatever it's been rebranded as. Therein lies the problem, I feel.

 

[nighteye]

Ok , I really don't mind letting the police in whenever , and I do mean WHENEVER, they need/want access to my house to check security .
I also understand that if I choose to I can tell them it's not convenient.
They way I see it is , if just one person is caught NOT securing their firearms and is either revoked or warned , then the scheme or unofficial protocol has been a success.
I mean come on guys our guns are not toys , they are potentially lethal pieces of sporting equipment .
In my eyes refusing access is just wasting a police officers time , and we as group should be helping an already stretched police force "come in officer , aye the guns are in they cabinets , want to read the serial numbers ?, here's my licences, want a coffee ? No right cheers sir goodnight " 10-15 mins to prove you are doing what you should be isn't a problem for me

 

[Whitebeard]

Ok , I really don't mind letting the police in whenever , and I do mean WHENEVER, they need/want access to my house to check security .
I also understand that if I choose to I can tell them it's not convenient.
They way I see it is , if just one person is caught NOT securing their firearms and is either revoked or warned , then the scheme or unofficial protocol has been a success.
I mean come on guys our guns are not toys , they are potentially lethal pieces of sporting equipment .
In my eyes refusing access is just wasting a police officers time , and we as group should be helping an already stretched police force "come in officer , aye the guns are in they cabinets , want to read the serial numbers ?, here's my licences, want a coffee ? No right cheers sir goodnight " 10-15 mins to prove you are doing what you should be isn't a problem for me

Here we go again, do you not seem to grasp, unannounced visits should only be conducted when based on specific intelligence, not turning up out of the blue hoping to catch a FAC holder with his rifles out of his cabinet, that is pure fishing, which is NOT the basis for for unannounced visits.

Ian.

 

[kes]

Here we go again, do you not seem to grasp, unannounced visits should only be conducted when based on specific intelligence, not turning up out of the blue hoping to catch a FAC holder with his rifles out of his cabinet, that is pure fishing, which is NOT the basis for for unannounced visits.

Ian.

Nor is it the basis for good firearms law enforcement. Poor substitute for proper assessment of firearms applicants which led to the last 3 massacres of innocents.

 

[Pedro]

Nor is it the basis for good firearms law enforcement. Poor substitute for proper assessment of firearms applicants which led to the last 3 massacres of innocents.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. Surely firearms departments need to do as much as is necessary to ensure applicants are suitable. To my way of thinking, that's where their efforts need to go. Not spending time filling out forms and doing the same pointless enquiries six months after renewal because someone needs to replace their foxing rifle, or roaming the countryside trying to catch people out.

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

Therein lies the crux of the matter. Surely firearms departments need to do as much as is necessary to ensure applicants are suitable. To my way of thinking, that's where their efforts need to go. Not spending time filling out forms and doing the same pointless enquiries six months after renewal because someone needs to replace their foxing rifle, or roaming the countryside trying to catch people out.

One mans necessary is another mans unnecessary - So if they bring in a compulsory level 1 - Insist on a mentor or anything else all they get is a good slagging..

Theyre damned whatever they do Pedro and the unnecessary and constant bashing of our police, flo and firearms officers by the same old faces on this site is a bloody disgrace.

 

[Shootist]

Theyre damned whatever they do Pedro and the unnecessary and constant bashing of our police, flo and firearms officers by the same old faces on this site is a bloody disgrace.

As is much of our firearms law, and an unacceptable number of firearms licensing officers, and some firearms liaison officers. Until the idiots among them start wearing badges it behoves anyone to deal with them as if they may be idiots until you have evidence to the contrary.

 

[stubear]

I'm amazed this thread is still going, especially after the other two were closed down!

Theres clearly two schools of thought here; Those who are happy to accommodate the police as and when they show up as long as it is convenient, and those who are not happy to as its a "fishing expedition". And clearly those two groups are not going to change their minds on their stance so can we move on now please?

I also agree with PheasantSniper in that the police are damned whatever they do. They do a pretty thankless job for the most part and in my view for far less pay than its actually worth. The fact is that the overriding tenet of firearms law is public safety, thats literally section 1.2 of the HO guidance, so protecting the public from the misuse of firearms is going to come before any other consideration or potential gripes from shooters.

I've not heard of this happening south of the border but FWIW I'm in the first group if and when it does.

 

[kes]

As is much of our firearms law, and an unacceptable number of firearms licensing officers, and some firearms liaison officers. Until the idiots among them start wearing badges it behoves anyone to deal with them as if they may be idiots until you have evidence to the contrary.

We are always advised the best policing is intelligence led. How many guns are stolen, how many killers (proved) escaped proper police scrutiny in the award of their certificates. What are the consequences of both ? Simple questions - simple answers. A number of police objected to the award/renewal of the killers licences and were ignored.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

We are always advised the best policing is intelligence led. How many guns are stolen, how many killers (proved) escaped proper police scrutiny in the award of their certificates. What are the consequences of both ? Simple questions - simple answers. A number of police objected to the award/renewal of the killers licences and were ignored.

Correct.. and they then use these avoidable atrocitys to drive more draconian rules.It is these failings in law enforcement we should be highlighting and where the problems are, missed opportunities,the signs were all there certainly not with law abiding FAC holders..
it is not a case of whether we should be happy,or not, regards unannounced visits, it is only a smoke screen to hide the real problem...
I could not care less if a bobbie chaps my door while carrying out his duty. I sure as hell care if some children get massacred because he doesn't....

 

[Shootist]

Correct.. and they then use these avoidable atrocitys to drive more draconian rules.It is these failings in law enforcement we should be highlighting and where the problems are, missed opportunities,the signs were all there certainly not with law abiding FAC holders..

A perfect response, IMO. One problem that raises it's head though is that in criticising the failings of the police (as an entity) by highlighting individual failures it is perceived by some as criticising everything about the police. Hungerford and Dunblane were allowed to reach their ghastly fruitions because police management ignored the advice of officers on the ground. This statement does not criticise every police officer, serving, retired or deceased.

it is not a case of whether we should be happy,or not, regards unannounced visits, it is only a smoke screen to hide the real problem...
I could not care less if a bobbie chaps my door while carrying out his duty. I sure as hell care if some children get massacred because he doesn't....

I can only agree, but there are two points that, at risk of some repetition, I feel obliged to make. Firstly, not everything, however innocuous and well meaning it may appear, is necessarily part of their duty. Secondly, I see no reason not to expect the police to comply with the law, which is precisely their duty at all times. How some people see this expectation as somehow controversial is quite beyond me.

I also note that the old favourite of "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" has raised it's ugly stupid head. This statement is utter drivel when used in connection with police duties. If the police comply with the law then they can only be damned by people who don't understand the law, and their opinion isn't worth, well, a damn. (Actually, a dam. To be precise a 'tinker's dam', which is an article for repairing certain metalwork that can only be used once.)

 

[Shootist]

I'm amazed this thread is still going, especially after the other two were closed down!

Well, thanks for helping to keep it going.

Theres clearly two schools of thought here; Those who are happy to accommodate the police as and when they show up as long as it is convenient, and those who are not happy to as its a "fishing expedition". And clearly those two groups are not going to change their minds on their stance so can we move on now please?

At the very least this thread allows those two groups to offers their opinions in detail (sometimes) and an undecided individual may therefore be able to make a better informed decision as to the right approach.

I also agree with PheasantSniper in that the police are damned whatever they do.

Please see my previous post on this particular line of twaddle (no offence intended.)

They do a pretty thankless job for the most part and in my view for far less pay than its actually worth.

With respect, that is nonsense. It's one of the best jobs in the world if you are suited to it. If you are not, then you shouldn't be in it. The pay is pretty damned good too. Look it up. I did it for 22 years before leaving due to injury (off duty). Some people think it dangerous. While there can quite obviously be dangers, all things are relative. If you want real danger then go work on a building site, or a farm, or a trawler, or any active military service.

The fact is that the overriding tenet of firearms law is public safety, thats literally section 1.2 of the HO guidance,

The Home Office guidance comes from a political body who's first practical consideration is control of the populace.

so protecting the public from the misuse of firearms is going to come before any other consideration or potential gripes from shooters.

If that is true then it can be most easily be done by simply removing all firearms from private ownership. All club shooters could be so deprived immediately, those who deal with animal control soon after. Most of the animal control, including deer, could be dealt with by the military, what superb snipers we would have. I doubt any of the others problematic animals could not be controlled by other means, trapping, gassing, etc. There you go. All firearms problems solved at a stroke.