The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

RDC wrote:

25Pdr wrote:

Sim G wrote:

I’d suggest if the police turn up announced to inspect your security arrangements it will b because there is a reason. You will be provided with a reason...

One of our Members had just got married and when he returned home he found a large number of cheery Police Men in his home, finding no one at home they simply used the Big Key and let themselves in.

Why? Well turns out he had taken some friends clay shooting to a public range where it was noticed that one of his friends was banned from handling firearms. So it was decided to speak to the Gun Owner. Having let themselves in they discovered some Ammo he was not allowed to own although he was previously licensed to own them.

Result... a large fine and he lost his licence.

They seem to be keeping an eye on us naughty shooters.

Did the member say how it was noticed? Or why he was in possession of ammo he no longer had authority to possess? Did they crowbar into his cabinets to gain access to the ammo (and everything else)?

Not trying to come across as self-rightous, genuinely interested.

I'm also interested where the responsibility lies to determine who is allowed to handle the firearm. At a club you'd make sure they pre-sign Sec 21 declarations, how would that occur if a private individual was to allow a mate to borrow his shotgun at the range? I assume the public clay range would require these forms filled in normally for all who don't possess an SGC or FAC?

The Member told me that the Police had suspected the banned person had been given access to his Shotgun and the reason for the Warranted home visit was to check his Firearms for DNA evidence to confirm their suspicion. Don't know how the Police suspected this, although it would seem they were keeping a close eye on the banned individual, non certificate holders are required to identify - (Sign the Register) - themselves at the mentioned range.

Don't know if they forced his cabinets, the Ammo was of a kind he had previously been allowed to own legally but not now. (Think Pistol ban).

As to where the responsibility lies to determine who is allowed to handle your own firearm(s) good point, something I have wondered myself, although Sim has expertly cleared up that point.

Sim said...

"The responsibility would lie with the individual passing the firearm to the prohibited person. The actual offence, s21(5) FA1968 states “knows or reasonable grounds for believing” the person is prohibited. That’s a high level of confidence. Suspecting wouldn’t be enough.

So a bloke running a have-a-go stand at a game fair, takes a fiver from a bloke and gives him a shotgun for a bang at half a dozen clays, no, he doesn’t commit the offence. Taking a “mate”, another story as illustrated here.

Sim G wrote:

25Pdr wrote: One of our Members had just got married and when he returned home he found a large number of cheery Police Men in his home, finding no one at home they simply used the Big Key and let themselves in.

Why? Well turns out he had taken some friends clay shooting to a public range where it was noticed that one of his friends was banned from handling firearms. So it was decided to speak to the Gun Owner. Having let themselves in they discovered some Ammo he was not allowed to own although he was previously licensed to own them.

Result... a large fine and he lost his licence.

They seem to be keeping an eye on us naughty shooters.

They would have forced entry because the warrant would have allowed them to. And warrants are not easy things to get by any stretch of the imagination. Try standing in front of a JP and swearing one out! And as it turned out, yes, it was a result. Turns out their information was quite correct and no, you wouldn’t get a warrant on the basis of an anonymous call to Cimestoppers, there would have to several pieces of reliable and corroborated intelligence.

If you’re a “naughty shooter”, then yes, someone may very well be keeping an eye on you. Should you be conducting your lawful activity responsibly, I doubt it...

Fedaykin wrote:Up here in Scotlandshire the Plod start to get twitchy when you hit twelve or more guns and start asking questions about your security. A basic DIY centre off the shelf Alarm kit keeps them happy.

12! My FEO insists on a alarm system for anything over 6 combined shotgun and firearm.

Sent from my MotoG3 using "An application"

That comes at no surprise to me swotty, different forces are making it up as they go along. For that matter different FEO can have differing opinions within the same area.

Fedaykin wrote:That comes at no surprise to me swotty, different forces are making it up as they go along. For that matter different FEO can have differing opinions within the same area.

Yep... i was at the Club last weekend and someone asked me how many guns I had, and whether i had an alarm.. I told him and said no alarm.. I've never been asked to get one.
He said he has less firearms than i do, and his FEO had said he should get an alarm.

Same county, different FEO's.

Daryll wrote:

Fedaykin wrote:That comes at no surprise to me swotty, different forces are making it up as they go along. For that matter different FEO can have differing opinions within the same area.

Yep... i was at the Club last weekend and someone asked me how many guns I had, and whether i had an alarm.. I told him and said no alarm.. I've never been asked to get one.
He said he has less firearms than i do, and his FEO had said he should get an alarm.

Same county, different FEO's.

Sometimes the issue is the context of the conversation.

A FEO might make a comment on what he feels is best practice and his opinion BUT either the way he worded it ( or the way the FAC holder INTERPRETED ) it sounded like he was stating what the legal requirement is.

I know that Police and FEOs are supposed to speak ONLY in their official capacity and not offer opinion but none of us are perfect - been there and when asked for advice, sometimes my opinion consisted of common sense which might have gone beyond what was legally required ( not licensing but other legal matters )

When it comes to security - crime reporting data and local intel are also used but not always disclosed.

You might live in a village with zero crime and not a single resident with a criminal record - you have 20 rifles and nobody asks you to have an alarm.......................or you might have 2 rifles live in a town plagued by burglary, the guy three doors down is on parole for burglary, the guy in the next street has previous for murder of a neighbour etc etc etc etc They will ask you to consider an alarm but will not give details of your neighbours past !

Brian is quite correct, there are a number of factors that dictate what level of security is required. It’s surprising how many people don’t know that the guidelines are published in the Firearms Security Handbook 2005.

It is also stipulated in there that the number of firearms held cannot alone be the determining factor for requiring particular security.

Dark Skies wrote:So has there been any further explanation as to why FAC holders of more than twelve firearms have been singled out in Mersyside?

It seems Merseyside have been running something called Operation Chaxis . This was a management level decision to conduct unannounced visits on RFD's.
Visits to holders of 12+ firearms would appear to now be included in this operation .

Also a senior Met Officer will be delivering a keynote address at a meeting next month . His topic will be the transition of legal firearms into illegal firearms .

Or to put it bluntly ..............its our fault there is firearms crime in the UK .

A while back my FEO (An Ex Firearms Cop and a great person) paid me a visit bringing along a young uniformed lady on a Firearms training exercise. Both very pleasant, during their visit young lady casually asks "Why do you need 20 Firearms" I replied "Why do you need so many pairs of shoes"

Point taken and smiles all round.

25Pdr wrote:A while back my FEO (An Ex Firearms Cop and a great person) paid me a visit bringing along a young uniformed lady on a Firearms training exercise. Both very pleasant, during their visit young lady casually asks "Why do you need 20 Firearms" I replied "Why do you need so many pairs of shoes"

Point taken and smiles all round.

Good thing she wasn't the feminazi type or you could've been in hot water! Its always a question that bemuses me when I get asked it. I usually use a comparison with cars i.e. you wouldn't try to win an F1 race in a Land Rover and you wouldn't go rallying in a Lambo and that allows most people to put it into perspective. The few anti-gun acquaintances I have tried to be clever and come out with "Yeah but I've bet you could do the same job with just one or two guns, you don't NEED all of them!" to which I reply, "Well I could run the 100 metres in a pair of clogs, I don't NEED to do it in trainers..."