allardjd 1,853 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Interesting... The Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO), the body that represents senior police officers in the United Kingdom, has begun a campaign to send police to enter the homes of legal gun owners to snoop on them. Many of those receiving visits cannot understand why they are being targeted and suspect it is to discourage gun ownership in Britain. The policy is also the latest in a series of 'power grabs' by ACPO, which is effectively a trade union, but regularly demands executive powers without any accountability to the public. In the past members of ACPO have publicly campaigned for tighter gun control, despite the rules that British police are supposed to be politically neutral. "We should all be grateful that we have got such tight gun control in this country – when you look at the States, it's awful over there." http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/14/Police-Begin-Campaign-Of-Unannounced-Visits-To-Gun-Owners-Homes Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 They're welcome to come and see my gun cabinet. Most farmers have an excellent relationship with the local police. I've a feeling that this is simply another attempt by UKIP to capitalize on the current upswing in worrying about terror organizations... Cheers - Dai. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Firth 114 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 As a Brit I have no problem with this John. I dont see how more gun control is ever a bad thing. Legal owners are required to keep their weapons secure and if random checks show they aren't then they should forfeit the privilege of keeping them. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
britfrog 180 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 I had no problems with the local fuzz checking my gun cabinet etc however when they banned rifles i simply joined a club in france and took my AR15 there, now it is with me here, all correctly decalred- no problem I might even go so far as to suggest that the average person in Europe would find it quite distasteul to even own a gun Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 So the idea of a senior police officer's union which is barred by law from taking political positions unilaterally initiating this kind of thing doesn't bother you? I found this pretty jarring. The whole idea of "random checks" for most anything is abhorrent here - it falls under the umbrella of "...unreasonable search and seizure...", which is prohibited by our Constitution. Some law enforcement agencies are pushing it to the limits with "stop and frisk" programs and things like that on the streets of some of the more liberal, crime-ridden large cities, but are mostly being challenged on constitutional grounds. As far as searching your home or automobile without consent for ANYTHING, a warrant is required, which means that the agency seeking the warrant must show a judge "probable cause" and the judge must agree. Our countries are a lot alike but our attitudes about some things seem to be poles apart. What is described in that article simply cannot happen here and I sincerely hope that never changes. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
britfrog 180 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 John, for us in Europe more gun control means more safety for jo public we dont need to be armed like Rambo to feel secure Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 ...we dont need to be armed like Rambo to feel secure... Neither do we, but we have the right, if we care to. It's also in our Constitution as a deterrent to the rise of a despotic government. Different worlds, I guess. John Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 when they banned rifles i simply joined a club in france and took my AR15 there, now it is with me here, all correctly decalred- no problem You suggested in another thread that you may move back to the UK. What will you do with it then? John Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 John, I'm unsure as to why you are raising this potentially contentious issue. Can I point you to the following: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11154656/New-hotline-launched-in-bid-to-spot-gun-owners-at-risk-of-committing-gun-massacres.html No doubt you favour websites like Breitbart's (RIP), but their take on the UK is a little skewed - particularly for our flight sim forum. I hope you don't find this response offensive - that is not my intention. We should aim to enjoy each others' company and concentrate on what draws us together, rather than discuss matters which amplify our differences. Thanks - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 I guess we have a different culture on guns in Europe and especially in the UK. Personally I can see no reason for an individual owning a gun, with perhaps farmers and shotguns being the exception, hand guns - never.. When I go to Heathrow or Gatwick airports and see police with guns there I feel very uncomfortable about it. Our police are only very rarely armed, and it is our tight gun control that allows that to continue. Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Firth 114 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 yep, the stats on homicides involving firearms on either side of the pond speak volumes. also John, your constitution may allow you the right to bear arms, and at its inception your countrymen may have found that valuable, but in a mature democracy is there the same need or value in it? I recall seeing stats some time ago that pointed to te fact that most police officers injured by firearms in the US were shot by their own weapons..dont know how up to date that is today though. I think in general the fewer officers carrying weapons the better the quality of armed policing. UK armed officers are highly skilled and are required to maintain levels of proficiency I suspect arent required in other countries where officers routinely carry weapons. Some years ago I visited Bordeaux and was surprised though by the difference between the local Gendarmes and the CRS who were genuinely scary! @BritFrog, do you teally really need an assault rifle mate?!?! Those of us who cant afford to fly in rl spend time in flight sim, so couldn't you just get a copy of Doom or something? cheers K Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 John, I'm unsure as to why you are raising this potentially contentious issue. Can I point you to the following: http://www.telegraph...-massacres.html No doubt you favour websites like Breitbart's (RIP), but their take on the UK is a little skewed - particularly for our flight sim forum. I hope you don't find this response offensive - that is not my intention. We should aim to enjoy each others' company and concentrate on what draws us together, rather than discuss matters which amplify our differences. Dai, Offensive is not the word I'd choose to describe how your post strikes me, but I have to admit that it feels as if you wish to censor me, and not for the first time in these pages. I do enjoy the company of the others on this forum, as you correctly suggest we all should, but I can't see that I'll learn much about you as individuals by "...concentrate[ing] on what draws us together, rather than discuss matters which amplify our differences." You do me a disservice to suggest I'm trying to amplify our differences by this. It's more accurate to say I'm trying to understand our differences, i.e. how you all feel about things and why. By the sidebar data, it appears I've made something north of ten thousand posts on this forum and even subtracting a few thousand for my airport diagrams (which are for the most part pretty non-confrontational) that represents a fair amount of enjoying the company of others here. There may be fifty or a hundred or a few hundred of those posts that ruffle your feathers a little but I think I'm a good forum citizen here. I am, I think, something of an Anglophile. I admire many things about Britain and the British people, above all others in the world. I try hard to better understand your people, culture, economy, politics and history and I'm conscious of and grateful for the facets of American heritage that flow from our English origins. When I read things about Britain that I don't understand, I question them, not necessarily to disagree or criticize, though I may do those too, but mainly to better understand. I said above that I found the referenced article jarring and wanted to see if any of you were affected the same way by what seemed to me to be a particularly egregious and unwarranted invasion of your privacy. I'll understand you better if you'll explain how you feel about it and why, but if it offends you to do so, just ignore me and don't respond. I'd prefer that to the polite, velvet-lined scolding. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 You guys misunderstand what I'm asking. I'm not trying to make this a dogfight over whether citizens should be allowed to own guns. That's a great topic but it's not the one I was after. Here again is the crux of what I'm trying to understand, in isolation from other comments... So the idea of a senior police officer's union which is barred by law from taking political positions unilaterally initiating this kind of thing doesn't bother you? John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Firth 114 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 John, The description of ACPO as a 'union' would be akin to describing the US as a confederacy and the article is somewhat misleading as such. I think that author fails to understand the organisation and framework of the Uk police. There is also the police federation which represents officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector and the Superintendents Association which represents ranks od Superintendent upwards. Police officers are not allowed by law to withdraw their labour an the rep bodies are there to look after the disciplinary and welfare issues affecting their members mostly. ACPO does lobby on behalf of the police for changes to the law that they feel would be beneficial to policing effectiveness, and I'm confortable with that, because Parliament as an elected body (quality not withstanding sometimes but I'm aure you can relate to that re congress/senate!) has the ability to consider representations and change the law or not as it sees fit. what ACPO cannot do is arbitrarily make changes to the legislative framework that police forces in the UK operate in. Does that help? Cheers K They are like a guy in a bar saying beer is too expensive, they can start a discussion about an issue but cannot force any outcome over it 2 Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 The article begins with this... "The Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO), the body that represents senior police officers in the United Kingdom, has begun a campaign to send police to enter the homes of legal gun owners to snoop on them. Many of those receiving visits cannot understand why they are being targeted..." Is the statement inaccurate? Are the inspections occurring? Is that legal there? The police can knock on your door and demand to be admitted without a warrant or probable cause that a crime is being/has been committed? Are you guys OK with that? John Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Firth 114 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 it may be misleading. As far as I am aware 'campaign' refers to a lobbying campaign to change the law to allow them to take that action, not a campaign as in officers arbitrarily walking in on your breakfast unannounced! I dont own a weapon so if I'm wrong I stand to be corrected. I dont have a particular problem with random checks on firearm owners to establish that they are being kept safely, but I also acknowledge the wider issue John raises regarding the powers of the police as agents of the nation state and whether those powers have sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuse. in this case I have no in principle objections to random firearm safety checks. Whether such action is necessary and proportionate cant be answered properly without further data/evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 The storage of firearms is strictly regulated. In the UK, on the rare occasion that a licence is granted, When I was young I did a bit of clay pigeon shooting and looked into buying my own shotgun for that sport. If I remember correctly, at the time the regulations were: Firearms must be stored when not in use and that storage and must never be left unattended when not in storage. Storage must conform to a set of strict rules. The weapon must be stored in a locked metal box (to a required specification) which must be secured to the fabric of the building is a position where it is not readily accessible (E.G. a loft). When in transit, weapons have to be secured inside the vehicle out of site and assess to the driver, passengers, and not visible to the public outside the vehicle. They must be locked down in a similar way to home storage. This storage is subject to inspection at least once a year and may be inspected at any time. I think these rules have been tightened since then. The above, the cost of the gun and its storage, deterred me from getting one. In retrospect I am glad it did. The recent Oscar Pistorius case is an interesting one. He has been cleared of murdering is girlfriend with a legally owned gun and is awaiting sentencing on the lesser charge of killing her unlawfully. If South Africa had the UK's gun laws this could not have happened. Even if he had legally owned the gun in the UK (which he would not as hand guns are banned), it would not have been to hand and thus the opportunity to use it would have not arisen. Reeva Steenkamp would be alive today. I would expect that most folks, which ever side of the pond that they hail from would support the status quo for their own countries. In the case of the USA, and in defense of John A, I would point out that once the genie is out of the bottle on this, (and it has been in the US since 1776) it is nigh impossible to get it back in. Us British, no matter how much we think that our gun restriction are good, must recognize that they could not be implemented in the good old US of A. There are simply too many guns out there to make it practical. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 it may be misleading. As far as I am aware 'campaign' refers to a lobbying campaign to change the law to allow them to take that action, not a campaign as in officers arbitrarily walking in on your breakfast unannounced! But the article says, "Many of those receiving visits cannot understand why they are being targeted..." implying that it's already happening. That doesn't sound like lobbying for permission to me. John Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Personally, if it was a condition of your gun licence that "random checks on the security of your weapons may be done", then that's fine by me. Anything else and I might not be so fine Realistically, the amount of guns owned in the US compared to shootings can't be all that bad, but it's only the big ones that make the news. Half the problem isn't the weapon - it's the person firing it Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 ...if it was a condition of your gun licence that "random checks on the security of your weapons may be done" Does anyone know if that's the case? From the article this sounds like a new initiative on the part of the police. John Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Firth 114 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 to the best of my knowledge checks have always been possible, maybe the frequency of them is being stepped up? Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 John - some more information:1. Here in the U.K., licenced gun owners may expect random calls from police:http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/News/11532270.Wiltshire_police_warn_gun_owners_about_home_visits/2. In the U.S., freedom of speech is severely impacted by inability of police to prevent threats of shooting:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talkNow, where would you prefer to be? And, I guess, we'd prefer to be this side of the pond. Thank you for your candid response to my earlier post. I still feel that this topic is way off beam for our forum, despite your desire to find out our reaction to the subject. Cheers - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Dai, Your #1 - this sounds like a new program, just going into effect. Are such inspections of your home legal under your Constitution? What happened to "A man's home is his castle."? I have to think that phrase was born there. Is it meaningless these days? Can the police visit you unannounced and search your home without a warrant and without any probable cause that a crime has been committed? Can you not consent to the search? Most importantly - how do you feel about that? Your #2 is off topic for this thread and I won't be drawn into a dogfight about whether citizens ought to be allowed to own firearms or not. That's not what I was after and I'm not going there in this thread because my initial question will be lost in the smoke, if it hasn't been already. If you'd like to engage on that, start another thread, or I will, if you prefer. I still feel that this topic is way off beam for our forum, despite your desire to find out our reaction to the subject. Then why do you insist on broadening it? John Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Your #1 - this sounds like a new program, just going into effect. Are such inspections of your home legal under your Constitution? What happened to "A man's home is his castle."? I have to think that phrase was born there. Is it meaningless these days? Can the police visit you unannounced and search your home without a warrant and without any probable cause that a crime has been committed? Can you not consent to the search? Most importantly - how do you feel about that? This is not a new program. Visits by firearms officers to licenced premises are part of your firearms agreement. Your #2 is off topic for this thread and I won't be drawn into a dogfight about whether citizens ought to be allowed to own firearms or not. That's not what I was after and I'm not going there in this thread because my initial question will be lost in the smoke, if it hasn't been already. If you'd like to engage on that, start another thread, or I will, if you prefer. As you suggest, below, this is best left undiscussed. I still feel that this topic is way off beam for our forum, despite your desire to find out our reaction to the subject. Then why do you insist on broadening it? John I've made my feelings quite clear about what subject matter is relevant to this forum. I'm happy to leave it there. Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Doing a little research on my own, I find this..."Any person holding a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a licence is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence." Renewals are every five years. Nothing is said about periodic or random inspections. John Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts