J G 927 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 John, When I looked into owning a shotgun in about 1988, random checks were part of the deal back then according to our local gun shop at the time. That was before Hungerford etc. and so the law was has been tightened down a lot since then,The gun shop no longer exists as it went out of business after the law was changed. Cant say I was bothered about it. One less source of guns through purchase or robbery is a good thing in my book. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 So I guess nobody there is too stirred up by the idea of unannounced random in-home checks without a warrant? John Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Firth 114 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 As they pertain to gun control, no. I guess its just down to our perceptional differences of firearms. I just dont see the need for anyone to have them apart from a minority of people for their jobs/livelihoods. The imposition on those people for me is worth the safety the rest of us gain through extremely difficult access to firearms. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 So I guess nobody there is too stirred up by the idea of unannounced random in-home checks without a warrant? I can confirm that as a child we had one or two random checks by the police, in regard to my fathers weapons. I presume that still applies. In regard to deadly weapons, that enable an individual to destroy life with utter ease... no, I don't believe many of us would be concerned about random checks, especially if it was a condition of the firearms licence. To reiterate, we are dealing here with devices that destroy life, not a licence for a TV, or a dog, these are devices designed to be killing machines we are talking about. To be honest, if there were no random checks to make absolutely certain a gun owner was continuing to store their weapons safely, I would be very concerned indeed. Maybe if there were a few more "random checks" in the US, in regard to a gun owners mental health, how they store their weapons, the quantity and type of weapon possessed... maybe there would be fewer massacres. Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 As regards the impact of tighter gun control to the general public in the UK, as nobody legally owns weapon other than a shotgun, then almost all of the population couldn't give damn. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 OK, this has been a total waste of perfectly good electrons. My question related to police powers, rights of privacy, protection from illegal search and seizure and constitutional guarantees of rights. Most every response somehow focuses in on guns, either as inherently evil or as justification for violation of presumably innocent, law-abiding individuals rights and privacy by the police. I disagree that such searches are justified by the fact that the subject is a licensed, legal owner of registered firearms, but all of you seem to feel otherwise about that. The initial inspection of the storage arrangements and the one at renewal (every 5 years) appear patently legal. Random interim inspections strike me as a blatant abuse of police power and no one has quoted a law that permits or justifies it. None the less, I accept that you are accepting of it. Consider this topic closed. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I don't know if you'd like to re-phrase your final comment, John? Sounds a little arrogant - perhaps 'Thank you for your contributions' might have been more appropriate. However, I'm glad that we have reached a conclusion. Cheers - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 OK, this has been a total waste of perfectly good electrons. My question related to police powers, rights of privacy, protection from illegal search and seizure and constitutional guarantees of rights. Most every response somehow focuses in on guns, either as inherently evil or as justification for violation of presumably innocent, law-abiding individuals rights and privacy by the police. We are aware of that John. We fully understand your point. I disagree that such searches are justified by the fact that the subject is a licensed, legal owner of registered firearms, but all of you seem to feel otherwise about that. The initial inspection of the storage arrangements and the one at renewal (every 5 years) appear patently legal. Random interim inspections strike me as a blatant abuse of police power and no one has quoted a law that permits or justifies it. None the less, I accept that you are accepting of it. Licensed legal owner, registered firearm, right to privacy, all irrelevant. It's irrelevant because we are dealing with an extremely dangerous device. We are dealing with deadly weapons that are designed to kill, not a dog license or a TV license. Therefore... of course we focus on the lethality of the weapon, because that's precisely why the right to privacy should be set aside. A lethal firearm is not something trivial, it's a device that's designed to destroy life with ease, with the twitch of a finger. I would say that any reasonable person, would be prepared to put aside their right to privacy in regard to such dangerous devices. Imagine if there were no random checks. A less than sensible gun owner [of which there are many] would be free to leave the weapon lying around, not complying with the regulations, and then once every few years when it was time for the inspection he would comply. Random checks are essential in regard to firearms. It's nothing to do with "abuse of police powers" it's more akin to the use of common sense. Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 @ John A. I guess what you must do is to try and think like a Brit....... how to explain...... Ah I have it! Imagine the US government said that it was going to tighten the controls on Marmite ownership. 99% of Americans have no idea what Marmite is and therefore would read an item in the news and then just dismiss it ... "whatever" no one eats it, few have even come across it. Us Brits would read this and think WTF this is a gross impingement of the citizens of the USA's basic rights, we would be outraged If someone stopped our right to bear Marmite. So with guns it is the other way round. Tighten gun laws in the UK and we say "whatever" - nobody owns a gun anyway - 99% of law abiding people will not be impacted in any way. You, the other side of the pond are outraged at seeing restrictions on something that you see as your basic right. Of course there will always be people who hold unlicensed illegal guns in the UK. If Martmite was restricted in the USA there would no doubt be an illegal trade in smuggled jars. - God forbid YOU might be criminalized by such a law!! Link to post Share on other sites
needles 1,013 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 OK, this has been a total waste of perfectly good electrons. My question related to police powers, rights of privacy, protection from illegal search and seizure and constitutional guarantees of rights. Consider this topic closed. John Nuff said! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Sorry to keep this going somewhat but John might find this interesting from last year... http://forum.downsizer.net/archive/north-wales-police-spot-checks-on-firearms-owners__o_t__t_75729.html The BASC say that the police do not have automatic legal powers to enter a property to check firearms. Only when arranged before hand. They also say that if the police do arrive at a gun owners property, the owner does not have to allow police officers access to their property. Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 This is more specific (link in your post, Martin): http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/unannounced-visits-to-certificate-holders-basc-advice-to-members/ Cheers - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit.” What's wrong with providing that "...clear and reasoned explanation..." to a judge/magistrate and convincing him to issue a warrant before seeking entry to someone's home? Frankly, unless the judge is in the pocket of the police, I don't think they'd get it, since issuing a warrant requires probable cause and generally disallows "fishing expeditions", at least over here. There are exceptions under law where the police may enter without consent or a warrant, but they are for extraordinary situations where there is a reasonable belief that a felony is or is about to be committed, important evidence may be destroyed or where there is an immediate danger to someone's health or safety. I think permitting this to happen without being challenged on legal grounds may establish it as precedent for warrantless entries for who-knows-what in the future. John Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 The rights of the police are much the same in the UK. Generally the police cant enter a property without consent or a search warrant. There are a few acceptances to this, life and limb etc. but this rule usually applies. I believe it is different for HM Customs and Excise. The Revenue guys can go where they like when they like, but generally this rarely executed. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I believe it is different for HM Customs and Excise. The Revenue guys can go where they like when they like, but generally this rarely executed. In this case it just sounds like rank and file police making the visits - so how can this be legal? John Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 so how can this be legal? It also says in Dai's link... "The police do not have an automatic statutory right of entry but BASC recommends a sensible and cooperative approach to this type of situation." That to me suggest that if you were to refuse entry to the police, they couldn't legally enter. Statutory right, is written law. However, most owners would be sensible I would imagine, and allow entry voluntarily. I feel we may be assuming the police would enter whether you likes it or not, when that isn't the case. So it remains legal because the police can't force entry. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Dai's link also says... "New Home Office guidance allows the police to make unannounced visits to check on the security arrangements of certificate holders under certain circumstances." “Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate." All that sounds like grounds to obtain a warrant, so they should. Unannounced implies the intent to catch the owner in the act of something illegal. If it's simply a routine check, why would they not call ahead, request consent and schedule the visit rather than knock on the door unannounced? The rationale given says they will do this when "... judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm...", so not a routine thing at all. An unannounced request for entry based on "specific intelligence" should require a warrant unless it meets one of the exceptions specified under law for warrantless entry. I would, in that situation, politely consent to their request too, but if the knock on the door was unannounced I'd say, "Certainly, gentlemen, but it's inconvenient right now - come around at 10:00 AM tomorrow and you're most welcome to check my gun storage." They'd have the choice to come back tomorrow at 10:00 or later today, with a warrant - and they'd find nothing. John Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Yep, I see your point John. In the UK, it's usually an FEO [Firearms Enquiry Officer] that carries out personnel visits, a civilian member of the police force. If it's "in light of a specific threat" one would expect the police, not a run-of-the-mill FEO that usually pays a visit. Even more requirement for a warrant. But hey, this comes form the Home Office. I've become used to the bizarre decisions of Cameron's government. Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 John A, On police access for gun inspection, I am not sure as I am not a gun owner. Possibly consent to the inspections is part of the weapons licence agreement. Link to post Share on other sites
jaydor 345 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 John, It's also politics entering the game by the ACPO's (Association of Chief Police Officers). There is talk of reducing the number of Police forces in the UK from 48 to possibly 12. Most Police forces are County based. The change is for Regional based areas. Scotland has gone countrywide already. There is also a general Election on the horizon and crime is always high on the agenda and as of late the Police have been heavily criticised for a bit of shoot first policy. This resulted in the London riot's a few years ago. (No Police officer has ever been convicted of unlawfully killing a person in the UK) even as a (Met) Police officer pushed and killed an innocent person during a demonstration in London awhile ago and that was a recorded incident. The Police have a very powerful lobby in the UK and a reduction of forces makes for a reduction of ACPO's, so they are trying to look good by going for gun issues that go down with well with the public. The British have been brought up from birth that firearms are of no good, different to the American right of arms. This is an Establishment doctrine to stop the masses revolting.. There would be no politicians living in the UK if we had gun laws like yours.. Britain is an aloof country as far as guns go, it is very far down the agenda of most people. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jaydor 345 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 J G you are stuttering again.. Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 G..g..g..Grenville (fot those who dont get it, you tube "open all hours") Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,315 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Gun ownership is a personal commitment that is based on ones own preferences and comes with a huge responsibility whether for sport or protection. Obviously our two countries have taken different paths on guns and how we perceive those decisions will stay with us through the generations. And that's ok, it makes us what we are today which ain't so bad, plus that alone would be a long discussion that would not have an end, really no sense to go into so I won't or we might as well throw religion in the debate too. I will speak to John's original post though. I have never liked the idea of bosses, political or unions leaders, that are in seats of power or not, to use their personal views to try and influence or go around existing laws by using loopholes or peer pressure within their command. It goes beyond political party lines and if that is what is being done behind the backs of any democratic peoples and is brought to light, they should be given a stern talking too and or firm spanking. Whether it be about an official putting backdoor pressure on law abiding gun owners(it happens here too) in each of our countries or a union official using the hired help to campaign for a certain candidate, it's just wrong in general principal and should be dealt with accordingly(maybe brought out back and shot ). Should we bring stuff up like this in a flight sim forum? Maybe another thread should be brought up to talk about that if conversions such as this bring out any conflicts in us, although it is nice to learn things about others thoughts when kept civil. Just remember that some topics are touchy and can get out of hand. Anyway, where did you fly today? Thinking of blowing the cobwebs off my P-51D, wish the guns worked, D'oh. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Deepest darkest France Brett - with a Mossie and a few 500lb bombs to blow a bridge 1 Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Wise words Brett (as always). Today I spent most of the day working on my FS rig. Still not finished yet so no flying today. @mutley Boss why dont we lock this one down now? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts