Legal issues with transporting a firearm long distance?

[IainWR]

Just out of interest, is leaving a rifle out of your cabinet over night in your own home an offence?

Most definitely it is.
More than a few shooters have had certificates revoked for leaving firearms unsecured and have been caught out by a chance visit by the police or have been reported by other people. If you're not actually using it lock it away.

Errr....

R v Richardson (Wimbledon Magistrates Court, 29 April 2013, unreported) would indicate otherwise. Mr Richardson did exactly that, police turned up in the morning for a completely unrelated reason, found the rifle, and once the original reason for their presence had been disposed of, charged him with breach of S1(1) Firearms Act 1968 by failure to comply with security conditions. I appeared as expert for the defence and argued that if the firearm and FAC holder are in the same secure space (the house itself), it is the security of that space that matters, not the security of the firearm within the space ( in , or not in, a cabinet), because any potential thief, having breached the outer space, can then apply personal violence to the point where the access to the inner space is given up. Now the magistrates' opinion did not explicitly agree that argument, but they did acquit Mr R, so there is precedent that Chapuis may be wrong in law on this.

The above is the sort of thing that you get for nothing as an NRA member. Join!

Iain

Having said that, yes, when you get home, before anything else, put the gun in the cabinet and lock it.

[dromia]

Surely it isn't for nothing.

That is the kind of support you pay for with your membership.

[Fester]

I airways take hand cuffs they are great for looking guns to radiators in hotel rooms

[HALODIN]

Is that what you tell your wife?

I airways take hand cuffs they are great for looking guns to radiators in hotel rooms

[Chapuis]

Just out of interest, is leaving a rifle out of your cabinet over night in your own home an offence?

Most definitely it is.
More than a few shooters have had certificates revoked for leaving firearms unsecured and have been caught out by a chance visit by the police or have been reported by other people. If you're not actually using it lock it away.

Errr....

R v Richardson (Wimbledon Magistrates Court, 29 April 2013, unreported) would indicate otherwise. Mr Richardson did exactly that, police turned up in the morning for a completely unrelated reason, found the rifle, and once the original reason for their presence had been disposed of, charged him with breach of S1(1) Firearms Act 1968 by failure to comply with security conditions. I appeared as expert for the defence and argued that if the firearm and FAC holder are in the same secure space (the house itself), it is the security of that space that matters, not the security of the firearm within the space ( in , or not in, a cabinet), because any potential thief, having breached the outer space, can then apply personal violence to the point where the access to the inner space is given up. Now the magistrates' opinion did not explicitly agree that argument, but they did acquit Mr R, so there is precedent that Chapuis may be wrong in law on this.

The above is the sort of thing that you get for nothing as an NRA member. Join!

Iain

Having said that, yes, when you get home, before anything else, put the gun in the cabinet and lock it.

Magistrates court - legal precedent ? I thought that only decisions made in the crown court can be cited and that decisions made by magistrates didn't set a legal precedent.

Congratulations to the defence team for their success in this case but that's not to say that there have not been other cases where certificate holders have been prosecuted for not securing firearms when not in use.
Irrespective of this there have certainly been numerous cases where certificates have been revoked even temporarily on occasions, and where it is then up to the shooter to fight to get his certificate back. I personally know of one case where it took the shooter at least two years to persuade the police that he should be allowed to apply for a certificate again. Perhaps BASC can be persuaded to divulge how many cases like this that they have had to advise members on in the past.

[meles meles]

Forgive us our naivete, oomans, but shouldn't it be the case that an English mustelid's home be his castle, and any firearm therein be deemed automatically secure ? If some rogue or vagabond seeks to to purloin said firearms, aren't they the culprit, not the owner ?

[Demonic69]

But if a casual guest happens upon your firearms, or your other half, you're at fault and should expect a spanking. Apparently

I don't read my own signature!

[Dark Skies]

"R v Richardson (Wimbledon Magistrates Court, 29 April 2013, unreported) would indicate otherwise. ...but they did acquit Mr R, so there is precedent that Chapuis may be wrong in law on this.

The above is the sort of thing that you get for nothing as an NRA member. Join!"

I would submit that no precedent was set here - the findings of a magistrates court is not binding on the higher courts where precedence IS set. At best it is persuasive under these particular circumstances.

Had anyone else been living in the dwelling and present then they would have had access to unauthorized firearms and the magistrate would almost certainly have found against the defendant.

A member of our club left a number of his firearms out during the day whilst at work. A plumber or gas man (I don't recall exactly) had to access his property to carry out some work. He saw the guns and reported the owner to the police - he lost his ticket and had to have his firearms sold for him. There was a substantial fine as I recall too. It is likely the same outcome would have arisen had he been in the house but not with the firearms - say in the other part of the house and therefore not within his control.

[SevenSixTwo]

Cleaning kit to hand at all times.

[IainWR]

"R v Richardson (Wimbledon Magistrates Court, 29 April 2013, unreported) would indicate otherwise. ...but they did acquit Mr R, so there is precedent that Chapuis may be wrong in law on this.


I would submit that no precedent was set here - the findings of a magistrates court is not binding on the higher courts where precedence IS set. At best it is persuasive under these particular circumstances.

Had anyone else been living in the dwelling and present then they would have had access to unauthorized firearms and the magistrate would almost certainly have found against the defendant.

Correct on both counts. Its persuasive, it's definitely not binding, it applies in narrow circumstances and the one you identify had to be disposed of as an argument.