NRA email : homeoffice guidlines change random home checks

[joe]

anyone else received an email from the NRA about a change to the home office guidance to plod one of them being that unannounced visits to a FAC holders house to inspect his firearms and security when there is intelligence ??? this sounds like some s*** in the home office is trying to start a war against shooters ! doesnt all home office guidance have to be approved by the secretary of state ? if not, his needs to be told about this ! hopfully being a tory secretary of state will put a stop to this

[dave_303]

What constitutes as intelligence?
In my very vague understanding, the law remains the same, either you invite them in at a time of your convenience, or the get a warrant.

[bnz41]

Yep got it as well.

The NRA has also been informed very recently that Home Office Guidance on Firearms Law will shortly be amended to advise that the police should carry out unannounced visits to check firearms security where they have specific intelligence that there may be an issue.

Here for those non NRA members...

[BamBam]

is this the email?

[joe]

Yep got it as well.

The NRA has also been informed very recently that Home Office Guidance on Firearms Law will shortly be amended to advise that the police should carry out unannounced visits to check firearms security where they have specific intelligence that there may be an issue.

Here for those non NRA members...

and where would this intel come from ? ie. how would plod know that you were not keeping your firearms locked up unless you were grassed by your ex ?

sounds like a fishing expedition to try and revoke fac's ! what else has changed in the guidance to plod ?
the yanks are right, governments are s*** scared of an armed citzen population

[Mr_Logic]

The law doesn't permit an unannounced inspection. So until it does, El Plod will be invited to get a warrant, or make an appointment. They can't just rewrite the law, and they need to be told.

[Cj10]

I really don't have a problem with this. Why should I? I don't:
leave firearms unsecured around my house; or
spend my time on forums speculating about "left wing plots" or pushing extreme right wing views.

Additionally, although I may be wrong, I believe there is case law around the subject of refusal of access to inspect firearms held on a SGC or FAC.

If this initiative takes firearms away from people who are in breach of either the law, or those who should not be entrusted with such responsibility that may actually be a good thing for the shooting community as a whole.

Ceri

[Steve E]

I think that the ugly spectre of ISIS may well be the rational behind this.

[Quarters]

I’ve heard many shooters moan that the police didn’t act on intelligence about Hungerford and Dunblane so it’s their fault we can’t have handguns.

The police are now saying they are going to act on intelligence and the reaction of shooters is “How dare they!”

This will help protect sport’s future for all of us.

[Mr_Logic]

No, you are totally missing the point. You can act on intelligence and get a warrant. The issues then were insane shooters, not issues around firearms storage.

My privacy should not be removed just because I own a gun. How is that fair or reasonable? I know the government has already infringed it, but why the hell should we just lie down each time? The authorities have no basic right to enter my home; warrants are there to provide oversight by a judge. Why do we not deserve the oversight? They still need a warrant if we're talking drugs etc!