NRA email : homeoffice guidlines change random home checks

[dromia]

I see BASC are supporting this.

What is different about this from before, surely if the police had any suspicions about anyone then they would call round anyway.

These hot lines are a worry though as there seems to be no controls in place for nuisance or spiteful calls.

The point is made that they have no right of entry so I would be happy to discuss any concerns with them on the doorstep if they arrived unannounced.

[Gaz]

BASC are supporting this nonsense! I'm glad to see the Shooting Times at least are challenging it.

For anyone interested, the wording is on page 169 of the latest guidance (how many revisions has it had over the last couple of months now?!) here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... t_2014.pdf

Paragraphs 19.11 and 19.12 refer. 19.12 clearly seems to acknowledge the fact that the police are now being instructed to effectively bully homeowners into allowing them entry without a warrant.

[dromia]

Have any members had notification about this from their governing bodies/associations.

[Sim G]

Paragraphs 19.11 and 19.12 refer. 19.12 clearly seems to acknowledge the fact that the police are now being instructed to effectively bully homeowners into allowing them entry without a warrant.

:lol: :lol: :lol: 10:45am, not sober yet?

.

(From the Guidance that has some believing the sky is falling in)

Unannounced Home Visits

19.11. 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.

19.12 It is recognised that there are no new powers of entry for police or police staff when conducting home visits. 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.

[Gaz]

"A clear and reasoned explanation"

"Hello, I'm Sgt ACAB. You're going to let me into your home right now so I can look at your guns or I'm going to arrest you on suspicion of breaching conditions/obstructing police and just waltz in anyway. Which option are you going to pick?"

You might be the most law-abiding copper ever to kick a door in, Sim, but your colleagues have shown time and time again that unless they're kept on a choke-chain, they cannot be trusted with discretionary powers.

Lest we forget, the police also assure us that nobody will ever be done because their FEOs couldn't sort their renewal on time. Either Peter Glenser or Laura Saunsbury dealt with a case within the last 12 months where someone was arrested and charged with unlawful possession after his FLD took too long to renew his tickets. The details are somewhere on the Shooting Times website, but I can't find them at the moment.

[Sandgroper]

Regarding BASC. From their advice to members

Rather than supporting the change in guidance (or not), BASC is taking,IMO, a neutral approach and reaffirming that while the guidance to the Police may have changed - they do not have any new powers of entry.

From the 15th of October police forces in England and Wales will be taking part in an initiative to ensure firearms are being kept and stored securely. New Home Office guidance allows the police to make unannounced visits to check on the security arrangements of certificate holders under certain circumstances. The police do not have any new powers of entry.

I admit that this quote might seem like BASC is supporting the changes,

BASC chief executive Richard Ali said: “BASC supports the police in their efforts to help firearms certificate holders maintain the excellent record of safety and security in England and Wales. Where there is specific intelligence of threat, risk or harm then the police should act. This guidance provides that framework and ensures that the police provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit.”

but I feel it is still neutral in tone and directed more at the Police and the Home Office in regard to past mistakes.

However, I do have a question regarding the guidance - If this is directed at England and Wales what is the situation in Scotland with checks?

[nickb834]

Whatever happened to prevention of crime rather than detection?

If the police want to inspect firearms storage, make an appointment - don't do it unannounced. Anybody that can't comply with a prior arranged inspection fully deserves to have an awkward chat.

This kind of unanounced visit does absolutely nothing to foster good relations between shooters and the FLOs, and won't do much of anything for the supposed terrorist / criminal issue it's designed to avoid.

I know the police can only enforce the laws as they currently are not how they'd like them to be (both good and bad) but the problem is the politicians and bureaucrats and the ill thought out laws and processes they decree - and I'm pretty sure the law count is only going up not down, so it'll only get worse.

We need a pretty big correction to reverse this trend......

[John MH]

The NRA have today published what I think is sensible guidance to its members: NRA Guidance

[Sandgroper]

Heard back from BASC (Scotland) and according to them this is an ACPO initiative and is aimed at England and Wales only. However, any changes to the guidance by the HO should be taken on board by Police Scotland.

The thing is, according to BASC (Scotland), Police Scotland have been using unannounced visits to manage risk for some time and then only rarely and in certain cases. This was news to me, but on the upside, the use of unannounced visits has resulted in FACs being reissued after revocation on the assumption the applicant may be be subject to announced and unannounced visits as required.

BASC (Scotland) would prefer to see risk managed this way rather than Police Scotland flatly refusing to issue a certificate.

An interesting take on the issue.

[zanes]

I wonder what proportion of these unannounced visits will result in "we knocked and there was no one in" or "we knocked, and the holder's partner opened the door, and then explained that they couldn't open any of the cabinets".

The cynic in me wonders if this is a desperate attempt to get the "cost of a certificate" nice and high before the review process continues. Nice little bump up of the spend per certificate if it takes multiple visits on the off chance someone is actually home.