BASC challenges police spot checks.

[Mr_Logic]

TJC - Please can you show me where in the Firearms Acts the Police have a right of entry to my home, just because I have a firearm?

[TJC]

Seriously, read what i wrote. They turn up, you answer the door and they ask to inspect your fireamrs and you deny them then all that will happen is they will leave. They have the right to attempt a spot check, that extends to turning up and asking you to co-operate. There is no intention from them to enter your home without permission (that's the BASC making s*** up again...the police never said they would enter the home). However, if you don't co-operate you risk losing your permit because you have an obligation to co-operate. Now let's say your wife who isn't a permit holder opens the door and tells them to get lost....what can they do...er, nothing. They leave and it should not impact your fitness to own firearms. Your wife doesn't have to co-operate, you do.

So once and for all...the police have a right to make a spot inspection, that entails asking you for co-operation not forcing entry. There is nothing in the BASC post from the police claiming they will do so.

Let's be clear..the police have been conducting these "visits" in some regions for years. I'm afraid that the BASC has published a poorly articulated response with little regard for what the police said or what the Home Office guidelines say. I understand what they are trying to do but it just looks amateurish. Their bold response is encouraging permit holders not to co-operate and i fear you not they will be the losers.

[Dangermouse]

Personally as a responsible shooter who wants to see shooting continue for years to come, I have no problem with the regulating body turning up to make sure that I am obeying the rules. It just so happens that at this time that body is the Police. Should it be another body is an argument for another time and unlikely to be one that we will sway one way or another.
I agree with the comment that the average Officer, and lets be honest the average shooter, would not know an Obsolete calibre rifle without looking up references.

All my FET visits have been pre arranged and been with retired types who come in casual clothing. I have no issue with checking ID at the door. But I would be a little concerned with the possibility of someone being conned should "plain clothes" Officers be used for spot checks. As a community we are all very law abiding and helpful to wards the Police, it may not be too difficult to conn someone and gain access. Yes uniforms can be put together but that is a whole different scenario and not often seen.

DM

[Mr_Logic]

TJC - you say I have an obligation to co-operate. I say again - please say where in law it says this.

I agree that if a check is requested properly and amicably, and via the correct channels, then yes I do have to go along with it.

But el plod, knowing nothing and at any time of day? They can f*** right off quite frankly.

[TJC]

In black and white !!!!

12.12 The following examples may indicate
that a person has not complied with the need
to co-operate:

b) refusal to permit a police officer to inspect
firearms or security provisions. The
relevant case law here is “Bianchi v Chief
Constable of Northumbria”

Oh and the checks are only conducted by firearms officers. I love all this macho talk...its is easy on the net but i will put money on you co-operating.

[Mr_Logic]

So you found it in the guidance. All good - where is it in statute? I'm not having a go, but I am against ever increasing police power. It takes the p*** quite frankly.

Have you got time to dig into case law? I am quite happy for trained people to visit in accordance with normal procedure but I am not obligated to let Plod inspect anything as a spot check.

[meles meles]

I am not obligated to let Plod inspect anything as a spot check.

"here, here, ooman ! Acne is no crime !"

[Chuck]

So you found it in the guidance. All good - where is it in statute? I'm not having a go, but I am against ever increasing police power. It takes the p*** quite frankly.

Agred, pity that guidance and LAW are so often confused by those who should no better. Laws or "guidance" they will abuse their powers whatever you call it.

[dromia]

From my experience refusing them entry at the time of a spot check does not constitute being obstructive.

On the couple of times that it has happened to me, well over 15 years ago now BTW, all I did was keep them at the door and I said to them that this time was not convenient but I would be happy to agree there and then a mutually suitable time for a visit in the future. Follow up visits were never arranged and the sky did not fall in on me either.

[M99]

So you found it in the guidance. All good - where is it in statute? I'm not having a go, but I am against ever increasing police power. It takes the p*** quite frankly.

Have you got time to dig into case law? I am quite happy for trained people to visit in accordance with normal procedure but I am not obligated to let Plod inspect anything as a spot check.

He quotes to you case law in his reply!

See his post again for the case!